RY OR PRI
SEP 7+: 199]
vy a
% @
“OLogioa, SEAN
Division SS Ca /
m A>
Section , AD oO
\/ F ‘ab
*
;
ry
i
ont
Fits
yey
enn
‘ih ‘ hi
ae.
>
C a
vb
Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2008
https://archive.org/details/greektestamentwO2alfo
GREEK TESTAMENT.
VOL. IL.
THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES,
THE EPISTLES TO THE ROMANS AND CORINTHIANS.
e ~ - ~ ~
ee arc apxnv AaBovca AaXrsziaAar Sia tov Kupiov, UTO TOV
, —
akovoayTwy ec Nac éBePawOn.
Hes. ii. 3.
THE
GIP Al §
GREEK TESTAMENT:
WITH A CRITICALLY REVISED TEXT: A DIGEST OF
VARIOUS READINGS: MARGINAL REFERENCES TO VERBAL AND
IDIOMATIC USAGE: PROLEGOMENA :
AND A CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL COMMENTARY.
FOR THE USE OF THEOLOGICAL STUDENTS AND MINISTERS.
BY
“x
HENRY ALFORD, D.D.
DEAN OF CANTERBURY.
IN FOUR VOLUMES.
VOL, . Ht.
CONTAINING
THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES,
THE EPISTLES TO THE ROMANS AND CORINTHIANS.
FIFTH EDITION.
RIVINGTONS,
London, @xfory, any Cambringe.
DEIGHTON, BELL, AND CO.,
Cambrivge.
1865.
LONDON:
GILBERT AND RIVINGTON, PRINTERS,
ST. JOHN’S SQUARE.
ADVERTISEMENT TO THE FIFTF EDITION.
Tue Fourth Edition of my Second Volume passed under entire and
careful revision as regards, 1. the critical arrangement of the text,
and 2. the body of references. Both these labours were carried
on under my own superintendence by my Secretaries ; the former,
including the re-writing of the Digest of various readings, and of
that part of the Prolegomena which treats of the Apparatus
Criticus, by the Rev. A. W. Grafton, now Vice-Principal of the
Theological College at Wells: the latter, by the Rev. R. Hake,
Minor Canon of Canterbury.
The alterations in the notes were chiefly those which were ren-
dered necessary by the more complete conformation of the text to
the testimony of our most ancient Manuscripts and Versions.
In this Fifth Edition, the Codex Sinaiticus has been collated
throughout, and in certain doubtful passages of the text its testi-
mony has now decided the reading.
The references have been somewhat modified, principally with a
view to render each volume independent in itself, and prevent
constant cross reference to the others.
Deanery, Canterbury,
July, 1865.
tire. | rage i srhond wl oor
- rt. 1 ilwo vine tba ish .
> ee iat. it f elt geile yp:
- mips? roe ating wt
~~ ; 7) ul allt lh iia}
wil ; of 5a Bitar ss
(ia tse Pa HW
{ e =i Hy Ao oil ‘| ‘ : ollie ond]?
eee feet! | tweet tiie
in ia(t desk ae ee vm Lost
at thee fe nk
a ; "2 cares ad Data gl
: ee. ine es c
i lwale te alee
d i a of Tee D cores” ’ 4 i eoasovllane ae
iat kod TP ne betes + rohcnee aiW
* OFF ‘wsdl iG by ary
=
es
_
—
-
a
_
rs
_
=
awonwrat
ne
~~ S
*
ane?
CONTENTS OF THE PROLEGOMENA.
CHAPTER I.
OF THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
SECTION
Ji
Il.
III.
Ve
We
ae
Its Authorship .
Its Sources
For what Readers oad ar ae Object it was eaten
At what Time and Place it was written ‘ A
Genuineness and State of the Text
Chronology
CHAPTER II.
OF THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.
. Its Authorship and Integrity
. For what Readers it was written
. With what Object it was written
. At what Time and Place it was written
. Language and Style .
CHAPTER III.
OF THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
. Its Authorship and Integrity
- For what Readers it was written
. With what Object it was written : :
. Of the Number of Epistles written by Paul to the Geert -
. Of the Number of Visits made by Paul to the Corinthians
. At what Place and Time this Epistle was written
. Matter and Style : 3 :
viii . CONTENTS OF THE PROLEGOMENA.
CHAPTER IV.
OF THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
SECTION
I. Its Authorship and Integrity
Il. Circumstances, Place, and Time of Writing
III. Matter and Style
CHAPTER V.
APPARATUS CRITICUS.
I. Manuscripts referred to in this Volume
Il. Ancient Versions referred to in this Volume
111. Fathers and Ancient Writers cited in the Digest of fie) Votoms
IV. List and Specification of Editions of other Books pin referred to, or
made use of in this Volume
ERRATA.
Page 25, ref. f, Matt. xix. 28 should be within brackets
— 134, ref. f, ch. xxiv. 7 should be within brackets
— 186, ref. 1, for ch. x. 3 reff., read ch. xi. 3 reff.
— 281, text, line 2, for 67, read drt
— 241, ref. q, Rom. ix. 28 ought not to be in brackets
— 274, ref. w,for Rom. viii. 26, 34, read Rom. viii. 27, 34
— 3830, ref. j, for (h), read (i)
62
76
77
81
PROLEGOMENA.,
CHAPTER I.
THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
SECTION I.
ITS AUTHORSHIP.
1. Tue Author of this book is identical with that of the third Gospel,
as plainly appears from the circumstance that in its address, to a certain
Theophilus, reference is made to a former work, on the acts and words
of Jesus, similarly addressed. Compare Acts i. 1, Luke i. 3. That
Author is traditionally known as Lucas or Luke, spoken of Col. iv. 14,
and again Philem. 24, and 2 Tim. iv. 11. For notices respecting him,
see Prolegg. to Vol. I. ch. iv. § 1.
2. Nor is there any reason to reject the testimony-of tradition in this
matter. In chapters xxvii. and xxviii. we find our Author (see below,
par. 4) accompanying Paul to Rome. In the passages above cited, all
written from Rome, we find that Luke was there, in the company of that
Apostle. So far at least there is nothing inconsistent with Luke having
written this book ; and if this book, the Gospel.
3. That no other writer has here assumed the person of the Author of
the Gospel, may be gathered from the diction of this book strongly
resembling that of the other. Supposing the student to consult the
references in this Edition, he will be continually met by words and
phrases either peculiar to the two books and not met with elsewhere
(about fifty of these oecur),—or mostly found in the two.
4. That no writer other than the Author of the rest of the book has
furnished the parts in which the narrative proceeds in the first person,
will be plain, if the matter be thus considered. (a) We have evidence,
both by his own assertion (Luke i. 3), and from the contents of the
Gospel and this book, that Luke was a careful and painstaking writer.
Now it would bespeak a degree of carelessness wholly unexampled,—
Vou. IL.—1] a
PROLEGOMENA.] THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. (cn. I.
for one who compiled a continuous memoir, to leave its component
parts, derived from various sources, in their original fragmentary state,
some in the third, others in the first person. Unquestionably such a
writer would in such a case have translated the whole into the third
person. (8) Seeing that Luke does use the first person in Acts i. 1,
and that the first person is resumed ch. (xiv. 22) xvi. LO—17; xx. 5—
15; xxi. 1—18; xxvii. 1—xxviii. 16, it is but a fair inference that in
one and the same book, and that book betokening considerable care of
writing and arrangement, the speaker implied by the use of the first
person is one and the same throughout.
5. That the author never names himself, either as the author, or
otherwise, can of itself not be urged as an objection to any hypothesis
of authorship, unless by the occurrence of some mention, from which
the authorship by another may be fairly inferred. But, if we have in
this book no mention of Luke, we have as certainly no hint of any other
person having furnished the narrative. On the other hand we have a
hint by which it appears that some one other than all the specified
companions of Paul on a certain occasion (Acts xx. 4, 5) was with
him, and was the author of the narrative. After the mention by name
of Sopater, Aristarchus, Secundus, Gaius, Timotheus, Tychicus, and
Trophimus, we read, ‘These having gone forward waited for us at
Troas:’ this pronoun including Paul and the writer, at least (see note
there).
6. That Paul himself, in Epistles written during the journeys here
described, does not name Luke, cannot be alleged as any argument why
Luke should not have been the author of our narrative. For (a), we
have undoubted examples of Paul sometimes merely alluding generally
to those who were with him, as Phil. iv. 21, 22 ;—sometimes sedulously
suppressing their names while speaking of services performed by them,
as 2 Cor. viii. 18: sometimes not mentioning or alluding to them at all,
as in the Epistles to the Galatians and to the Ephesians :—and
(8) strictly speaking, no Epistles appear to have been written by Paul
while our writer was in his company, before his Roman imprisonment.
For he does not seem to have joined him at Corinth, ch. xviii., whence the
two Epistles to the Thessalonians were written :—or to have been with
him at Ephesus, ch. xix.,—whence (perhaps) the Epistle to the Gala-
tians was written ;—nor again to have wintered with him at Corinth, ch.
xx. 3, at the time of his writing the Epistle to the Romans, and (perhaps)
that to the Galatians.
7. But independently of the above arguments to establish the identity
of the author throughout, we may infer the same from the similarity of
diction and style, which do not vary through the book. Here again we
have, as will be seen abundantly in the references, terms peculiar to the
writer occurring in various parts of the book ;—favourite terms and
2)
§ 1.] ITS AUTHORSHIP. [PROLEGOMENA.
phrases occurring in all parts of the book; which could not well have
been the case, had he merely incorporated the memoirs of others. For
compendious statements of these, the whole of which have been inserted
in my references, I refer the reader to Dr. Davidson’s Introd. to the
N. T. vol. ii. pp. 4, 5.
8. And again, the notes will be found repeatedly to point out cases
where the narrator takes up again (with his characteristic pev otv or
otherwise) the thread of history previously dropped (see e. g., and com-
pare, ch. xi. 16,1. 5: xi. 19, viii. 1—4: xxi. 8, vi. 5, vii. 5 ff.: xxii. 20,
vii. 58, viii. 1, &c.).
9. Another interesting source of evidence on this head is pointed out
by Mr. Smith, in his valuable work on the Voyage and Shipwreck of
St. Paul. He has shewn that in the various narratives of sea voyages
in this book, and in that of the stilling of the storm in the Gospel, Luke
has, with remarkable consistency, shewn himself to be just so much
acquainted with the phrases and habits of seamen, as a landsman well
habituated to the sea, but himself no seaman, might be expected to
be. To specify instances would be beyond my limits, besides that
Mr. Smith’s very interesting and ingenious argument and illustrations
would be spoiled by abridgment. I can only refer my reader to his
work }.
10. To the same class belong the intimations, slight indeed but
interesting, discoverable here and in the Gospel in the descriptions of
diseases, that the author was one well acquainted with them and with
the technical language of the medical profession. Of this kind are
ovvexopevn tupeTd peydAdw, Luke iv. 38 ; ruperois x. dusevrepin ovvexdpevor,
Acts xxviii. 8: see also Luke viii. 48, 44,—Acts iii. 7, xii, 23, xiii. 11,
and compare Col. iv. 14.
11. It will be necessary to mention the various hypotheses which
have substituted some other narrator for Luke in the parts of the Acts
where the first person is used, or have merged his personality in that of
some other companion of Paul: and, irrespective of the above argu-
ments, to deal with them on their own merits. (a) Bleek and De
Wette hold Trvoruevs, and not Luke, to have been the companion of
Paul and the narrator in the first person —and Luke to have inserted
those portions from a journal kept by Timotheus, and without alteration.
But this is not consistent with ch. xx. 4, 5: where, when the com-
panions of Paul have been named, and Timotheus among them, it is said.
otro. mpoedOdvres Eevov Aas ev Tpwadi: the escape from this objection
attempted by making otro refer to Tychicus and Trophimus only, being
on all ordinary rules of construction, inadmissible. This reason is, to
my mind, sufficient: those who wish to see others brought out, and the
1 A second edition of Mr. Smith’s book has appeared, enlarged with much interesting
detail. See the excursus below “On the city of Lasza.”
3 | a2
proLecoMens.] THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. [c1. I.
supports of the hypothesis (which are entirely negative and inferential)
invalidated, may consult Dr. Davidson’s Introduction to the N. T., vol.
ii. pp. 9 ff.
(8) Sivas was the narrator in the first person, and indeed the author
of the latter part of the book, beginning with ch. xv. 13 (30), in the form
of personal memoirs, which then were worked up. 'This hypothesis, which
has not any thing resembling evidence to support it, is sufficiently refuted
by the way in which the mention of Silas is introduced ch. xv? 22
(included by the hypothesis in his own work) as being a ‘ chief man among
the brethren.’ If it be answered that this notice of him was inserted
by Luke,—Is it, I would ask, likely, that an author who was at no more
pains in his work than to leave the first person standing in the narrative
of another which he used, would have added to the mention of new
individuals notices of this kind ?
(y) More ingenious, and admitting of more plausible defence, is the’
hypothesis, which identifies Luke himself with Silas. The latest and
ablest vindication of this view is contained in an article by the Author
of the literary history of the N. T. in Kitto’s Journal of Sacred Lit. for
Oct. 1850. The chief arguments by which he supports it are these :—
(1) “The author of the Acts appears, in the early part of his history,
to have been well acquainted with the acts and sayings of Peter, as he
was afterwards with those of Paul. Now the only persons whom this
description would fit, are Silvanus (or Silas), and Mark (see 1 Pet.
v. 12, 13). That Mark did not after Acts xv. travel with Paul, we
know: but Silas did, and from that time we find greater precision in
the narrative as regards the history of that Apostle.”
But to this it may be answered,—that the difference between the
kind of acquaintance which the historian possesses with Peter and his
sayings and doings, and that with Paul and his history, is very observ-
able even to a cursory reader. Nowhere in the first part of the book
does he use the first person: and nowhere, although the testimony has
plainly come in many parts from autoptic authority, does the narrator
himself appear as the eye-witness. In fact, all that the above argu-
ment insists on, is easily and naturally satisfied, by the long and inti-
mate companionship of Luke and Silvanus as fellow-travellers with Paul,
during which time Luke may have gathered, if Silvanus must be con-
sidered as his authority, all that we now find in the former parts of our
history *.
2 I do not notice in the text the untenableness of the author’s hypothesis that
Silvanus accompanied Peter from Jerusalein into the East, and became the bearer of
his first Epistle to the Christians of Asia Minor, before the commencement of his own
connexion with Paul: i.e. before the gospel had ever been preached to many of those
addressed by Peter, which it had already been,—sce 1 Pet. i. 12, 25, and remark the
aorists in both places. This extraordinary hypothesis is not necessary to bis theory of
4]
§ 1.] ITS AUTHORSHIP. [ PROLEGOMENA.
(2) “Luke and Silvanus (Silas) are nowhere mentioned together.
Luke is never mentioned in the Acts: Silas is never coupled with Luke
in the addresses or salutations of the Epistles. And the two names,
Silvanus from silva, and Lucanus from .ducus, are so cognate that they
might well be the appellations of one and the same person.”
This ingenious argument, if well weighed, will be found to have but
little force. As to Luke not being named in the Acts, the fact itself
goes for nothing. If it have any prima facie weight, it would be against
the hypothesis. That one who was careful to insert an explanatory
notice respecting one so well known as YatdAos 6 Kai Havados, should take
no notice at all of the fact hereafter likely to occasion so much confusion,
—that he who was named Silas in the history, was known by Paul, and
mentioned in his Epistles, as Lucas,—is hardly probable. But let us
observe the occasions on which Silvanus and Lucas have been mentioned
by Paul. In 1 Thess. i. 1, and 2 Thess. i. 1, we have Silvanus joined
with Paul and Timotheus. In 2 Cor. i. 19, we have an allusion to the
preaching of Christ at Corinth by Paul, Silvanus, and Timotheus. <Ac-
cordingly in Acts xviii. 5, we find that Silas and Timotheus came from
Macedonia and joined Paul at Corinth: this occurring in a part of the
history when (I am speaking according to the ordinary and prima
facie inference, from the disuse of the first person since xvi. 17) the
author was absent from Paul. Now let us turn to Col. iv. 14,
Philem. 24°. These Epistles belong to a time when we know by
the latter chapters of the Acts, that the writer of the history was with
Paul. Accordingly I find Zweas mentioned in both places. So far at
least is in remarkable accordance with the common view that Silas and
Lucas were not one, but two persons, and that the latter was the author
of the Acts, and not the former. It may be said that Paul called the
same person Lucas whom he had previously called Silvanus: and this
may be supported by his variations between Peter and Cephas. But
(1) I conceive that the case of Peter was too exceptional an one (both
names having apparently been given him and used by our Lord Himself)
to found an analogy upon: and (2) Peter’s names are forms of the
same meaning in two different languages, not words of similar meaning
in the same language.
But the principal argument in my mind against this hypothesis (over
and above that from ch. xv. 22) is, that it would introduce unaccount-
able confusion into the form and expression of a history, which on the
common view is lucid and accountable enough. Imagine Silas to be the
speaker in ch. xvi., and Luke to be merged in Silas. Then ‘we,’ from
the identity of Luke and Silas: indeed that theory is better without it, as then the
silence of the Acts on Peter’s proceedings after Acts xii. is accountable, which on that
hypothesis it would not be.
3 TI omit at present 2 Tim. iv. 11.
5]
PROLEGOMENA.| THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. (om. x
ver. 10 to ver. 18, = Silas and Timotheus. In ver. 19, it would be
natural to desert the first person, in order to express what happened to
Paul and Silas, and not to Timotheus. The same specification of Paul
and Silas might for the same reason, be continued during the stay at
Philippi, i. e. to the end of that chapter. But is it conceivable, that the
‘we’ should not be resumed when the journey begins again ch. xvii. 1,
—that it should not be used ch. xvii. 11, seeing that from 2 Cor. i. 19
it was Paul, Silvanus, and Timotheus, who were preaching during that
time at Corinth—in fact, that it should never be resumed till ch. xx. 5,
at the very place (Philippi) where it was dropped before ?
The argument from the similarity of s¢/va and lucus is too unsub-
stantial to deserve serious attention. And that built on the assumption
that the author of the third Gospel and the Acts must have held a place
of greater honour than we find assigned to Lucas, is purely arbitrary,
and sufficiently answered by observing that he is ranked with Marcus,
apparently his fellow-Evangelist, in Philem. 24. Rather would it seem
probable, that the men of word and action, in those times of the living
energy of the Spirit, would take the highest place ; and that the work of
securing to future generations the word of God would not be fully
honoured, till from necessity, it became duly valued.
12. I shall now endeavour to sketch out the personal history of the
author of the Acts, as far as it can be gathered, during the events which
he relates.
The first direct intimation of his being in the company of Paul, occurs
ch. xvi. 10, at Troas, when Paul was endeavouring (looking for a ship)
to sail into Macedonia. Now at this time, Paul had been apparently
detained in Galatia by sickness, and had just passed through (preaching
as he went, see ch. xviii. 23) that country and Phrygia. It is hardly
probable that he had visited Colossz, as it lay far out of his route, but
he may, in the then uncertainty of his destination, have done so. (See
Col. ii. 1 and note.) I say this, because it is remarkable that in sending
Luke’s salutation to the Colossians (Col. iv. 14), he calls him 6 iarpds 6
dyarnros. ‘This designation might recall to their minds the relation in
which Luke had stood to Paul when in their country; or more probably
may have been an effusion of the warm heart of Paul, on recollection of
the services rendered to him on that journey by his loving care. At all
events such a designation, occurring in such a place, is not inconsistent
with the idea that Luke about that time became Paul’s companion on
account of the weak state of his health. Further to establish this is
impossible: but what follows is not inconsistent with it. We find him
in the Apostle’s company no further than to Philippi, the object perhaps
of his attendance on him having been then fulfilled *.
“4 He may have been put in charge with the church at Philippi, but the conjecture
is not very probable.
6]
§ 1] ITS AUTHORSHIP. [PROLEGOMENA.
13. If we seek for any trace of previous connexion between Luke and
Paul, we find nothing but the very slightest hint, and that perhaps
hardly to be taken as such. In ch. xiv. 21, 22 we read, that Paul, after
the stoning at Lystra, departed with Barnabas to Derbe, and returned
through Lystra and Iconium and Antioch (in Pisidia) confirming the
souls of the disciples, exhorting them to remain in the faith, xati dre dia
mo\AGv OdiWewy Set pds eiseAOcty eis +. Bactrctav trod Oeodt. This
pas may be, as commonly understood, spoken by the writer as a Chris-
tian, and of all Christians: but it may also be indicative of the writer's
presence: and I cannot help connecting it with the tradition that Luke
was a native of Antioch®: though Antioch in Syria is there meant.
Certainly, in the account (ch. xii.) of the events at Antioch in Pisidia,
there is remarkable particularity. Paul’s speech is fully reported:
the account of its effect vv. 44—49 given with much earnestness of
feeling :—and one little notice is added after the departure of Paul and
Barnabas, ver. 52, which looks very like the testimony of one who was
left behind at. Antioch. Whether this may have been the place of
Luke’s own conversion, we know not; but a peculiar interest evidently
hangs about this preaching at Antioch in the mind of the narrator, be
he who he may: and Mark had departed, who might have supplied the
Cyprian events (see ver. 13). i
14, After the second junction with Paul and his company, ch. xx. 5,
we find him remaining with the Apostle to the end of our history. It
would not be necessary to suppose this second attachment to him to
have had the same occasion as the first. That which weakness of body
at first made advisable, affection may subsequently have renewed. And
we have reason to believe that this was really the case. Not only the
epithet dyazyrds, Col. iv. 14, but the fact, that very late in the life of the
Apostle (see Prolegg. to the Pastoral Epistles, § ii.) when “ all in Asia were
turned away from him” (2 Tim. i. 15), and Demas, Crescens, and Titus
had for various reasons left him, the faithful Luke still remained (2 Tim.
iv. 11), bespeaks an ardent and steady attachment to the person of him
who in all probability was his father in the faith.
15. Of the subsequent history and death of Luke nothing is known.
5 That the two places of that name would thus be confounded, is nothing surprising
to those who are familiar with tradition. The usual ground assigned for this idea, viz.
the mention of Lucius (of Cyrene) as being at Antioch, ch. xiii. 1, is certainly far from
satisfactory.
The idea that jas can by any possibility be applied to the writer has been contro-
verted by Prof. Lightfoot in the Journal of Classical and Sacred Philology for March,
1856, p. 95. But see note in loc.
PROLEGOMENA.| THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. [om.? ¥
SECTION II.
ITS SOURCES.
1. The principal enquiry respecting the sources of the narrative in the
Acts relates to the first part as far as ch. xiii. After that, the history
follows the Apostle Paul, of whom its writer was subsequently the con-
stant companion. From him therefore the incidents might be derived,
where the writer himself was not present. I shall before the end of this
section enquire how far the appearances warrant our supposing that his
testimony as furnished such portions.
2. I proceed to enquire into the probable sources of the first part of
our history. And here something will depend on our answer to another
question,— When is it probable that Luke was engaged in drawing up
the book? I shall endeavour to support in another section my firm
conviction that its publication took place at the end of the two years
mentioned in ch. xxviii. 80, 31. It may be convenient for me at present
to assume that to have been the case, but my argument does not
altogether depend on that assumption. I proceed on the hardly
deniable inference, that of the last voyage and shipwreck a regular
journal was kept by Luke—probably set down during the winter
months at Malta. It must then be evident, that at this time the pur-
pose of writing a de’repos Adyos was ripened in his mind. But how
long had this purpose been in his mind? Am I altogether beside the
mark in supposing, that it was with this purpose among others that he
became one of Paul’s company on the return to Asia in ch. xx. 4, 5?
Whether (see Prolegg. to Luke, § iv. 2,3) the Gospel was written for
the most part during the interval between Luke being left at Philippi in
ch. xvi. and his being taken up at the same place in ch. xx., or after-
wards in Palestine,—on either supposition it is not improbable that the
writing of the Acts was at this time already designed,—either as a
sequel to the Gospel already finished, or simultaneously with the Gospel,
as its future sequel.
3. It is very possible that the design may have grown under his
hands, or more properly speaking have been by little and little sug-
gested by the direction of the Spirit of God. He may have intended, on
leaving Philippi with Paul (ch. xx. 4,5), only to draw up a dupynots of
his own travels in company with that Apostle, to serve as a record of his
acts and sayings in founding the churches in Europe and Asia. However
this may have been, we find him recording minutely every circumstance
of this voyage, which I take to have been the first written portion of the
book. At any time during that or subsequent travels, or during the
two years at Rome, he may have filled in those parts of the narrative
s)
§ u.] ITS SOURCES. [PROLEGOMENA.
which occurred during his absence from Paul,—by the oral dictation of
the Apostle.
4. Let us now suppose Paul already in custody at Czsarea. The
narrative has been brought down to that time. The circumstances of
his apprehension,—his defence before the Jews,—their conspiracy,—
his rescue from them and transmission to Felix,—all this has been duly
and minutely recorded,—even the letter of Claudius Lysias having been
obtained, probably by acquaintance with some one about Felix. An
intention similar to that announced in zapyKoAovOyxdre waow axprBas
(Luke i. 3) is here evidently shewn.
5. But now Providence interposes, and lays aside the great Apostle
for two years. During all this time Luke appears to have been not far
from his neighbourhood, watching the turn of events, ready to accom-
pany him to Rome, according to the divine announcement of ch. xviii.
11. But “they also serve, who only stand and wait.” What so
natural, as that he should avail himself of this important interval to
obtain, from Cxsarea and Jerusalem, and perhaps from other parts of
Palestine, information by which he might complete his hitherto frag-
mentary notices? That accurate following up of every thing, or rather
tracing down of every thing from its source,—what time so appropriate
for it as this, when among the brethren in Judea he might find many
eye-witnesses and ministers of the word, and might avail himself of the
dupyyoes which of all places would be most likely to abound there where
the events themselves had happened? During this interval therefore I
suppose Luke to have been employed in collecting materials, perhaps for
his Gospel, but certainly for the first part of the ie:
6. His main source of information would be the church at J eracuiewy
There, from James, or from some apostolic men who had been on the
spot from the first, he would learn the second and fuller account of the
Ascension,—the weighty events of the day of Pentecost, the following
acts and discourses. In the fulness of the outpouring of the Holy
Ghost on the apostles and elders at this time, which raised them above
ordinary men in power of spirit and utterance, it would be merely an
inference from analogy, that their remembrance of the words uttered at
remarkable crises of the apostolic history should be something sur-
passing mere human recollection: that these hallowed words of the
Spirit’s own prompting should have abode with the church for its com-
fort and instruction, and finally have been committed to writing for all
subsequent ages.
7. But if analogy would a priori suggest this, the phenomena of our
history confirm it. The references (which have been on that account a
singularly interesting labour) will shew to the attentive student in those
speeches, quite enough peculiarities to identify them as the sentiments
and diction of the great Apostle of the circumcision, while at the same
9]
PROLEGOMENA.| THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. [oH. I.
time there is enough of Luke’s own style and expression to shew that
the whole material has been carefully worked over and grecized by
his hand.
8. It has been much disputed whether Luke wsed written documents
in constructing this part of the Acts’. It may have been so. Detailed
memoirs of some of the most important events may have been drawn up.
If so, ch. ii. would in all probability be such a memoir. The /eéters,
ch. xv. 23—29 (xxiii. 26—30), must have been of this kind: some of
the discourses, as that of Peter ch. xi. 5—17, containing expressions
unknown to Luke’s style (see reff.) : more or less, the other speeches of
Peter, containing many striking points of similarity to (doth) his
Epistles,—see reff. At the same time, from the similarity of ending of
the earlier sections (compare ch. ii. 46, 47; iv. 32 ff.; v.42; ix. 31;
xii. 24), from the occurrence of words and phrases peculiar to Luke in
the midst of such speeches as those noticed above (e. g. orafévra ch.
xi. 13, and see Dr. Davidson p. 30 for a list, which I have incorporated
in the reff.), the inference must be (as in the last paragraph) that such
documents were not adopted until their language had been revised,
where thought necessary, by the author himself. The very minute and
careful detail of ch. xii., evidently intended to give the highest authority
to the narrative of Peter’s miraculous deliverance,—so that the house
itself of Mary the mother of John Mark is specified, the name of the
female servant who went to the door, her remarks and the answer made
to her, are all given,—has apparently been the result of diligent enquiry
on the spot, from the parties concerned. We can hardly resist the
inference that the very same persons who fifteen years before had been
witnesses of the deliverance, now gave the details of an occurrence
which they could never forget, and described their own feelings on it.
9. Whether Luke at this time can have fallen in with Peter person-
ally, is very questionable. That Apostle certainly does not appear to
have been at Jerusalem when Paul visited it: and from the omission of
all mention of him after ch. xv., the natural inference is, that he was not
there during any part of Paul’s imprisonment. (See note on Gal. i.
11, and Prolegg. to 1 Pet. § ii. 6, 7.)
10. But one very important section of the first part of the Acts is
concerned with events which happened at Cwsarea,—and derived from
information obtained there. There dwelt Philip the Evangelist, one of
the seven (ch. xxi. 8): a most important authority for the contents of
ch. vi. and viii.’, if not also for some events previous to ch. vi. There
6 See the question discussed by Dr. Davidson, pp. 21 ff.
7 De Wette (Exeget. Handb. Apostg. p. 6) objects that Philip could hardly have
imparted ch. viii. 39 in its present form. At first sight, it seems so: but the next
verse ebnyyeAlCero Tas méAcis mdoas, «.7.A. can on the other hand hardly have been
imparted by any 4ué¢ Philip: and this leads us to think whether subsequent enquiry
10]
§ u.] ITS SOURCKS. [PROLEGOMENA.
too, we may well believe, still dwelt, if not Cornelius himself*, yet some
of the cuveAnAvOores modi of ch. x. 27,—the persons perhaps who had
gone to fetch Peter from Joppa,—at all events plenty who could nar-
rate the occurrences of that memorable day, and the words which formed
the great procem of the Gentile Gospel.
J1. Connected with the Cesarean part of our history, is one minute
touch of truth and accuracy, which is interesting as pointing to careful
research and information of the most trustworthy kind. The awful
death of Herod Agrippa I. had happened on a great public occasion.
Tt appears that the celebration of a festival in honour of Cesar had also
been selected as the time of audience for an embassy of the inhabitants
of Tyre and Sidon, and during this audience, after making an oration to
the embassy, Herod was struck by the hand of God. Now of this latter
particular, the Sidonian embassy, the Jewish historian knows nothing.
(See the passage quoted, ad loc. ch. xii. 21.) But Luke, who had made
careful enquiries on the spot, who had spent a week at Tyre, ch. xxi. 4—7,
—and Paul, who had friends at Sidon, ch. xxvii. 8, were better acquainted
with the facts of the occurrence than to overlook, as Josephus did, the
minute details in the general character of the festival.
12. One or two sections in the former part of the Acts require sepa-
rate consideration.
(a) The apology of Stephen, from its length and peculiar characteris-
tics, naturally suggests an enquiry as to the source whence it may pro-
bably have been obtained by Luke. And here I should feel little hesi-
tation in ascribing a principal share in the report to him who was so
deeply implicated in Stephen’s martyrdom,—who shews by his own re-
ference (ch. xxii. 20) to the part taken by him on that occasion, how
indelibly it was fixed in his memory,—and who in more than one place
of his recorded speeches and writings, seems to reproduce the very
thoughts and expressions of Stephen. At the same time, it would be
improbable that the church at Jerusalem should have preserved no
memorial of so important a speech as that of her first martyr before his
judges. So that, however we may be inclined to attribute much of its
particularity and copiousness to information derived from Paul, it must
be classed, as to its general form, among those contributions to the his-
tory obtained by Luke at Jerusalem.
(B) The narrative of the conversion of Saul in ch. ix. can hardly fail
respecting the eunuch (who as he had before come to Jerusalem to worship at the
feast, so would again) may not have enabled Philip to add this particular, éwopetero
yap T. 6ddv avTod xalpwy, over and above what he could know at the time.
8 It seems probable that the Roman forces never left Caesarea during the whole period
from Augustus to Vespasian. The territory during that time (see chronological table)
was alternately part of the province of Syria, and a dependent kingdom: but the
garrisons do not appear to have been changed in such cases.
11]
PRroLEGomMENA.] THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. [cn. T.
to have been derived from himself. I have shewn in the notes that
there are no discrepancies between this and the two other relations of
the same event, but such as may easily be accounted for by the peculiar
circumstances under which each is given, and the necessarily varying
expressions of narratives which were afterwards not reduced into har-
mony with each other, but written faithfully down as delivered.
13. Agreeable with the above suppositions is the fact, that the former
part of the book presents more traces of Hebraistic idiom, not only in
speeches, but in the form of the historical narrative °.
14. I proceed now to an enquiry promised in par. 1 of this section:
How far we have indications of the lacune in the author's personal tes-
timony in the latter part having been filled in by that of Paul.
Perhaps one of the best sections for the purpose of this examination
will be that from ch. xvii. 16—xviii. 5, which relates to a time when
Paul was left alone. Do we discover in the narrative or speech the
traces of an unusual hand, and if so, whose is it? That some unusual
hand has been here employed, is evident: for in the six verses 16—21
inclusive, we have no fewer than nine expressions foreign to Luke’s
style', or nowhere else occurring: and in the speech itself, no fewer
than nineteen’. Now of these twenty-eight expressions, five are either
peculiar to, or employed principally by Paul*; besides that we find the
phrase 76 wvedpa adrod, so frequently (see reff.) used by him of his own
spirit or feelings. That the drag Xeyopeva in the speech exceed in
number the expressions indicative of his style, may fairly be accounted
for by the peculiar nature of the occasion on which he spoke. Here I
think we can hardly fail to trace the hand of the Apostle by quite as
many indications as we might expect to find. That Luke should, as in
every other case, have wrought in the section into his work, and given
it the general form of his own narrative, would only be natural, and we
find it has been so *.
15. It may be instructive to carry on the examination of this part of
® See ch. i. 15, 23: the connexion by kal ch. ii. 1—4: dd mposdrov 7. cuvedp.,
v. 41: heotadn 5 Adyos cis Ta Gra T. exxAnolas, xi. 22: wats Oeod (of Christ), ch. iii.
13, 26; iv. 27, 30; (of David) iv. 25: 8:4 orduaros Aaveld or tay mpod., i. 16,—iii. 18,
21,—iv. 25 :—oi viol ’Iop., v. 21:—% yepovatla, ib., &e.
1 exdexouévov, wapwtivero, katelSwrov, maparuyxdvoytas, omepuoddyos, tévwyv (bis),
Kkatrayyedets, eviCovra, nixalpour.
2 Beiridaimoverrépous, avalewpav, oeBdouara, Bwudv, eweyéyparro, (dyvdory@,)
eboeBeite, dvOpwrivar, (Ocpaweterat,) mposdeduevos, dpobeclas, xaroixlas, ((nreiv,)
xapdypnari, (réxvns,) evOuuhrews, Td Oeiov, bwepiidy, tornaev.
5 éxdéxouat, wapotivw, eixaipéw, oéBacua, dvOpmmivos.—katayyéAdw, dpllw, els
éxaoros with gen. partitive, are peculiar to Luke and Paul: dyvoéw is a favourite word
in the Epistles of Paul.
4 We have the characteristic diueAéyero, eriAauBdvoua, eis tas axods (Luke vii. 1),
otabeis, Siepxduevos, Kadri.
12)
§ 11.] ITS SOURCES. [PROLEGOMENA.
the history somewhat further. At ch. xviii. 5, Silas and Timotheus joined
Paul at Corinth. One at least of these, Timotheus, was afterwards for
a considerable time in the company of Luke in the journey from Philippi
to Jerusalem. But on his arrival at Corinth, no alteration in the style
of the narrative is perceptible. It still remains the mixed diction of
Paul and Luke: the dz. Aeyy. are fewer, while we have some remarkable
traces of Paul’s hand*. Again, in vv. 24—28 of the same chapter, we
have a description of what took place with regard to Apollos at Ephe-
sus, when Paul himself was absent. This portion it would be natural to
suppose might have been furnished by Apollos himself, were it not for
the laudatory description of ver. 24. If not by Apollos, then by Aquila
and Priscilla to Paul on his return to Ephesus. And so it seems to
have been. The general form is Luke’s: the peculiarities are mostly
Paul’s °.
16. The examination of these sections may serve to shew that the
great Apostle appears to have borne a principal part in informing Luke
with regard to such parts of his history: the traces of this his share in
the work being visible by the occurrence of words and phrases peculiar
to Aim in the midst of the ordinary narrative from Luke’s own pen.
These he preserved, casting the merely narrative matter into the form in
which he usually wrote.
17. It yet remains, before terminating this section, to say something
of the speeches reported in the latter part of the Acts. Are they Paul’s
own words, or has Luke in this case also gone over the matter, and left
the impression of his style on it ?
These speeches are, (a) the discourse to the Ephesian elders in ch.
xx. 18—35,—(f) the apology before the Jews, ch. xxii. 1—21,—() the
apology before Felix, ch. xxiv. 1O—21,—(8) the apology before Agrippa
and Festus, ch. xxvi. 1—29.
(a) The discourse to the Ephesian elders is a rich storehouse of
phrases and sentiments peculiar to Paul. These are so numerous, and
so remarkable, that nothing short of a complete study of the passage,
with the references, will put the reader in full possession of them. Very
faint traces are found of the hand of Luke’. Of those mentioned in
5 guvelxero, ver. 5,—Kabapds eye, 6,—mapa tov véuov, 13,—adiknua, 14°(see ch. xxiv.
20), Aadiovpynua, ib. (see ch. xiii. 10), qverxduny Sudr, ib., Adyou, 15,— ke.
5 karnxnuévos, axpiBOs pktato mapSnoidCecOar, e&éIevTo, dieAOeiv, dmodétacbat,
mapayevduevos, edtévws SiaxarnAreyxero (an am. A., but in Luke’s mamer of using long
compounds), belong to Luke’s style: (éwy 7@ mvevuari, Snuoola (ch. xvi. 37; xx. 20
only), to that of Paul.
7 Among these may perhaps be counted the opening words Suezs érlorazde (compare
ch. x. 28, 37)—éweBny eis 7. *Ao. (ch. xxi. 4),—d:9A Gov (ver. 25),—mposéxeTe Eavtois
(ver. 28),—dvaorjoovra (ver. 30),—érédeita (ver. 35). But most of these are such
that we can only say Paul has not used the expressions, or not in the same sense: that
he would not have done so, if occasion had offered, we cannot affirm.
13]
PROLEGOMENA.] THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. iene a:
the note, scarcely any are decisive, whereas hardly a line of the whole is
without unmistakeable evidences that we have here the words of Paul. In
the Prolegomena to the Pastoral Epistles, I hope to shew the importance
of this discourse, as bearing on the very difficult question of the diction
and date of those precious and to my mind indubitable relics of the
great Apostle *.
(B) The apology before the Jews (ch. xxii. 1—21) was spoken in
Hebrew (Syro-Chaldaic). Another interesting question is therefore
here involved, Did Luke understand Hebrew? The answer to the two
questions will be one and the same. We may find the diction of this
translation either so completely Luke’s, as‘to render it probable that he
was the translator ;—or it may bear traces, as usual, of Paul’s own
phraseology set down and worked up by Luke. In the former case, we
may confidently infer that he must have understood Hebrew: in the
latter, we may (but not with equal confidence, for Paul may by pre-
ference have given his own version of his own speech) conclude that that
language was unknown to him. If again the speech is full of Hebraisms,
it may lead us to infer that Paul himself was not the translator into
Greek, but one who felt himself more strictly bound to a literal ren-
dering than the speaker hiniself, who would be likely to give his own
thoughts and meaning a freer and more Grecian dress.—Now we do jind,
(1) that the speech is full of Hebraisms: (2) that while it contains
several expressions occurring nowhere but in the writings of Luke?®,
not one is found in it peculiar to Paul, or even strikingly in his manner.
Our inference then is that Luke himself has rendered this speech, from
having heard it delivered ;—and consequently, that he was acquainted
with Hebrew,
(y) The short apology before Felix (ch. xxiv. 10—21) contains some
traces of Paul’s manner’, but still they are scanty, and the evidences of
Luke’s hand predominate, as may be seen from the reff. Its very com-
pendious character makes it probable that it may have been drawn up
by Luke from Paul’s own report of the substance of what he said.
(5) The important apology before Agrippa and Festus (ch. xxvi. 1—
29) is full of Paul’s peculiar expressions*. It was spoken in Greek, and
8 See Vol. III. Prolege. ch. vii. 1, 33 note.
9 gtvemt, evAaBhs, ad’TH TH pa, Exotacis, are peculiar to Luke: émiords is a
favourite word with him: and very many other expressions, as may be seen by reff.,
are in the common manner of his writings.
1 dmpéskoros,—ovveldnois,—8e éra@y,—and perhaps ddienuc.
2 fynuot (in this sense never used by Luke, but by Paul 11 times), dyta ce (ace.
pendens, see reff.),—8:d,—akpoOdjuws (only used here, but the cognate words are very
favourite ones with Paul),—apoyweoKovres,—Opnokela,—em’ éAmtd: K.7.A..—vteTa K.
hepa (see reff.),—Kataytijoa (see reff.),—xplverar map’ butv,—edota,—évavtia (com-
pare ch. xxviii. 17),—aylwy (in Acts, only ch. ix. 13, of Paul,—and in the section ch.
ix. 32—43, but in the Epistles passim),—Tiuwp@v,—tas Ew wérAets,—dmép 7. AauT.,—
14] .
§ r1r.] FOR WHAT READERS, &c. _=[PROLEGOMENA.
taken down very nearly as spoken. Some phrases however occur in it
which seem to belong to Luke*; just enough to shew the hand which
has committed the speech to writing. We must remember however that
several of these are expressive of meanings not elsewhere occurring in
Paul’s composition, which therefore he may well, in uttering, have thus
expressed.
18. Our conclusion from this examination may be thus stated:
(1) That in all cases the diction of the speeches was more or less
modified by Luke's hand. (2) That they are not in any case (as some
have supposed) composed by him for the speaker, but were really in
substance, and for the most part in very words, uttered as written.
(3) That the differences apparent in the greater or less amount of
editorial diction in different speeches, remarkably correspond to the
alleged occasions and modes of theiy delivery:—where Paul spoke
Hebrew, hardly any traces of his own style being discernible,—as also
where a short compendium only of his speech is given; while on the
other hand speeches manifestly reported at length and which were
spoken in Greek originally, are full of the characteristic peculiarities of
Paul himself.
19. For many other interesting particulars connected with the sources
of the. narrative in the Acts, I refer the student to Dr. Davidson’s
Introduction to the N, T. vol. ii,
SECTION III.
FOR WHAT READERS AND WITH WHAT OBJECT IT WAS WRITTEN.
1. The Gospel of Luke commences with a preface, in which he de-
clares his object with sufficient precision. Dedicating it to his friend
Theophilus, he describes it as a record of 7a werAnpodopnpéva ev Auiv
mpdypnaTa,—and asserts his purpose in writing it to be, Wa émyvds
Tept av KatnxnOns Adywv tHv aopddAeav. Now there can be little ques-
tion that both these descriptions apply to the Acts also. That book is
introduced without preface, as a secand part following on the former
treatise : a dedtepos Adyos to the Gospel.
2. I have stated with regard to the Gospel, that we can hardly sup-
pose Luke’s design to have confined itself to Theophilus, but must
believe that he followed the common practice of dedicating his work to
some one person of rank or influence, and describing it as written for
him. The same applies also to the Acts: and the class of readers for
KAjjpov ev Tots jyiaocuevors,—petavoeiv (absol.),—éxtdés,—mp@ros é dvart.,—cwhpo-
ovvn,—ev dAlyw,—6moi0s,—mapektds.
3 év pvAakais KatéxAcica,—ekovolay AaRdv,—dvatpovmévwy (never used by Paul),
—mepirAdupav,—katamed dyvTwv,— ovdAdAaBduevot,—diaxeipioad Oat, — dmopdeyyouat.
15]
rrotecomMENna.] THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. [cH. I.
whom Luke wrote is the same as before ; viz. Christians, whether Jews
or Gentiles.
3. If a further specification of his object in writing be required, it
ean only be furnished by an unprejudiced examination of the contents
of the book. ‘These are found to be, Lhe fulfilment of the promise of
the Father by the descent of the Holy Spirit: the results of that out-
pouring, by the dispersion of the Gospel among Jews and Gentiles.
Under these leading heads, all the personal and subordinate details may
be ranged. Immediately after the ascension, Peter, the first of the
twelve, the Rock on whom the church was to be built, the holder of
the keys of the Kingdom, becomes the great Actor under God in the
founding of the Church. He is the centre of the first great group of
sayings and doings. The opening of the door to Jews (ch. 11.) and
Gentiles (ch. x.) is his office,—and by him, in the Lord’s own time, is
accomplished. But none of the existing Twelve were (humanly speaking)
fitted to preach the Gospel to the cultivated Gentile world. To be by
divine grace the spiritual conqueror of Asia and Europe, God raised up
another instrument, from among the highly educated and zealous Pha-
risees. The preparation of this instrument for the work to be done,—
the progress in his hand of that work—his journeyings, preachings and
perils, his stripes and imprisonments, his testifying in Jerusalem, and
being brought to testify in Rome,—these are the subjects of the latter
half of the book, of which the great central figure is the Apostle Paul.
4. Nor can we attribute this with any probability to a set design of a
comparison between the two great Apostles, or of an apology for Paul by
exhibiting him as acting in consonance with the principles which regu-
lated Peter. All such hypothesis is in the highest degree unnatural
and forced. The circumstances before the narrator’s view would, without
any such design, have led to the arrangement of the book as we now
find it. The writer was the companion of Paul ;—and in the land which
had been the cradle of the Church he gathered materials for the portion
which might join his Gospel to the narrative with which Paul’s history
began. In that interval, Peter was the chief actor: Peter was the
acknowledged ‘chosen vessel’ in the first days of the Gospel. But
Luke does not confine himself to Peter’s acts. He gives at length the
mission of Philip to the Gaza road and the conversion of the Ethiopian
Eunuch, with which Peter had no connexion whatever. He gives at
length the history of Stephen—the origin of the office which he held,—
his apology,—his martyrdom,—how naturally, as leading to the narrative
of the conversion of him who took so conspicuous a part in the transac-
tions of that day *.
4 Schneckenburger, who (as well as Griesbach and Baur) holds the theory against which
this paragraph is directed, is obliged to suppose that Stephen was purposely introduced
to be exhibited as the prototype and forerunner of Paul. That Stephen was so, in some
16]
§ rv. ] TIME AND PLACE OF WRITING. [PROLEGOMENA
5. Any view which attributes wlterior design to the writer, beyond
that of faithfully recording such facts as seemed important in the
history of the Gospel, is, I am persuaded, mistaken. Many ends are
answered by the book in the course of this narration, but they are the
designs of Providence, not the studied purposes of the writer :—e. g.,
the sedulous offer of the Gospel to the Jewish people,—their continual
rejection of it,—the as continual turning to the Gentiles :—how strik-
ingly does this come out before the reader as we advance,—and how
easily might this be alleged as the design,—supported as the view would
be by the final interview of Paul with the Jews at Rome, and his solemn
application of prophecy to their unbelief and hardness of heart. Again,
in the course of the book, more and more strongly does it appear that
God’s purpose was to gather a people out of the Gentiles to His name:
so that by Michaelis this is assigned as one of two great objects of the
book. And so we might pass on through the whole cycle of progress
of the faith of Christ, and hypotheses might be raised, as each great
purpose of Providence is seen unfolding, that to narrate it was the
object of the work.
SECTION IV.
AT WHAT TIME AND PLACE IT WAS WRITTEN.
1. I see no cause for departing from the opinion already expressed |
in the Prolegomena to Luke’s Gospel (Vol. I., Prol., § iv. 1) that the Acts |
was completed and published at the expiration of the two years described
in the last verse of chap. xxviii. No reason can be assigned, why, had
any considerable change in the circumstances of Paul taken place, it
should not have been mentioned by Luke. The same will hold still
more strongly of the death of the Apostle.
2. The prevalent opinion of recent critics in Germany has been, that
the book was written much later than this. But this opinion is for the
most part to be traced to their subjective leanings on the prophetic
announcement of Luke xxi. 24. For those who hold that there is no
such thing as prophecy (and this unhappily is the case with many of the
modern German critics), it becomes necessary to maintain that that
verse was written after the destruction of Jerusalem. THence, as the
Acts is the sequel to the Gospel, much more must the Acts have been
written after that event. To us in England, who receive the verse in
question as a truthful account of the words spoken by our Lord, and
sense, is true enough; but the assimilation of Paul to Stephen is a result springing
naturally out of the narrative, not brought about by the writer of the history. Supposing
the facts to have been as related, it was most natural that Paul should earnestly desire
the whole particulars respecting Stephen to be minutely recorded : and so we find them.
Vor ih tr b
PROLEGOMENA.| THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. [CH. T.
see in them a weighty prophetic declaration which is even now not
wholly fulfilled, this argument at least has no weight.
3. The last-mentioned view (which is that of De Wette) differs from
that of Meyer, who sees in ch. viii. 26 (airy éoriv Epnpos) a terminus a
quo, and in the omission of all mention of the destruction of Jerusalem,
a terminus ad quem, for the publication of the history ; which he would
therefore place at the beginning of the Jewish war, after the destruction
of Gaza by the revolutionary bands of the Jews, and before the destruc-
tion of Jerusalem. But the notice of ch. viii. 26 cannot be fairly thus
taken: see note there, in which I have endeavoured to give the true
meaning of épyos as applying to 6dds and not to Gaza, and as spoken
by the angel, not added by the Evangelist. Meyer’s latter terminus,
and the argument by which he fixes it, I hold to be sound. It would
be beside all probability, that so great, and for Christianity so impor-
tant an event, as the overthrow of the Jewish city, temple, and nation,
should have passed without even an allusion in a book in which that
city, temple, and nation, bear so conspicuous a part.
4. Meyer also (Hinl. p. 6) endeavours to render a reason why the
subsequent proceedings of Paul in Rome should not have been noticed.
They were, he imagines, well known to Theophilus, an Italian himself,
if not a Roman. But this is the merest caprice of conjecture. What
convincing evidence have we that Theophilus was a Roman, or an
Italian? And this view would hardly (though Meyer labours to make
it do so) account for the narration of what did take place in Rome,—
especially for the last verse of the book.
5. De Wette attempts to account for the history ending where it
does, because the words of our Lord in ch. i. 8 had been accomplished,
and so the object of the history fulfilled. But how were they more
accomplished at that particular time than before? Rome had not been
specified in that command: and he who now preached at Rome was not
Sormally addressed in those words. Rather, if the object of the writer
had been merely to trace these words to their fulfilment, should he have
followed the actual Apostles to whom they were spoken, many of whom
we have reason to believe much more literally preached éws érydrov tis
yis, than St. Paul. But no such design, or none such in so formal-a
shape, was in the mind of our Evangelist. That the Lord commanded
and his Apostles obeyed, would be the obvious course of history ; but
that the mere bringing of one of those Apostles to the head of the civi-
lized world should have been thought to exhaust that command, is in-
conceivable as a ground for breaking off the narration.
6. Still more futile is the view that it was broken off because the
promise of ch. xxiii, 11 was now fulfilled (ottws oe det Kal eis Pupny
paprupjoa). For on this view, the being brought before Cesar ought
to have been expressly narrated : another promise having been given to
18]
§ iv. ] TIME AND PLACE OF WRITING. [protEcomena.
Paul, ch. xxvil. 24, wy poBod, Madre, Katoapt oe Set wapacrivar. Indeed
this very argument tells forcibly in favour of the date commonly as-
signed. Without attributing it as an object in the mind of the writer,
to relate the fulfilment of every divine promise recorded by him, we
may at least regard it as probable, that had he been able to chronicle the
fulfilment of this promise, he would have done so, seeing that the apology
before Cesar was so weighty an event, and that three former apologies,
those before the Jews, before Felix, and before Festus and Agrippa, had
been inserted.
7. If we look at the probabilities of the matter, we shall find that the
time commonly assigned was by very far the most likely for the publi-
cation of the book. The arrival at Rome was an important period in
the Apostle’s life: the quiet which succeeded it seemed to promise no
immediate determination of his cause: a large amount of historic mate-
rial was collected :—or perhaps, taking another view, Nero was begin-
ning ‘in pejus mutari:’ none could tell how soon the whole outward
repose of Roman society might be shaken, and the tacit toleration which
now the Christians enjoyed be exchanged for bitter persecution. If
such terrors loomed in the prospect of even those who judged from
worldly probabilities, there would surely be in the church at Rome
prophets and teachers, who might tell them by the Holy Ghost of the
storm which was gathering, and might warn them that the words lying
ready for publication must be given to the faithful before its outbreak,
or never. It is true that such a priori considerations would weigh little
against presumptive evidence furnished by the book itself: but when
arrayed in aid of such evidence, they carry with them no small weight :
when we find that the time naturally and fairly indicated in the book
itself for its publication, is that one of all others when we should con-
ceive that publication most likely.
8. We thus get A.D. 63 (see the following table) for the date of the
publication.
9. The same arguments which establish the date, also fix the place.
At Rome, among the Christians there, was this history first made
public, which has since then in all parts and ages of the church formed
a recognized and important part of the canon of Scripture.
10. As regards the title of the book, we may observe, that it appears
to represent the estimate, not of one culling these out of more copious
materials, but of an age when these were all the Acts of the Apostles
extant: and probably therefore proceeded not from the author, but from
the transcribers.
PROLEGOMENA.] THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. [ou. x.
SECTION V.
GENUINENESS, AND STATE OF THE TEXT.
1. Eusebius (H. E. iii. 25), recounting the époroyovpevar Heian ypadai,
Says, TaKTéov ev Tpwrois THY aylav TOV evaryyeAiwy TeTpaKTiv ots Ewerar F
Tov mpdgewv Tay drogTéhwy ypady. And in iii. 11,—Aovxds 76 pev yevos
dv tov dm "Avtioxelas, Thy Se ervoTipnv iatpds, Ta TAKicTAa ovYyyeyovus
TO IavAw, kat tots Aotros S€ od Tepiepyws TOV drooTOAWY GptANnKUs, Ts
amd TovTwy mposextncato Woxav Oeparevtixns ev Ovo piv trodelypara
Georveiatos Katahédoure BuiBAlous’ TO TE evayyeAiw +... Kal Tails TAY
aroctéAwy mpagerw, Gs overs Ov axons, dpOarpois d& airois tapadaBwv
ovveragaro. And many earlier fathers, either by citation or by allusion,
have sufficiently shewn that the book was esteemed by them part of the
canon of Scripture.
(a) Papias (see Euseb. H. E. iii. 39) does not mention nor refer to
the Acts. He speaks indeed of Philip, and his daughters, but mistakes
him (?) for Philip the Apostle: and of Justus surnamed Barsabas.
Nor are there any references in Justin Martyr which, fairly considered,
belong to this book. Such as are sometimes quoted may be seen in
Lardner, vol. i. p. 122. The same may be said of Clement of Rome.
Ignatius is supposed to allude to it (mera de tiv dvacraow ovwéedayev
airots kai ovvérvev. Smyrn. § 3, p. 709. Compare Acts x. 41): so also
Polycarp (dv éyepev 6 Geds, AUoas Tas ddivas Tod dSov. Phil. § 1, p. 1005.
Compare Acts ii. 24).
(8) The first direct quotation occurs in the Epistle of the Churches
of Lyons and Vienne to those of Asia and Phrygia (4.p. 177) given in
Euseb. H. E. v. 2. Speaking of the martyrs, they say, irép rév 7a Sewa
diarBévtwv nixovto, Kabarep Srépavos 6 ré\evos paps’ KUple, pi) OTHTNS
avTois THY Gpaptiav TAUTHV.
(y) Irenzus frequently and expressly quotes this book: and in book
i. ch. 14, p. 201 f., he gives a summary of the latter part of the Acts,
attributing it to Luke as its writer.
(5) Clement of Alexandria quotes it often, and as the work of Luke:
e. g. kao Kai 6 Aovkads év tats mpageot Tav arooTdAwy dropvnmovever TOV
IlatAov €éyovta’ "Avdpes "AOnvator, x.7.A. (see Acts xvii. 22, 23) Strom.
v. 12 [83], p. 696 P.
(e) Tertullian often quotes it expressly: e. g. ‘ Adeo postea in Actis
apostolorum invenimus, quoniam qui Joannis baptismum habebant, non
accepissent Spiritum Sanctum, quem ne auditu quidem noverant’ (com-
pare Acts xix. 1—3), De baptismo, ec. 10, vol. i. p. 1211. And again:
‘cum in eodem commentario Luci, et tertia hora orationis demonstretur,
sub qua Spiritu Sancto initiati pro ebriis habebantur, et sexta, qua Petrus
ascendit in superiora,’ &e. De jejuniis, ec. 10, vol. ii. p. 966.
20]
§ v.] GENUINENESS, AND STATE OF TEXT. [PROLEGOMENS.
2. (a) The Marcionites, (cent. iii.) and the Manicheans (cent. iv.)
rejected the Acts as contradicting some of their notions. “Cur Acta
respuatis jam apparet, ut deum scilicet non alium predicantia quam
creatorem, nec Christum alterius quam creatoris, quando nec promissio
Spiritus sancti aliunde probetur exhibita, quam de instrumento Ac-
torum.” Tertull. adv. Marcion. lib. v. § 2, vol. ii. p. 472. And of the
Manichzans, Augustine says, ‘ Manichzi canonicum librum cujus titulus
est Actus Apostoloruam repudiant. iment enim evidentissimam veri-
tatem, ubi apparet, Sanctum Spiritum missum qui est a Domino Jesu
Christo evangelica virtute preditus.” Epist. cexxxvii. 2, vol. ii. p. 1035.
(8) Some modern critics in Germany, especially Baur, have made use
of the hypothesis, that the Acts is an apology for Paul (see above,
§ ili. 4), to throw discredit on the book, and to bring down its publica-
tion to the second century. But with the hypothesis will also fall that
which is built on it; and from the reasoning of the preceding sections it
may be seen how utterly impracticable it would have been for an imitator
to draw up narratives and speeches which should present the phenomena,
in relation to the facts underlying them, which these do.
3. The text of the Acts, in D and E of the leading MSS., and their
cognates in the mss. and versions, is varied by many interpolations ‘of
considerable length. It may suffice to point out a few of these, referring
the student to the various readings to examine them in detail :
chap. x. 25; xi. 2, 17, 25, 26, 28; xu. 10; xiv. 2, 4, 10, 19s" xv..2,
12, 20; xvi. 10, 80, 35, 39, 40; xvii. 15; xviii. 4, 27; xix. 1; xx.
8; xxi. 24; xxiv. 24; xxv. 24; xxvii. 1; xxvii. 31.
Of these, some are remarkable as bearing considerable appearance of
genuineness, e. g. those in ch. xii. 10, xvi. 10: some are unmeaning and
absurd, as those in ch. xiv. 19, xvi. 39. Considerable uncertainty hangs
over the whole question respecting these insertions. A critic of emi-
nence, Bornemann, believes that the text of the Acts originally contained
them all, and has been abbreviated by the hand of correctors: and he
has published an edition on this principle.
4. The great abundance of various readings in the Acts, and the
extent of space consequently devoted to them, will be observed by every
reader. In no book of the N. T., with the exception of the Apocalypse,
is the text so full of variations as in this. To this result several reasons
may have contributed. In the many backward references to the Gospel
history, and anticipations of statements and expressions occurring in the
Epistles, temptations were found inducing the corrector to try his hand
at assimilating, and as he thought reconciling, the various accounts. In
places where ecclesiastical order or usage was in question, insertions or
omissions were made to suit the habits and views of the church in after
times. Where the narrative simply related facts,—any act or word
apparently unworthy of the apostolic agent was modified for the sake of
21]
proLecomENs.| THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. (cn. T.
decorum. Where St. Paul relates over again to different audiences the
details of his miraculous conversion, the one passage was pieced from
the other, so as to produce verbal accordance. These circumstances
render the critical arrangement of the text in this book a task more than
usually difficult.
SECTION VI.
CHRONOLOGY.
1. The chronology of the Acts has been the subject of many learned
disquisitions both in ancient and modern times. It must suffice here
(1) to point out to the reader those recent works where he will find the
whole matter thoroughly discussed, and the results of older enquiries
stated and criticized: and (2) to furnish a table arranged according to
years, in which the contemporary sacred and profane history may be
placed side by side, according to the conclusions which I myself have
been led to form.
(a) The treatise of Anger, de temporum in Actis Apostolorum
ratione, Lips. 1833, was by far the best complete discussion of the
chronology which had appeared up to that time: and the student who
masters this not very voluminous work, will be in entire possession of
the state of the enquiry when it was published.
(8) But the ground has since been again gone over, and Anger’s
results somewhat shaken, by Wieseler, Chronologie des apostolischen
Zeitalters, Gottingen, 1848, which is now the best and most important
work on the subject. I have been led in several places to differ from
Wieseler, but I do not on that account underrate the value of his re-
searches. His work, as well as that of Anger, should be in the hands of
every student who wishes to master the chronology of the apostolic period.
(y) A work often referred to in these Prolegomena, Dr. Davidson’s
Introduction to the New Testament, will be found by the English reader
to contain a very useful résumé of the views and arguments of other
writers as well as his own conclusions; and is accompanied with the
table usual in the German writers, giving at one glance the various dates
assigned by different chronologists for the events in the apostolic history.
2. I proceed to give the chronological table above promised. It will
be observed that the chronology of the Acts takes us only to the end of
the second year of St. Paul’s (first] imprisonment at Rome. With the
important and difficult question respecting a second imprisonment, we
are here in no way concerned. It will come before us for full discussion
in the Prolegomena to the Pastoral Epistles, Vol. IIT. (§ ii. 17 ff.)
22)
[PROLEGOMENA.
CHRONOLOGY.
LAL
lol
S
cor
“vop 8,posdfy 1oyye sdeysod—‘(g *rx)
(JISTA PWOSEG) jnxg pue svquureg Jo spuey oy} Aq
eRpne UL watqje1q 94} 07 yuos sayddns + (gz “EX)
auimry v satsoydoad snqedy—'(qt) sueysityO pal[eo
Js auv saqdiostp oY ,— "(9 EX) YOONUY 3B awod &
auewmat foyy, ‘susiey, Woy [RVG soypo}ez puv ‘gouid
UdYL} pry JA ye soorofar “Wayesnep ye Yornys) 943
fq aay IY} Juas st svqeueg "(9% “GT EX) Youu 3
sofiquaxyy 0} poyorard useq pry podsoxy 94} oUTpUvE TL
‘snsiey, 0} WaIyjorq oy} Aq yuAS SI
IIT sty Jo toSuep ur Sureq uay} ‘sdep usoisy sureUoL
(8 ‘Tt I®D,- “66-9 “X!) 19}ed 8300UL pue (TISTA
qsatq) woresnioe o} dn sa0d Tavg “(g1—STt “1e)
snosemecy pue viqeiy ut stead 9o1qy Hie ads INV
—(Q[—] Tx) Wapesniar 4B YoINYA 9y} 0} omMes om]
JO JUNO Ue SOATXV—'(QP—T| “X) BaLESAD 4B SpUudLIy
[UAH siq pur sntpauso_ 0} soyovoid oF7—(Sh—ZE
‘xt) LoJag JO pMIIQ— (TE “XE) soyomNyA eq} Jo 9ovoq
(‘or cary ‘eurtg Jo yoajarg ‘snsunpyy sn2q24 )
“(1 ‘96 “9 “XIX “HUW ) surparlD
jo drys[nsuoo pug oy} ar ‘Zp UL MOpSury sty 0}
samoo :vapne jo Suty ‘VddINNV GOUAH
Cp ¢ “xix ‘uy | teypyjpuress
SIY oid) OY] polayy JO SUOLUIMOpP 9{OYAL
ay} aao Bury snipnelg Aq poyurodde vaaruo Vv)
Oe ee ee ee ee ee
(% “8 XIX “HUY 99g
‘or-oe ‘ay [g*y Tax yuy | vdduisy 07 woats
Ayoavajo} sty puv ‘suotry 07 paystueq st nq
‘SUry JO 9[31} 911} FLOI[Os 0} ouLOY 07 8008 sedyuy )
‘THAX "WU ] vs [VQ jo wok puz oy} Cipee
-BULY MOU SIT 0} OWMOY Wo’, SUINI vddtis y )
(6g ‘av ‘ekg jo poasalg ‘snunry
-aduny, smuoujod *d) (9G ‘PU/XESIVY ‘ajou
dos ‘snosvumecy Jo Worssossod ul Suloq sujaly UQ)
(611 x1) (se04 om
ut 9}t]) [Meg JO TOTSIOAMOQ— "(OF ‘9G “HIA) varuseD
0} stjozy wo soyovoad pue ‘yonuno uvidony ay
dy} s}toauoo dipiyg—'(eg—g “HTA) BueUIRg ye ‘uyor
pur tojog spreasoye pur ‘drpygqg—(F TWA) sopdrosrp
(‘s1oeyO jo Sury opear poopy r9ypo4q 81 }{ )
(‘Lor ‘9 “Max “yy ] siqques
-NY par ‘sijtuogovly, ‘eauryeg “9 ‘t ‘diptyg jo
fyouerjo} oy} Jo Sury ‘worssaoov sty toqye sAvp
maz v ‘erndrjeg Aq pagurodde *y mddrubpy po.taff)
“(COT ‘9 “WAX “uy ) qourd
-dipy se vepne 0} vpnsipey Aq yues SATTAUV IN
‘Cqt Huy) tape jo
“sB1aqJULD JO WOS SAWNOITY
‘ep ur vddusy Aq poaomas
“"*spuuy JO UOS SVIHLLY IN
‘Cha
‘reat ouues oy} ureddusy <q
poaowlar :svtoyjuRD poweu
-ins ‘snyja0gq jo uos NOWTS
(g "9 “XIX
yquy) vddiusy Aq paaoutat
962 eee cesecece Ds OOOO «7
OL
CLe¢ 2120
yong] FZ ‘ure Moy
eee eeeereees *C qt ‘Uy )
snueuy jo wos ‘Sn IIHdoadH J,
(g °g “MAX “yyUV) 980993
-udg ye snypayta Aq paoeidstp
dasseps marci (cs p “THAX ‘yUYy )
snusuy jo uos ‘NVHLVNO¢
*LAAOSSE T
sosodury SATU AV'IO)
P6L PTT Eee Be A
ogy creer Og
OL
Ig, weer
ayy Jo uorsradsiq@— (gg ‘ta) Heydeyg Jo MoprAye WT sunuy3niu3 snipaitA Aq poyutodde ‘snppaaimpy ayy yB SMITPPITA Aq pooepdstp|ogZ Ee oer aed ik
‘Q19Y]} [WALLY SIT] 910JOq Palp SNQL, (5 ‘F Gives iene eames eos “99
WTAX “}JUW) Jog 29g Ur RT ‘sny[faITA Aq (J0Np Ow
“MATRSTII LP UT UBT} 94 JO ssa1doad snosodsorg |-Wod SI] JoJ Tomsue 0}) ouLOY 0} yUaS SI azBptgis (GG MAX OV ss a as Sealant seo" 3S200
‘IE SJOW pojepat sjusad oy “JE—0E “a'V (‘FE ‘av “BLIdg Jo yoosorg *872779]24 )\"UV ‘sor) eg ‘a'y ‘vapne ‘PL AV ‘6T
g AZ
‘quitdg AjoH oy} Jo uorsnyp” “(Jz API) LSOO
HINHd
*(1oppsor yy “QT API) NOISNHOSV HHL
‘(g@ ‘a'v ‘Mo[aq 908 3% Ff MIAX “I9UV ‘sor) JZ
ur Apava to ‘97, "a'v Woy "SOLVIId SQILNOd
jo qoyeanoord snyzeiy SNM]
-vaA Aq poqutodde ‘syHavivy
‘SLOV AHL NI GaLVTEAU SENGTAL
IO eae ed Pi ed 8 So ee ee
‘ona ‘yHanr JO SHONUAAOD
‘SLSaIud HOI
‘Sny wo sosdury
[ors] (SATUA AIL)
on ‘OLa ‘SUVas ‘a'y
23 |
[ear x.
PROLEGOMENA.] THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
4SILZ) WIUMOD 4e ([] “WtAX) Jyvy @ pur avak zt spttads
9H—'CUAX “IAX) 90001) pue viuOposdLy, 03 OUTTA
BISY Ysnoryj— [g Jo UUiN|Ne oq] o10Jaq you sdvysod—
“(g@“IAx) snaqjomty, pur (gp ‘AX) stpig Aq paturdutos9t
‘(neg jo Aoumol Areworsstur puovsg—'seqruarg pur
Cle eH
“Cq) (ox ‘syyrur[ney ‘sytm0yorry, ‘vauryeg jo
SULY Oq 0} Sl[eYyH Wow pojoutoad “y] veddusy)
[neg Uvaajoq uoneardas pur oyndsiqg—'(‘y [T “MH *[e9) (Gieyie s<
WOouuy ye doyoq YIM MalAtoyuT—"(GE Ax) Surqovord |yyuy) (gg ‘a'v) vepng jo sJoyeINI0Ig XITAg
pure suiyors, “yoouup we Aim pur ‘uimyot AOL, (‘ucIn]oo
—(MOISI9AUOD § [nV Wolf 9AIsnyoUL suvok U99}.1N0.
: ‘ ’ H
HT rey 3¢ % *AX) 19)}UUL 94} UO (JISTA PATTY)
Moesniag 07 dn on suqeuing put Itq—-C 1 AX)
Surpoooad aos ‘amoy ye pasodep snuvmng)
‘OXY ‘UOISLOUINIIID Jo MOIsI[Go 943 Suyoodsax oyndsiqZ
CoOL Hf “A 36 '9 “xx "HUY
‘RUIAG JO yoIJalg ‘snyoupyn’y snrpruwmy) snjry)
TT ‘GL! fa
stoyeyQ jo Sur pojutodde iontae ayy vddiwh py)
C{t ‘218
PUL “TL O8[e 09g] sarp ‘soyeys) Jo “4 ‘poioyy
‘[Piqr auy] .smipne[D jo avo yQyste oyy
"(9% “ATX) soypdiosip oy) YT fur, ‘out owes oj ynoqy) °*% “¢ "xx ‘Uy
WOonUy 4v ourl} Suo] & ureuor Aoyy WANJaL II9Y} AYY "vapn¢ Jo soyVANI0Ig ‘SANVIWAQ SAIGLENaA
‘Cpiqt) vapne ur
Dulsvr st ourmey yeas ony, *(Z “¢ “xx “WWUVW)
‘QP 10 Jp UL YoU 0} unjor AUeNnbosuoo
uvy} oxour saidnovo Aypavy Aoutnol siyyvapne jo soyeinoolg ‘MaaNVXATY SarManry,
fay} 3 vot v
C[g *[ *xx ‘qa3ay ] oans
-v91} pasos ayy pure ajduia} oy Jo Apoysno o43
‘(Lp 10 gf) tour tIsy pus
pue sysaug ysizyT aq) Suutodde jo aomod ay3
snadkg 0} “(gz “AIX—] ‘HUX) ‘(TAVg_ pavasoyaoucy)
[nvg pue svqtuing jo Aoumof AreuUoIsstu ysaTq|suipar[g Woy suivjqo soley jo Bury posay{) Jo Sury porz, Aq poaourol
*(@% “1X) Boresay ye ‘10]}e UOOS
AoA ‘VddIUDY GOUaT{ AO HLYAC (=e) Sieg)
Ja}9q jo odvosa snojnovsiut pur (<adosseg ayy 4)
quomuostidiury—(z “11x) ‘(avak Zurpasord oyz ur 947]
sdeyied 10) uyor Jo coy}01q oy) soMve Jo WopzdzIT PY
(LL (xx ‘quy ‘eitg jo yajorg
‘snubuoT smsspQ (9) (Z Al ‘XIX "Uy)
amoy ye pourejor Sutoq vddusy szosunodé
ayy ‘apne jo aoywnd01g ‘snavg sarlasag
([z ‘g ‘xix ‘nuy] vddusy posazy jo waved)
‘SLOVY AHL NI GHLYTAU SLNAAL ‘La ‘vane 40 SHONUAAOD
LOG “Ute ge
(% “Wxx
sjoy ‘ojou 9as) soyyo siy
jS0] 2AvY 0} 4ou suvadde yng OL
:(Z 9 *XX ‘WQUW) 1ozvand0.1g
94} SHUUINYD WII 19yjo504
—‘surjltmrg oy yt oynd
-Sip jo aouenbasuoo ur ‘snjyed
-prn?y 4q ZS ul omlozy 0} JUaS €08 ee veeersrccscscccess gteseccang,
ZOQ tttceteee peepee es 6h
log ee adesnussaens 8%
"ql ‘snapoqon jo UOS SVINVNY (OR eeeaes oe nese enema Lz |
‘(Z °C "xx
‘uy) Lp ur -qoad ‘srojeyD
jo Sury polo yy Aq poaowia.l 662 saat ee eee eeseneeessesecsees 9%
“qt ‘tured jo uos HaasOor
("| “XX “HUW) slopeyD
lee °°" saeccnecceserereerece oF
lon" Been -epeane Os i
‘SLSAIUd HDIH ON ‘OLa ‘SUVHA ‘ay
[ PROLEGOMENA.
CHRONOLOGY.
§ vi.]
*(¢nb 4nq) suerddipryg oy) 03 yxy} sdeyaod
pue : WOWATIYg pur ‘suIssofog ‘suvIseydy oy 07
“dda at saya ay (Apquqoid) suvak omy 04} Suny
‘ganqoaluoo Jo uoItpray st puofog [ev pur ‘sov{d sox}
s}oV 94} Jo uonrvorqnd oy} A[quqoad our siqy jo
pus 943 IW *([@—[] ‘tAxx) asnoy poaty uMo siq (1 °6 °XX ‘WWUY) Jossa90ns si]
ur sivok OM} soqovaid pur s[pomp ‘s2umzep2w mepojsna |SB 4U98 SI SANIATY ‘OWOY 4V SUTATLIG sMou
ul ydoxy Suroq pure : (Arenaqoyy UL) oMLOY UT SsoATIe [Neg|PY} UQ ‘7g TouUINs UT ‘goad ‘snysayq Jo YYVEG
‘([] (MWIAXX—T ‘11Axx) si0qUIM of o10qM
‘RyRIAT IB porxoormdtys sy—'UUINyNe 944 UI 9ye] OULOY
0} vos Aq YO yuos pue ‘(Ze “IAXX—E@Y_ “AXX) sNyso,q
pue vddiisy o10jaq pavoy st—‘(g[—[ ‘Axx) resag
0} speadde oy ‘mayesnio¢ 4e patty oq 0} uexe} BuTOq Jo
iosuep ul pur ‘sor oy} Aq snysoyf oojoq posnooe Jutog
“vadeseg ye uostid UT [Neg
‘(6 ‘Q Xx ‘MUy ‘JZ ‘AIxx) SALSA] saIOUog
Aq paposiedus st xt[ayf (9 JO e[ppluz ay} ynogy
"(gg "Ixx— Jz, ‘Ixx) xtpoqy Aq wostad ur ydoxy pur ‘uLIpsyurg oy} pur sviuvuy
Aq pasnoor st oq 919A ‘XI[AJ 0} VoreseAD 0} UES pur ‘sMo¢ O43 Jo sjord ayy Woy svIsdrT oUNqII}}
ayy Aq panosas ‘wIpayquTg 943 pue serurUYy or0joq yYySnoaq ‘ojdutay ayy UL SMa IVeISy oy Aq)
poztes stozy *(9[ "XX JO ‘9| IXX—T ‘Xx) ys000}uaq o10joq sAup moj} B (JISTA TYJLT) Wolusnisae ye
SUIAIIG—‘vatesay 0} ‘sivma[o1g pur ‘oad yz, “vanqyeg ‘snyqo[lf{ ‘story, ye Suryonoj—g judy syies oy
souey ‘iddijiyg je toysepy spuods—molesnisp Ioy purty Aq yo sjos 9Y ‘Aoxjv UOOG—'*(¢sUR]RTRH|
0} ‘doy pur) (g¢ jo Sutuuisoq 043 ul) sUBMOY oT} 09 ETYSIdy oy) (eZ ‘| “AX “MOY ‘yULIOD)
MO1J) SO} PUL (Z “XX) S1O}UIM OT] LOTT ‘99901 0} BDUZY] pue—‘ ("TR Z XT “IOD Z) SUBTIUTIOD
8Y} 04 ‘dy puodag 913 sozttm oY oy ‘(ET “Zl IL 0g Z% ST “Xx spy) vruoposovyy 07 sXouinol og
‘Th—@% “XIX Jo y[NUINy 943 aye ‘(/¢) ysooo}u0g Jnoqgy ~
“A § “IIL “yo SMoraq vas : yyUIIOD 04 Aoummol pops09
-O1UN UB [VALOJUT SIG] ULdoL{dysnu1 aA, *(Q ‘TAX “10D T)
aanqiedap Sty 910jaq Su0| JOU SUVIQJULIOD 944 0%
‘dq 48a oy} (pue gsuryrexy 04 ‘doq) SO}IIM OY 1OFT
*(ajou pur 6G ‘g “Ax “10 [ o1vdut09
> 1g °xx aniL31dL) Lg ‘ys0093u0qg ag) snsoyday ye [nrg
Cl¢ ‘el “Hf ‘a +9 ‘9 “xx
‘yyuy ] sodvoso jjasmary ynq ‘x1jayq Aq poyno.a ore
SIIMOT[OJ SIFT “SSAUASPTIM 943 OFUL opnqy[nUT
@ spvo[ ‘ge Ixx sjoV 07 popnye ‘uendAsoy oy)
(Lr ‘9 Xx 4juy] exei0g pure
aaTtesy Jo sqaed yy “yy eddiudy syuesaid o10N)
“Cprgt
‘uy ) poyuodde snaumed
jo uos sasag pur ‘(Z9) “aay
Aq Sq} UOUL 9a1Y} UL paor|dstp 918 PPPoE eee eee eeeeee e9
er (I 6 "xx ‘yuy)
pozurodde SONVNY pue S18 eee ee eee eee eee eee ee ee "89
‘(zg 10 19) “By Aq pooridstp
seen eeeeene Gal 9 "xx “qquy ) FIg Peer ee ereereeee eeecrevces 19
‘pajutoddy iavQ Haasor
pur ‘(Tg ur) uy Aq pooryd
-sip st vwddusy ysurese n0y
-yyad 0} omy 0} ous Burlay
erg ereteeeceasenriag
ea eeseees (9 9 ‘xx y0¥V ) Tl
eddusy Aq “gq “FT poyutod
-de 1qeyg jo uos TAV WHS] 218 Poe R Cee eee eee eee eee 6¢;
Lig ctrege
Olg OGD: GEOL 1g
603 °°" aGanaeeepntusavers 90)
gog “cues |:
*([ ‘Xtx) yyuLtoD ye Suryovoad st
sopfody ‘ommuroyy ‘snsoydyy 0) dan py1d3Lmap v1
qsnoryy sjaavay oy ‘Apjuaredde ‘umngne oyy uj—'(zz
‘IMAX) YOONUY 0} suangat (JISTA YYINO,T) 31 1oye pue
‘pg jo sutids aq} ut moresnio¢ ye 48099}09g 94} 10F
[ies sjos “(SUBIMOTeSSOyT, 94} 04 eTJstdq puooeg pus
(‘¥E
*X[ OI: : Gp “pnriy
‘yong 69 “TIX “uly
‘ouL) “ET 1090799
moy 1o1dug ‘OWN
|
25]
proLEgomENa.| THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. [cH. I.
NOTES TO THE CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE.
I. On the identity of the Journey to Jerusalem related in Acts xv., with that
referred to Gal. ii. 1 ff.
Frve visits of St. Paul to Jerusalem are related in the Acts. Now the visit of Gal.
ii. 1 ff. must be either (a) one distinct from all these, or (8) identical with one or other
of them.
(a) This hypothesis should not be resorted to, till every attempt to identify the visit
with one of those recorded can be shewn to fail. Then only may we endeavour, as in
the case of the unrecorded visit to Corinth (see below, chap. iii. § v.), to imagine some
probable place for the insertion of such a visit. So that the legitimacy of this hypothesis
must be tried by the results arrived at in the discussion of the other. The maintainers
of it are Beza, Paley (hesitatingly; Hor. Paul., p. 71, Birks’ edn.), Schrader (der
Apostel Paulus, i. 74 ff.), and Tate.
(8) The visit in question is identical with one or other of those recorded in the Acts.
1. It is not the first visit. The identity of the visits of Acts ix. 26—29 and Gal. i.18
being assumed (and it is hardly possible to doubt it), this follows as a matter of course.
2. It is not the second visit (Acts xi. 29, 30). For we read, Gal. ii. 7, that Paul
was already recognized as entrusted with the Gospel of the uncircumcision, and as
having preached vv. 8, 9 together with Barnabas among the Gentiles. Now the com-
mission of Paul and Barnabas to preach to the Gentiles dates from Acts xili. 1, after
the second visit.
Also, at the time of the second visit, it is wholly improbable that Paul should have
held a place of such high estimation in comparison with Peter, as we find him filling
in Gal. ii. 8 ff.
Again, on this hypothesis, either the first visit, or his conversion, was fourteen years
inclusive before this, which took place certainly before 46 A.D. ; for then the famine was
raging, and this relief was sent up by prophetic anticipation. This would bring, either
the first visit, or his conversion itself, to A.D. 32: a date wholly improbable, whichever
way we take the fourteen years of Gal. ii. 1.
3. The question of identity with the third visit is discussed below.
4. It is not the fourth visit. Forin Gal. ii. 1, we read that Barnabas went up with
Paul: but in Acts xv. 39, we find Paul and Barnabas separated, nor do we ever read of
their travelling together afterwards,—and evidently Barnabas was not with him when he
visited Jerusalem Acts xviii. 18—22. Besides, the whole character of the fourth visit
as there related, is against the idea that any weighty matters were then transacted.
The expression merely is avaBas kal aonacduevos THY exkAnoiay kat eBn eis “AvTidxetav.
Again, if we assume the identity of the visit in question with the fourth visit, the
Apostle can hardly be acquitted of omitting, in his statement of his conferences with the
principal Apostles in Gal. ii., an intermediate occasion when the matters arranged
between them had been of the most solemn and important kind. This would be scarcely
ingenuous, considering the object which he had in Gal. ii.
5. It is not the fifth visit. For after this visit Paul did not return to Antioch,
which he did after that in question, Gal. ii. 11.
6. It remains therefore, that it can only, if identical with any of the five, be the
third visit. Is this probable ?
(a) The dates agree. See the Chronological Table, and notes on Gal. ii. 1.
(b) The occasions agree. Both times, the important question relative to the obliga-
tion of Christians to the Mosaic law was discussed: both times, the work of Paul and
Barnabas among the Gentiles was recognized. What need was there for this to be
twice done? It is of no import whatever to the matter, that in Acts, the result is
26 |
§ vi.] EXCURSUS L. [PROLEGOMENA.
a public decree,—whereas in Gal., no mention of such a decree is made: the history
relates that which was important for the church,—the Epistle, that which cleared the
Apostle personally from the charge of dependence on man : all mention of the decree
would in Gal. have been irrelevant. Similarly we may deal with the objection, that
in Acts, a public council is summoned, whereas in Gal., it is expressly said that Paul
laid forth to them the Gospel which he preached to the Gentiles, but ar’ idtay Tots
Soxodcw. This entirely agrees with Acts xv. 12, where Paul and Barnabas related to
the multitude, not the nature of the doctrine which they preached, but only the patent
proofs of its being from God,—ica erolnoay 5 Ocds onucia K. TEpara. év tois eOveow OF
auTav.
(c) Nor is it any objection to the identity, that’ in Gal. ii. 2, Paul went up Kar”
amoxdAviv,—whereas in Acts xv. 2, the brethren @ragay that P. and B. should go up,
in consequence of the trouble given by the Judaizers. How do we know that this
revelation was not made fo the church, and so directed their appointment ? Or if it be
understood that the revelation was made to Paul himself, who can say whether the
determination of the brethren was not a consequence of it 2? Who can say again, whether
Paul may not have been reluctant to go up, rather willing not to confer with flesh and
blood on such a matter, and may have been commanded by a vision todo so? We
have here again only the public and the private side of the same occurrence : the one,
suitable to the ecclesiastical narrative: the other, to the vindication of his office by
the Apostle.
(d) The result is strikingly put by Mr. Conybeare, Life and Epistles of Paul, edn. 2,
vol. i. p. 546,—“ The Galatian visit could not have happened before the third visit :
because, if so, the Apostles at Jerusalem had already granted to Paul and Barnabas
(Gal. ii. 3—6) the liberty which was sought for the edayyéAtov THs axpoBvatias : there-
fore there would have been no need for the church to send them again to Jerusalem
upon the same cause. Again, the Galatian visit could not have occurred after the
third visit: because, almost immediately after that period, Paul and Barnabas ceased
to work together as missionaries to the Gentiles: whereas, up to the time of the
Galatian visit, they had been working together.”
(y) It seems then to follow, that the Galatian visit is identical with that recorded in
Acts xv.
Those who wish to see the whole question dealt with more in detail, and the names
and arguments of the champions of each view recounted, may refer to Mr. Conybeare’s
Appendix I. at the end of vol. i. of Conybeare and Howson’s Life of St. Paul: or to
Dr. Davidson’s Introd. vol. ii. pp. 112 ff.
Il. On the discrepancy of Tacitus and Josephus regarding Felix.
Tacitus, Ann. xii. 54, has generally been supposed to be in error in stating that
Cumanus and Felix were joint procurators before the condemnation of the former. His
account is very circumstantial, but seems to shew an imperfect acquaintance with
Jewish matters: whereas it is probable that Josephus was best informed in the affairs
of his own country. The discrepancy is a very wide one, and if Tacitus is wrong, he
has the whole history of the outbreak in Judwa circumstantially misstated to correspond.
See Wieseler, Chron. des Apost. Zeitalters, p. 67, note.
EXCURSUS I.
On “THE Ciry oF Lasma,” AND OTHER PARTICULARS MENTIONED IN
Acts xxvii. 7—17.
Since the publication of the second edition of this volume, much light has been thrown
on the interesting questions connected with the topography of this passage, by letters
27]
PROLEGOMENA.| THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. [ener
written to Mr. Smith from the Rev. George Brown, who accompanied the yacht
St. Ursula, Hugh Tennent, Esq., on a cruise in the Mediterranean, in the winter of
1855—6. I have to thank Mr. Smith for having kindly forwarded to me copies of these
letters as they arrived. The substance of them is now printed as an extract from Mr.
Brown’s Journal, in the second edition of Mr. Smith’s “ Voyage and Shipwreck of St.
Paul,” Appendix, No. 3. I extract here such portions as regard immediately the
geographical points in question, referring my readers to the volume itself for the whole
account, which is most graphic and entertaining.
I. “ We asked Nicephorus (the old Greek already mentioned) what was the ancient
name of Lutro? He replied without hesitation, ‘ Phceniki,’ but that the old city exists
no longer. This of course proved at once the correctness of Mr. Smith’s conclusion.
We were told further that the anchorage is excellent, and that our schooner could enter
the harbour without difficulty. We next enquired the ancient name of the island of
Gozzo, and he said at once, ‘ Chlavda,’ or ‘ Chlavdanesa’ (xAavda, or xAav5a vijcos), a
reply equally satisfactory. He told us also that there was a tradition in these parts
that G@y:os TlatvAos aaréorodos had visited Calolimounias (the fair havens), and had
baptized many people there.” ¢
II. “Friday, Jan. 18th (Calolimounias).—Nothing now remained to be done but to
ascertain the exact position of Lassa, a city which Luke says is nigh to the Fair
Havens... Iasked our friend the Guardiano, mod éor: Aaoéa (Adoaia) ? He said
at once, that it was two hours’ walk to the eastward, close under Cape Leonda: but
that it is now adesert place (té7w éphuw). Mr. Tennent was eager to examine it: so
getting under weigh, we ran along the coast before a S.W. wind. Cape Leonda is
called by the Greeks A€wva, evidently from its resemblance to a lion couchant, which
nobody could fail to observe either from the W.orthe E. Its face is to the sea, forming
a promontory 340 or 400 feet high. Just after we passed it, Miss Tennent’s quick eye
discovered two white pillars standing on an eminence near the shore. Down went the
helm: and putting the vessel round, we stood in close, wore, and hove to. Mr. H.
Tennent and I landed immediately, just inside the cape, to the eastward, and I found
the beach lined with masses of masonry. These were formed of small stones, cemented
together with mortar so firmly, that even where the sea had undermined them, huge
fragments lay on the sand. This sea-wall extended a quarter of a mile along the beach
from one rocky face to another, and was evidently intended for the defence of the city.
Above we found the ruins of two temples. The steps which led up to the one remain,
though in a shattered state: and the two white marble columns noticed by Miss Tennent,
belonged to the other. Many shafts, and a few capitals of Grecian pillars, all of marble,
lie scattered about, and a gully worn by a torrent lays bare the substructures down to
the rock. To the E. a conical rocky hill is girdled by the foundations of a wall: and
on a platform between this and the sea, the pillars of another edifice lie level with the
ground. Some peasants came down to see us from the hills above, and I asked them
the name of the place. They said at once, ‘ Lasea:’ so there could be no doubt. Cape
Leonda lies five miles E. of the Fair Havens: but there are no roads whatever in that
part of Candia. We took away some specimens of marble, and boarded our vessel: at
four P.M., sailed for Alexandria.”
Ill. Lurro. “The health-officer told me, that though the harbour is open to the
E., yet the easterly gales never blow home, being lifted by the high land behind, and
that even in storms, the sea rolls in gently (‘piano piano’). He says it is the only
secure harbour, in all winds, on the south coast of Crete: and that during the wars
between the Venetians and the ‘Turks (the latter took the island in 1688, I think), as
many as twenty or twenty-five war-galleys had found shelter in its waters. He further
shewed us an inscription on a large slab which he says was found among some ruins on
the point, and took us up the hill to see the traces of the site of the ancient Pheeniki.
28]
§ vi. ] EXCURSUS I. I. [PROLEGOMENA.
The outline of its ramparts is clearly discernible, and some cisterns hollowed in the
rock: but the ploughshare has been driven over its site, and it displays ‘the line of
confusion and the stones of emptiness.’ ”
The inscription here alluded to was afterwards made out accurately by Mr. Brown,
and is given by Mr. Smith in his Preface. It is interesting and important :
JOVI . SOLI . OPTIMO . MAXIMO .
SERAPIDI . ET . OMNIBVS . DIIS . ET.
IMPERATORI . CAESARI . NERVAE .
TRAJANO . AVG . GERMANICO . DACICO .
EPICTETVS . LIBERTVS . TABVLARIVS .
CVRAM . AGENTE . OPERIS . DIONYSIO .
SOSTRATI . FILIO . ALEXANDRINO . GVBERNATORE .
NAVIS . PARASEMO . ISOPHARIA . CL . THEONIS .
i. e. “ Epictetus, the freedman and tabularius, to Jupiter, only O. M., to Serapis and all
the gods, and to the Imperator Cxsar Nerva Trajanus Augustus Germanicus Dacicus :
the superintendent of the work being Dionysius son of Sostratus of Alexandria, guber-
nator (kuBepyfrns) of the ship whose sign is Isopharia, of the fleet of Theon.””
Now as Mr. Smith points out, we have here several points of union with the text of
the Acts.
1. It appears that Alexandrian ships did anchor and make long stay, perhaps winter,
at Phenice: otherwise Epictetus, the master of one, could hardly have remained long
enough to superintend this votive building, whatever it was.
2. We see the accuracy of the Alexandrian nautical language employed by St. Luke.
We have here xvBepyfrns (ch. xxvii. 11) as the designation of the master of the ship ;
and rapachuw as indicating the name or sign of it (ch. xxviii. 11).
The tabularius was the notary, or agent, of the fleet to which the Isopharia belonged.
Mr. Smith quotes an inscription :
CINCIO . L. F.. SABINIANO . TABVLARIO . CLASS . RAVENN.
EXCURSUS II.
ON THE READING “EAAnviotds IN Acts xi. 20.
My attention has been directed to a pamphlet by Dr. Kay, the Principal of Bishop’s
College, Calcutta, “On the word Hellenist, with especial reference to Acts xi. 19 (20).”
Dr. Kay defends the received reading ‘EAAnviotds against the modern critical editors
with considerable earnestness: I wish I could say that he had himself shewn the
humility and impartial investigation which he demands from them, or abstained from
that assumption which substantiates nothing, and that vituperation of his opponents
which shakes a reader’s confidence in even the best cause. I shall deal here simply with
the residuum of critical argument in his work.
1. The MS. evidence in his favour is B(now apparently ascertained) D°EHL p 13,
and apparently the great mass of cursives: strong, it must be admitted, but not decisive,
with AD! against him, and the testimony of 8 divided (X? reading EvayyeAords, and
3, “EAAnvas).
2. He states that “EAAnvas is the easier word, and therefore “ more likely to have
supplanted ‘EAAqviords in a few MSS., than this latter to have supplanted it in nearly
all2? But it is remarkable that he did not notice the bearing on such an assertion of a
fact which he himself subsequently alleges : viz. that in ch. vi. 1, “there is no MS.
variation at all.” Does not this circumstance shew, that the alteration here has not been
29]
PROLEGOMENA.] THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. [ox I:
to“EAAnvas for the reason he supposes? Does it not further make it probable that
‘EAAnvioras being unquestioned there,—EAAnvas, here so difficult to fit into the
narrative, has been changed to that other form, which presented no such difficulty ?
But of this more below.
3. Dr. Kay has certainly succeeded in neutralizing the testimony of some of the
versions, by noticing that the Peschito, Vulgate, and others, read the same word here
and in ch. vi. 1. In this respect his pamphlet has done good service, and our future
digests should be modified by this fact being stated,—the remaining versions being
carefully examined and discriminated.
4. As to the testimony of Fathers, Dr. Kay’s argument is one so exceedingly loose
and fallacious, that I can only wonder at its having satisfied himself. Chrysostom says
tows, 51a Td ph cidévat “EBpaiort, “EAAnvas a’tods éxddAovy. Will it be credited, that
Dr. K. here argues thus: “I will venture to say that if you were to strike out the word
“EAAnvas, and put x in its stead, simply asking a person to determine from the sentence
itself, for which of the two, ‘EAAnviotds or “EAAnvas, x had been substituted, the
answer would be ‘EAAnviords.” My answer would be the other way, seeing that the
latter word would require no such explanation: but setting this aside, was there ever
such a critical principle laid down, or experiment proposed, and that by one who justly
censures Doddridge for the very same proposal in our text? “Strike out,’—not a
dubious reading, for there is no doubt about” EAAnvas in the text of Chrysostom’s homily,
but—*“a difficult reading,—put a for it, and then say, according to the measure of
your own apprehension and private judgment, what the word ought to be!” Truly,
we may be thankful that the text of the New Testament has hitherto escaped the
application of such a process.
5. In noticing the Editions, Dr. Kay has shewn singular unfairness. He has quoted a
rash and foolish sentence from Doddridge, which says that “ common sense would require
us to adopt "EAAnvas, even if it were not supported by the authority of any MS. at all,”
—and then charged all the critical Editors with having acted in this spirit, administering
to them a severe admonition about ‘altering the Scriptures by conjectural criticisms,’
from Scott, who however himself believes ‘ Greeks’ to be the right reading. In this, of
course, the whole question is begged ;—and the very reverse of our practice is charged on
us. It is by no conjecture, which source of emendation I altogether repudiate, but owing
to conscientious belief that “EAAnvas is the original Scripture text, that I have edited
it; and consequently all Dr. Kay’s charges, and admonition, are out of place here.
6. His section ‘on the meaning of the term ‘EAAnvoral,’ as ‘designating those Jews
and proselytes who used the LXX version of the Scriptures in their synagogues,’ tells
us no more than all knew before. But when he proceeds to ‘the suitableness of this
meaning to the context’ in Acts xi. 20, I cannot but think that he has missed the whole
point of the narrative; and in treating of the objectors to this yiew, selecting myself
as representing them, he has exhibited, as before, remarkable unfairness, and want of
logical apprehension. I might point out both these seriatim, as indeed any reader may
trace them in his pamphlet: but it may suffice to deal with two or three instances. —
Against “EAAnviotds, I have argued, that “the Hellenists were long ago a recognized
part of the Christian Church:” my inference being, that, were they here referred to,
there would be no case justifying the phenomena in the text, viz. a special notice like
éAdAour Kat (Kal is inserted by our three most ancient MSS., A, B, and &) apbs tods
‘EAAnviords, as distinguished from *lovdafouvs preceding,—a special mission of an apostle,
as (for this is also implied in the text, not an hypothesis of mine) on some unusual
occurrence. Now observe how this is treated by Dr. Kay:
“Tf this be an argument, it must mean something of the following kind:
“Some Hellenists had been converted at Jerusalem: therefore St. Luke cannot be
here narrating a wonderful extension of the Christian church among the Hellenist body
at Antioch.”
30]
§ v1.] EXCURSUS IT. [ PROLEGOMENA.
«¢ Why not ?’? we ask. ‘Because we have made up our mind that at this precise
period a further development of the Church’s constitution took place.’ It is sufficient
to reply : ‘that is a mere arbitrary assumption: we are content to say with Newton,
Hypotheses non fingo.’ ” Kay, p. 16.
I may safely appeal to the student of Scripture, whether this be not the very height
of unfairness. I have advanced no hypothesis, but have been led into my view simply
by the phenomena of the sacred text itself: by that “patient, inductive criticism,”
which Dr. Kay himself desiderates. His form of stating my argument keeps out of
sight the very point on which it really turns. Instead of “therefore St. Luke cannot
be here describing,” he should have written, “but, from the diction and character of
this portion of St. Luke’s narrative, it is not probable that he is here describing.”
7. The only other matter which I feel it necessary to notice is, the way in which he has
dealt with what he is pleased to call my ‘hypothesis’ as to Barnabas being sent “ not
with the intent to sympathize with the work at Antioch, but to discowrage it.’ This
last word, italicized by Dr. Kay as being mine, has neither place nor representative in my
note, and is a pure misrepresentation. My words are, “ probably from what follows, the
intention was to ascertain the fact, and to deter these persons from the admission of the
uncircumcised into the church ; or, at all events, to use his discretion in a matter on which
they were as yet doubtful. The choice of such a man, one by birth with the agents, and
ofa liberal spirit, shews sufficiently that they wished to deal, not harshly, but gently and
cautiously, whatever their reason was.” This he designates as “a strange, and not very
reverent hypothesis.’ What Dr. Kay may understand by reverent, I am at a loss to
imagine. I understand by reverence for Scripture, a patient, and at the same time fearless
study of its text, irrespective of previously formed notions, but consistently with its own
analogies.. Now the analogy here is not with the mission of Peter and John to Samaria,
as Dr. Kay represents it, nor was Barnabas sent from the Apostles and elders, as in that
case: but our analogous incident is to be found in Gal. ii. 12, where, as here, the Church
at Jerusalem sent down messengers to Antioch on an errand of supervision. Had any
one ventured to infer the character of that mission, and its possible effect even on an
Apostle, he would doubtless have incurred even more strongly from Dr. Kay the charge
of irreverence. But the sacred record itself has set inference at rest in that instance,
and thereby given us an important datum whereby to infer the probable character of
another mission from the same Church to the same Church; and our inference is, that
the Jerusalem believers, whom we find ever jealous for the Judaic purity of the church,
acted on this occasion from that motive. The whole character of that which is related
of Barnabas’s proceeding at Antioch shews that he was acting, not in pursuance of his
mission thither, but in accordance with the feelings of his own heart from seeing the
work of God on his arrival.
It were very much to be wished that able men, like Dr. Kay, would study fairness in
representing those who differ from them on critical points. The same motives which
he assumes exclusively for his own side in this matter, have actuated also those who
maintain the other reading. We deprecate as much as he can, ‘a bold alteration of
texts, and a supercilious disregard of authority :’ had he dealt fairly with us, and
attributed to us ow own arguments, and not fictitious ones of his creation, he would
have been the first to see this.
It is only waste of precious time to spend our strength in jostling one another, when
we have such a glorious cause to serve, and only our short lives to serve it in. Let all
our strength and earnestness be spent over the Sacred Word itself. For sifting, eluci-
dating, enforcing it, rivalry, if our purpose be simple and our heart single, is the surest
pledge of union.
31]
PROLEGOMENA.| THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. [CH. II.
CHAPTER II.
OF THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.
SECTION I.
ITS AUTHORSHIP AND INTEGRITY.
1. TH1s Epistle has been universally believed to be the genuine pro-
duction of the Apostle Paul. Neither the Judaizing sects of old, who
rejected the Pauline Epistles, nor the sceptical critics of modern Ger-
many, have doubted this. Some of the earliest testimonies are:
(a) Ireneus, adv. Her. iii. 16. 3, p. 205; Hoc ipsum interpretatus
est Paulus scribens ad Romanos: “ Paulus apostolus Jesu Christi, &.”
(Rom. i. 1) :—et iterum ad Romanos scribens de Israel dicit, “‘ Quorum
patres, et ex quibus Christus, &c.”’ Rom. ix. 5'.
(B) Clem. Alex., Pedag. i. 8 [70], p. 140 P. :—ie otv, dyaiv 6 MatAos,
xpnororyta K. drotopiav Geod’ x.r.. (Rom. xi. 22.) See also ib. 5 [19],
p. 109 P. And the same, Strom. iii. 1L [75], p. 544: dpotws 8& Kai 6
Ilaidos év tH zpos “Pwpaious ex. ypade oirwes dreOavopev TH dpapria,
x.7.A. (Rom. vi. 2.) See also ib. [76], p. 545, and al. freq.
(y) Tertullian, adv. Praxeam, § xiii. vol. ii. p. 170: Deos omnino
nec dicam nec dominos, sed apostolum sequar, ut, si pariter nominandi
fuerint Pater et Filius Deum Patrem appellem, et Jesum Christum
Dominum nominem (Rom. i. 7). Solum autem Christum potero deum
dicere, sicut idem apostolus: ex quibus Christus, qui est, inquit, Deus
super omnia benedictus in 2vum omne (Rom. ix. 5).
More instances need not be given: the stream of evidence is con-
tinuous and unanimous.
2. But critics have not been so well agreed as to the IyrEerity of
the present Epistle. The last two chapters have been rejected by some :
by others, parts of these chapters. Marcion rejected them, but on doc-
trinal, not on critical grounds. Heumann imagined ch. xii.—xvy. to be a
later written Epistle, and ch. xvi. to be a conclusion to ch. xi. Semler
views ch. xv. as a private memorandum, not addressed to the Romans,
but written to be communicated by the bearers of the Epistle to those
whom they visited on the way,—and ch. xvi., as a register of persons to
be saluted, also on the way. Schulz imagines that ch. xvi. was written
from Rome to the Ephesians, and Schott fancied it to be fragments
1 See also the same chapter, § 9, where there are six’ express citations from the
Epistle.
32]
§ 11.] FOR WHAT READERS, &c. [PROLEGOMENA.
of a smaller Epistle written by Paul in Corinth to some Asiatic church.
But these notions, as Tholuck remarks (from whom these particulars
are for the most part taken), remain the exclusive property of their
originators. He himself recognizes the genuineness of the portion, as
also Neander, Credner, De Wette, and Olshausen. The more recent
objections of Baur are mentioned and refuted, in part by De Wette,
Comm. juxta finem,—Tholuck, Comm. pp. 2, 3,—Olsh. Comm. iii. 34,
35, and fully, by Kling, theol. Stud. u. Krit. 1837, p. 308 ff.
3. Still more discrepancy of opinion has existed respecting the doxo-
logy at the end of the Epistle. I have summarily stated and discussed
the evidence, external and internal, in the var. readings and notes in
loc. : and a fuller statement may be found in Dr. Davidson’s Introd. ii,
188 ff.: Tholuck, Einleitung, pp. 4—6 ; De Wette in loc.
SECTION II.
FOR WHAT READERS IT WAS WRITTEN.
1. The Epistle itself plainly declares (ch. i. 7) that it was addressed
to the saints who were at Rome. The omission of the words év “Pwyn by
some MSS. is to be traced to a desire to catholicize the Epistles of Paul ;
—see Wieseler, Chron. des Apostol. Zeitalters, p. 438.
With regard to the Church at Rome, some interesting questions
present themselves.
2. By wHom was it FouNDED? Here our enquiries are enwrapped
in uncertainty. But some few landmarks stand forth to guide us, and
may at least prevent us from adopting a wrong conclusion, however
unable we may still be to find the right one.
(a) It was certainly not founded by an Apostle. For in that case, the
fact of St. Paul addressing it by letter, and expressing his intention of
visiting it personally, would be inconsistent with his own declared reso-
lution in ch. xv. 20, of not working where another had previously laid
the foundation.
(8) This same resolution may guide us to an approximation at least
to the object of our search. Had the Roman church been founded by
the individual exertions of any preacher of the word, or had it owed its
existence to the confluence of the converts of any other preacher than
Paul, he would hardly have expressed himself as he has done in this
Epistle. We may fairly infer from ch. xv. 20, that he had, proximately,
laid the foundation of the Roman church: that is to say, it was origi-
nated by those to whom he had preached, who had been attracted to
the metropolis of the world by various causes,—who had there laboured
in the ministry with success, and gathered round them an important
Christian community.
Vou. I1.—33] c
PROLEGOMENA.] THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. [cH, IT.
Of this community, though not his own immediate offspring in the
faith, Paul takes charge as being the Apostle of the Gentiles. He
longs to impart to them some xapuopa (ch. i. 11): he excuses his having
written to them roApnpdrepov ard pepovs, by the dignity of that office,
in which, as a priest, he was to offer the Gentiles, an acceptable and
sanctified offering to God.
(y) The character given in ch. i. 8 of the Roman Christians, that
their faith was spoken of in all the world, has been taken as pointing to
a far earlier origin than the preaching of Paul. But, even granting
that some among the Roman Jews may have carried the faith of Christ
thither soon after the Ascension (see Acts ii. 10, and Rom. xvi. 7, where
Andronicus and Junias are stated to have been in Christ before the Apos-
tle),—such a concession is not necessary to explain Rom. i. 8. What-
ever happened at Rome is likely to have been very soon announced in
the provinces, and to have had more reporters, wherever the journeys of
the Apostle led him, than events occurring elsewhere. He could hardly
fail to meet, in every considerable city which he had visited for the
second time, in Judea, Asia, Macedonia, and Greece (see Acts xviii.
22, 23; xix. 1; xx. 1, 2), believers who had received tidings of the
increase and flourishing state of the Roman church. This occurrence
of good news respecting them in all the cities might well suggest the
expression, 7 wioris bpov KarayyéAAerat év bAw TO KOT HY.
3. The above considerations lead me to the conclusion, that the
Roman Church owed its origin, partly perhaps to believing Jews, who
had returned or been attracted thither in the first days of Christianity,
but mainly to persons converted under Paul’s own preaching. This
conclusion is strengthened by the long’ list of salutations in ch. xvi. to
Christian brethren and sisters with whose previous course in many cases
he had been acquainted.
4. It is not within the province of these Prolegomena to discuss the
question respecting the presence, preaching, and martyrdom of Peter at
Rome. That he did not fownd the Roman church, is plain from the
above considerations, and is conceded by many of the ablest among the
modern Romanists?. Nor have we any ground to suppose that he was
at Rome up to, or at the date of this Epistle. No mention is made of
him,—no salutation sent to him. At present therefore we may dismiss
the question as not pertinent. In the prolegg. to the Epistles of Peter,
it will reeur, and require full discussion.
5. That the Roman church was composed of Jews and Gentiles, is
manifest from several passages in our Epistle. In ch. ii. 17, iv. 1, 12,
2 Tholuck, Einl. § 2, mentions Valesius, Pagi, Baluz, Hug, Klee: and an article in
the Tubingen Theological Quarterly for 1824 (written according to Dr. Davidson by
Feilmoser) which concludes that though Peter taught and suffered martyrdom in Rome,
his stay there could not have much exceeded one year.
34]
§ 11]. FOR WHAT READERS, &. — [pRonEGoMENA.
Jews are addressed, or implied: in ch. i. 13,—in the similitude of en-
erafting in ch. xi., and in xv. 15, 16,—Gentiles are addressed. In what
proportion these elements co-existed, can only be determined from indi-
cations furnished by the Epistle itself. And from it the general
impression is, that ¢¢ 7s addressed to Gentiles, as the greater and more
important part of its readers. Among them would be mostly found the
‘strong’ of ch. xiv., to whom principally the precepts and cautions
concerning forbearance are written. To them certainly the expression
7a €Ovy in ch. i. 5, 18, xv. 15, 16, is to be applied, in the strict sense; and
in those places it represents the persons to whom the Epistle is mainly
addressed. ‘The same may be said of ch. x1. 13, 14, where tyeis ra €Ov7
are evidently the majority of the readers, as contrasted with the rwes é
avrav, the Jewish believers.
6. It may be interesting to add testimonies from profane writers
which are connected with the spread of Christianity at Rome.
That the Jews were found in great numbers there, is evident.
(a) Josephus, Antt. xvii. 11. 1, mentioning an embassy which came
to Rome from Judza under Varus, in the time of Augustus, says, kal
joav ot pev tpeaBes of arootadevtes yvexpy Tod eOvovs TevTyKOVTA, oUV-
ioravto dé avrots Tv ért “‘Puuns “lovdalwy irép éxrakisytAtovs.
(B) Philo, leg. ad Caium, § 23, vol. i. p. 569, in a passage too long
for citation, says that Augustus gave them the free exercise of their
religion, and a quarter beyond the Tiber for their habitation.
(y) Dio Cassius xxxvil. 17, kal €or kat rapa trois “Pwpalos 7d yévos
todto, KoAovabev pev TodAakis, av&ybev S& exit wA€ioTov, ste Kal és Tap-
pyolav THs voploews ExviKnoar.
(5) So far relates to Judaism proper: in the following it is impossible
to say how far Christianity may have been ignorantly confounded
with it.
Augustine, de Civ. Dei vi. 11, vol. vii. p. 192, cites from Seneca, ‘in
eo libro quem contra superstitiones condidit,—De illis sane Judzis cum
loqueretur, ait :—‘ Cum interim usque eo sceleratissime gentis consuetudo
convaluit, ut per omnes jam terras recepta sit: victi victoribus leges
dederunt.’
(ce) Tacitus, in the same place where he relates the persecution of the
Christians by Nero on occasion of the fire at Rome, adds, ‘ repressaque in
preesens exitiabilis superstitio rursus erumpebat, non modo per Judeam,
originem ejus mali, sed per urbem etiam’... .
(¢) Juvenal describes the Judaizing Romans at a later period in a
strain of bitter satire, Sat. xiv. 96 ff.
(7) On the passages in Sueton. Claud. 25, and Dio Cass. lx. 6, re-
lating to the expulsion or coercion of the Jews at Rome, see note on
Acts xviii. 2.
7. It yet remains to consider the supposed discrepancy between our
35] ce 2
PROLEGOMENA.|] THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. [ou.: a
Epistle, and the state of the Christian church at Rome implied some
vears subsequent to it in Acts xxviii. This discrepancy has been made
the most of by Dr. Baur, and by him pronounced irreconcileable. The
flourishing state of the Roman church set forth in this Epistle seems to
him to be inconsistent with the tone used by the Jews in their speech
to Paul, Acts xxviii. 22: d&otpev d€ rapa cod dKxodoar & dpovels’ rept pev
yap HS aipécews ta’tys yvwortov jpiv eotw Ore TavTaxod avriAéyerar.
Olshausen and Tholuck have been at much pains to give a solution of
the difficulty: the former referring the circumstance to the entire
severance between Christians and Jews at Rome made necessary by
Claudius’s persecutions of the Jews,—the latter, following many other
Commentators, to an affected ignorance of the Christian sect on the part
of the Jews.
On this I will remark,—that the difficulty itself does not seem to
me so serious as the German writers generally have regarded it. The
answer of the Jews was to a speech of Paul in which he had given a
remarkable instance of his becoming to the Jews as a Jew. He repre-
sents, that he had no real quarrel with his nation: that in fact he was a
prisoner for the hope of Israel. This hope they certainly knew, either
from previous acquaintance with his name and character, or from his
own lips in words which have not been recorded, to be bound up with
belief in Jesus as the Messiah. They had received (see note in loc.)
no message respecting him from Judea laying any thing zovypov to his
charge: and they were anxious to have an account from himself of his
opinions and their ground: for as for this sect, they were well aware
that every where it was a thing av7iWeydpevov: the very word, be
it observed, used in ver. 19 [and ch. xiii. 45], respecting the opposition
raised by the Jews to Paul. Now we may avail ourselves of both
Olshausen’s and Tholuck’s suppositions. On the one hand it was very
likely that the intercourse between Jews and Christians at Rome would
be exceedingly small. The Christian church, consisting mostly of Gen-
tiles, would absorb into itself the Jews who joined it, and who would,
for the reason assigned by Olshausen, studiously separate themselves
from their unbelieving countrymen. Again, it would not be likely that
the Roman Jews, in their speech to Paul, would enter into any particu-
lars respecting the sect,—only informing him, since he had professed
himself in heart at peace with his nation and bound on behalf of their
hope, that they were well aware of the general unpopularity among
Jews of the sect to which he had attached himself, and wished from him
an explanation on this head. Something also must be allowed for the
restraint with which they spoke to one under the special custody, as a
state prisoner, of the highest power in Rome, and in the presence of a
representative of that power.
Thus the difficulty is much lessened: and it belongs indeed to that
36]
§ m1] WITH WHAT OBJECT, &c. [PROLEGOMENA.
class, the occurrence of which in the sacred text is to be regarded far
rather as a confirmation of our faith, by shewing us how simple and
veracious is the narrative of things said and done, than as a hindrance
to it by setting one statement against another.
With respect to that part of it which concerns the notoriety of the
Roman church,—I may remark that its praise for faith in all the world,
being a matter reported by Christians to Christians, and probably
unknown to ‘those without,’ need not enter as a disturbing element into
our consideration.
8. For a judicious and clear statement of the subsequent history of
the early Roman church, I cannot do better than refer my readers to
the former part of the work of Mr. Shepherd, “The History of the
Church of Rome.”
SECTION III.
WITH WHAT OBJECT IT WAS WRITTEN.
1. In answering this question, critics have been divided between the
claims of the unquestionably most important doctrinal portion of the
Epistle, and the particular matters treated in the parenthetical section -
(ch. ix.—xi.) and the conclusion (ch. xiv.—xvi.). It has not enough
been borne in mind, that the occasion of writing an Epistle is one thing,
—the great object of the Epistle itself, another. The ill-adjusted ques-
tions between the Jewish and Gentile believers, of which St. Paul had
doubtless heard from Rome, may have prompted him originally to write
to them: but when this resolve was once formed,—the importance of
Rome as the centre of the Gentile world would naturally lead him to
lay forth in this more than in any other Epistle the statement of the
divine dealings with regard to Jew and Gentile, now one in Christ. I
will therefore speak separately of the prompting occasion, and the main
object, of the Epistle.
2. The eulogy of the faith of the Roman Christians which Paul met
with in all his travels, could hardly fail to be accompanied with notices
respecting their peculiar difficulties. These might soon have been set at
rest by his presence and oral teaching: and he had accordingly resolved
long since to visit them (ch. i. 10—13). MHindrances however had
occurred : and that advice which he was not as yet permitted to give by
word of mouth, he was prompted to send to them in a letter.
3. The contents of that letter plainly shew what their difficulties
were. Mixed as the church was of Jew and Gentile, the relative posi-
tion in God’s favour of each of these would, in defect of solid and broad
views of the universality of man’s guilt and God’s grace, furnish a sub-
ject of continual jealousy and irritation. And if we assume that the
Gentile believers much preponderated in numbers, we shall readily infer
37] :
PROLEGOMENA.| THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. [Cui a6
that the religious scruples of the Jews as to times and meats would be
likely to be with too little consideration overborne.
4. From such circumstances we may well conceive that, under divine
guidance, the present form of the Epistle was suggested to the Apostle.
The main security for a proper estimate being formed of both Jew and
Gentile, would be, the possession of right and adequate convictions of
the universality of man’s guilt and God’s free justifying grace. This
accordingly it was Paul’s great object to furnish; and on it he expends
by far the greatest portion of his labour and space. But while so doing,
we may trace his continued anxiety to steer his way cautiously among
the strong feelings and prejudices which beset the path on either hand.
If by a vivid description of the depravity of Heathendom he might be
likely to minister to the pride of the Jew, he forthwith turns to him and
abases him before God equally with the others. But when this is
accomplished, lest he should seem to have lost sight of the pre-eminence
of God’s chosen people, and to have exposed the privileges of the Jew
to the slight of the Gentile, he enumerates those privileges, and dwells
on the true nature of that pre-eminence. Again when the great argu-
ment is brought to a close in ch. viii., by the completion of the bringing
in of life by Christ Jesus, and the absolute union in time and after time
of every believer with Him,—for fear he should seem amidst the glories
of redemption to have forgotten his own people, now as a nation
rejected, he devotes three weighty chapters to an earnest and affec-
tionate consideration of their case—to a deprecation of all triumph
over them on the part of the Gentile, and a clear setting forth of the
real mutual position of the two great classes of his readers. Then, after
binding them all together again, in ch. xii. xiii., by precepts respecting
Christian life, conduct towards their civil superiors, and mutual love, he
proceeds in ch. xiv. to adjust those peculiar matters of doubt,—now ren-
dered comparatively easy after the settlement of the great principle in-
volving them,—respecting which they were divided. He recommends
forbearance towards the weak and scrupulous,—at the same time class-
ing himself among the strong, and manifestly implying on which side his
own apostolic judgment lay. Having done this, he again places before
them their mutual position as co-heirs of the divine promises and mercy
(ch. xv. 1—13), and concludes the Epistle with matters of personal
import to himself and them, and with salutations in the Lord. And
probably on re-perusing his work, either at the time, or, as the altered
style seems to import, in after years at Rome, he subjoins the fervid and
characteristic doxology with which it closes.
5. There seems quite enough in the cireumstances of the Roman
Church to have led naturally to such an Epistle, without supposing with
some critics, that an elaborate plan of written doctrinal teaching, to
supply the want of oral, was present to the mind of the Apostle. We
38]
§ rv. ] AT WHAT TIME, &c. [PROLEGOMENA.
must not forget to whom he was writing, nor fail to allow for the
greater importance naturally attaching to an Epistle which would be
the cherished possession and exemplar of the greatest of the Gentile
churches. It was an Epistle to all Gentiles, from the Apostle of the
Gentiles: tuiv A€yw Tots Overw: éf doov pév eipe eyo eOvav droarodos,
THv dvakoviay pov dogafw. It had for its end the settlement, on the
broad principles of God’s truth and love, of the mutual relations, and
union in Christ, of God’s ancient people, and the recently engrafted
world. What wonder then, if it be found to contain an exposition of
man’s unworthiness and God’s redeeming love, such as not even Holy
Scripture itself elsewhere furnishes ?
SECTION IV.
AT WHAT TIME AND PLACE IT WAS WRITTEN.
1. This is more plainly pointed out in our Epistle than in most of
the others. The Apostle was about to set out for Jerusalem with a
contribution from the churches of Macedonia and Achaia (ch. xv. 25 ff.).
To make this contribution he had exhorted the Corinthian church, 1 Cor.
xvi. 1 ff., and hinted the possibility of his carrying it to Jerusalem in
person, after wintering with them. And again in 2 Cor. viii. ix. he
recurs to the subject, blames the tardiness of the Corinthians in pre-
paring the contribution, and (ib. xii. 1) describes himself as coming to
them immediately. Comparing these notices with Acts xx. 1 ff., we find
that Paul left Ephesus (after Pentecost, see notes there) for Mace-
donia, wintered at Corinth, and thence went to Jerusalem accom-
panied by several brethren, bearing (ib. xxiv. 17) alms to his nation
and offerings.
2. Thus far it would appear that it was written close upon, or during,
his journey to bear alms to Jerusalem. But the very place is pointed
out by evidence which can hardly be misapplied. We have a special
commendation of Phaebe, a deaconess of the church at Kenchrea, to the
kindness and attention of the Roman Christians: such a commendation
as could hardly have been sent, had she not been, as generally believed,
the bearer of the letter. Again, greetings are sent (ch. xvi. 23) from
Gaius, evidently a resident, for he is called 6 €€vos pov kat OAns Tis éx-
kAnoias. But on comparing 1 Cor. i. 14, we find Paul telling the Co-
rinthians that he baptized among them one Gaius. These persons can
hardly but be one and the same. Again, Erastus is mentioned as
steward of the erty. Therefore, as Tholuck remarks, of some city well
known to the Romans, and one in which he must have been some time
resident, so to speak of it. I may add, that after the mention of
39]
PROLEGOMENA.| THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. [CH. IT.
Kenchrea, % 7dAts can be no other than Corinth: just as, if the Peirzus
had been mentioned, # zoArs would necessarily mean Athens. (An
Erastus is said to have remained at Corinth, 2 Tim. iv. 20, but the
identity is too uncertain for the notice to be more than a possible
corroboration. )
3. From the above evidence it is placed almost beyond question that
the Epistle was written from Corinth, at the close of the three months’
residence there of Acts xx. 8,—the wapaxeacia of 1 Cor. xvi. 6,—when
Paul was just about to depart (vuvi d& ropevopas, ch. xv. 25) for Jeru-
salem on his errand of charity.
4. By consulting the chronological table appended to the Prolegg.
to the Acts, it will be seen that I place this visit in the winter of A.D.
57—58. The Epistle accordingly was sent in the spring of 4.D. 58, the
fourth of the reign of Nero.
SECTION V.
LANGUAGE AND STYLE.
1. It might perhaps have been expected, that an Epistle to Romans
would have been written in Latin. But Greek had become so far
the general language of the world, that there is no ground for sur-
prise_in the Apostle having employed it. Not to cite at length the
passages in the classics (Tacit. de Orator. c. 29: Martial, Epig. xiv. 56:
Juvenal, Sat. vi. 184—189) which point to the universal adoption of
Greek habits and language at Rome, we have the similar instances of
Ignatius, Dionysius of Corinth, and Irenzeus, all of whom wrote to the
Roman Christians in Greek. Clement, Bishop of Rome, wrote in Greek.
Justin Martyr addressed his apologies to the Roman Emperors in
Greek. And if it be objected, that the greater number of the Christian
converts would belong to the lower classes, we may answer, that a
great proportion of these were native Greeks: see Juvenal, Sat. iii.
60—SO.
2. In speaking of the style of the Epistle, the following general
remarks on the style of the Apostle Paul, taken from Tholuck’s Intro-
duction to his Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, p. 26 ff., are of
considerable interest: ‘As in general we can best apprehend and esti-
mate the s/yle of a writer in connexion with his character, so is it with
the Apostle Paul. The attributes which especially characterize the
originality of Paul as an Author, are Power, Fulness, and Warmth.
If to these attributes is added Perspicuity of unfolding thought, we have
all united, which ennobles an orator. But fulness of ideas and warmth
of feelings often bring with them a certain informality of expression:
the very wealth of the productive power does not always leave time to
4.0]
§ v.] LANGUAGE AND STYLE. [PROLEGOMENA.
educate (as Hamann expresses it) the thoughts which are born into the
light,—to arrange and select the feelings. Together with the excel-
lences above mentioned, something of this defect is found in the style
of the great Apostle of the Gentiles. Something of that which Diony-
sius of Halicarnassus de Comp. Verb. ¢. 22 says of ‘ compositio austera,’
is applicable to the Apostle’s method of expression. ovre rapica Bov-
Nerar Ta KAA GAARAOLS cival, O’TE Tapdpola, OTE dvayKaia SovAevovra
dxorovbia, GAN ebyevy K. GAG K. CAevOepa: pice T eorKevar pGAdAov aira
Bovrerat, 7) Téxvy, K. Kata Taos NéyeoOar pGAdXor, 7) Kat’ 7Oos. zepidovs
d€ ouv7évae avvaptigovoas Tov vodv Ta wOAAG pev ovTe Bovderau ei Oé
more aiTouatws ert todto KarevexOein, TO averitydevtov eudaivew ede
kal adedés, «.7.A. The high claims of St. Paul to the reputation of elo-
quence were acknowledged by remote Christian antiquity. Nay, we
have in all probability an honourable testimony to the same effect from
one of the most celebrated critics of heathen Rome,—that namely of the
fragment of Longinus, where he ranks Paul with the first orators of
ancient times, adding however the remark, that he appears more to
persuade than to demonstrate*. From Christian antiquity we will
adduce the testimony of Jerome, Ep. 48, ad Pammachium, ec. 13, vol. i.
p. 223 :—‘ Paulum Apostolum proferam, quem quotiescunque lego, videor
mihi non verba audire, sed tonitrua . . . . videntur quidem verba sim-
plicia et quasi innocentis hominis ac rusticani, et qui nec facere nec decli-
nare noverit insidias, sed quocunque respexeris, fulmina sunt. Heret in
causa, capit omne quod tetigerit, tergum vertit, ut superet: fugam
simulat, ut occidat.’ Add to this the words of Chrysostom de Sacer-
dotio iv. 7, vol. i. p. 431: domep yap telyos e& addyavtos KkatacKevacbey,
otlTw Tas TavTaXov THs olKkovmevyns éxkAnolas TA TovTOV TeLxiler ypappata*
kal KaOdrep tis dpioteds yevvaotatos EoTnKE Kal Viv pécos, aixywadwrilov
wav vonpa eis THY tTaKoyVv Tod xpioTod, Kal Kafaipwy oyirpors Kal mav
TYwopa eraipopevov Kata THS yvorews TOD Heo.”
3. After having stated, and visited with severe and deserved censure,
the disparaging estimate formed by Riickert in his Commentary, and
criticized in a friendly spirit the other extreme, taken by Rothe
and Gloéckler, of regarding all ellipses, anacolutha, and defects of
style, only as so many hidden but intended excellences, Tholuck
proceeds :
“We have then this question to ask ourselves: with what ideas as to
3 The genuineness of this fragment has been defended by Hug, Einl. ins N. T. ii. 334
(342 of Wait’s transl.), on grounds well worthy of consideration. [The passage runs
thus: kopwrls 8 goTw Adyou mavtds Kal ppovhuatos ‘EAAnviKod Anuoabévns, Avotas,
Aisxlyns, “Yreptins, "Ioatos, Aeivapxos (Anuoo%evns 5 Kpibwvos), “Iooxpatns, “Avtipwv*
mpos TtovTas TataAos 6 Tapoets, Svtiva Kal mpardév pnut mpororduevoy Sdyuatos avamro-
delerov. |
41]
PROLEGOMENA.| THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. [ome
the ability of the Apostle as a writer ought the believing Christian to
approach his works? And what is the result, when we examine in
detail the Epistles of Paul in this bearing? The Fathers themselves
frequently confess, that the whole character of Christianity forbids us|
from seeking classical elegance in the outward style of the New Testa-
ment :—as the Son or Gop appeared in His life on earth in a state of |
humiliation, so also the word of God. In this sense, to cite one example
out of many, Calvin says (on Rom. v. 15):—‘Quum autem multoties
discriminis mentionem repetat, nulla tamen est repetitio, in qua non
sit dvavrarddorov, vel saltem ellipsis aliqua: Que sunt quidem orationis
vitia, sed quibus nihil majestati decedit calestis sapientie, que nobis
per apostolum traditur. Quin potius singulari Dei providentia factum
est, ut sub contemptibili verborum humilitate altissima hee mysteria
nobis traderentur; ut non humane eloquentiz potentia, sed sola spi-
ritus efficacia niteretur nostra fides.’ But it must be borne in mind,
that this our concession with regard to the formal perfection of the
apostolic writings has its limits: for were we to concede that imperfec-
tion of form amounted to absolute informality, the subject-matter itself
would be involved in the surrender. If the aim of the apostolic teach-
ing is not to be altogether frustrated, we can hardly object to the
assumption, that the divine ideas have been propounded in such a form,
that by a correct use of the requisite means they may be discovered, and
their full meaning recognized. Assuming this, it is impossible to form
so low an estimate as Riickert’s of the style of the Apostle: while at
the same time we cannot see that the believing Christian is entitled to
assume in him an academic correctness of syllogistic form, a conscious
and perfect appreciation of adequacy of expression, reaching to the use
of every particle. If we are to require these excellences from an
apostolic writer, why not also entire conformity to classical idiom of
expression? And if we besides take into account the peculiarity of the
Apostle’s character above pointed out, are we not obliged to confess,
that so universal a reflexion, such a calculation, as Rothe’s theory sup-
poses, is altogether inconsistent with that character,—that such a pre-
cisely measured style would be inexplicable from a spirit like that of
the Apostle, except on the assumption of a passive inspiration ? and as
regards the point itself, I cannot see, that the writings of Paul, ex-
amined in detail, justify this prejudice in their favour, even according
to the ingenious and minute exegesis of Rothe himself. (This he
instances by examining Rothe’s account of the defective constructions
in Rom. v. 12 f.) * * * * That the great Apostle was no ordinary
thinker,—that he did not, after the manner of enthusiasts, carried away
by warmth of feeling, write down what he himself did not understand,
is beyond question :—but that all which hitherto has been accounted in
42]
§ v.] LANGUAGE, AND STYLE. [PROLEGOMENA.
him negligence or inaccuracy of expression, proceeded from conscious
intention of the writer,—can neither be justly assumed a priori, nor
convincingly shewn a posteriori.”
4. To these general remarks of Tholuck I may add some notice of the
peculiarities of the argumentative style of the Apostle, with which we
are so much concerned in this Epistle.
(a) It is his constant habit to isulate the one matter which he is
considering, and regard it irrespective of any qualifications of which it
may admit, or objections to which it lies open,—up to a certain point.
Much of the diffienlty in ch. v. vi. vil’ has arisen from not bearing this
in mind.
(8) After thus treating the subject till the main result is gained, he
then takes into account the qualifications and objections, but in a man-
ner peculiar to himself; introducing them by putting the overstrained
use, or the abuse, of the proposition just proved, in an interrogative
form, and answering the question just asked. On a superficial view of
these passages, they assume a sort of dramatic character, and have led
many Commentators to suppose an objector to be present in the mind of
the Apostle, to whom such questions are to be ascribed. But q further
and deeper acquaintance with St. Paul’s argumentative style removes
this impression, and with it, much of the obscurity arising from sup-
posing, or not knowing when to suppose, an interchange of speakers in
the argument. We find that it is the Apostle himself speaking
throughout, and in his vivid rhetorical manner proposing the fallacies
which might be derived from his conclusions as matters of parenthetical
enquiry.
(y) Perhaps one of the most wonderful phenomena of St. Paul’s
arguments, is the manner in which all such parenthetical enquiries are
interwoven into the great subject; in which while he pursues and
annihilates the off-branching fallacy, at the same time he has been
advancing in the main path,—whereas in most human arguments each
digression must have its definite termination, and we must resume the
thesis where we left it. A notable instance of this is seen in ch. vi. of
our Epistle; in which while the mischievous fallacy of ver. 1 is dis-
cussed and annihilated, the great subject of the introduction of Life
by Christ is carried on through another step—viz. the establishment of
that life as one of sanctification.
Among the minor characteristics of the Apostle’s style, may be
enumerated,
5) Frequent and complicated antitheses, requiring great caution and
discrimination in exegesis. For often the different members of the
antitheses are not to be taken in the same extent of meaning; some-
times the literal and metaphorical significations are interchanged in a
curious and intricate manner, so that perhaps in the first member of two
43 |
PROLEGOMENA.| THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. Koiepee
antithetical clauses, the subject may be literal and the predicate meta-
phorical, and in the second, vice versa, the subject metaphorical and the
predicate literal. Sometimes again, the terms of one member are to be
amplified to their fullest possible, almost to an exaggerated meaning :
whereas those of the second are to be reduced down to their least
possible, almost to a deprecfated meaning. To retain such antitheses
in a version or exegesis is of course, generally speaking, impossible: the
appropriateness of the terms depends very much on their conventional
value in the original language. Then comes the difficult task of break-
ing up the sentence, and expressing neither more ngr less than the real
meaning under a different grammatical form: an attempt almost always
sure to fail even in the ablest hands.
(c) Frequent plays upon words, or rather perhaps, choice of words
from their similarity of sound. Much of the terseness and force of the
Apostle’s expressions is necessarily lost in rendering them into another
language, owing to the impossibility of expressing these paronomasiz ;
and without them, it becomes exceedingly difficult to ascertain the real
weight of the expression itself; to be sure that we do not give more
than due importance in the context to a clause whose aptness was
perhaps its chief characteristic, and on the other hand to take care that
we do not overlook the real importance of clauses whose value is not
their mere aptness, but a deep insight into the philosophy of the
cognate words made use of, as exponents of lines of human thought
ultimately convergent.
(€) Accumulation of prepositions, often with the same or very slightly
different meanings. That this is a characteristic of St. Paul’s style
there can be no doubt: and the difficulty created by it is easily obviated
if this be borne in mind. The temptation of an expositor is to
endeavour to give precise meaning and separate force to each pre-
position, thereby exceeding the intention of the sentence, and distorting
the context by elevating into importance clauses of comparative in-
difference.
(n) The frequency and peculiarity of his parenthetical passages.
The difficulty presented by this characteristic is, im few words, that of
disentangling with precision such clauses and passages. The danger is
twofold: 1. lest we too hastily assume an irregular construction, not
perceiving the parenthetical interruption: 2. lest we err on the other
hand, which has more commonly been the case, in assuming the
existence of parenthetical clauses where none exist. St. Paul’s paren-
theses are generally well marked to the careful observer; and it must be
remembered that the instances of anacoluthon and irregular construc-
tion are at least as frequent: so that we are not, for the sake of clearing
up a construction, to throw in parentheses, as is often done, to the
detriment of the sense.
44]
CH. III. ] 1 CORINTHIANS. [PROLEGOMENA.
The peculiarity of his parentheses consists in this, that owing to the
fervency and rapidity of his composition he frequently deserts, in a
clause apparently intended to be parenthetical, the construction of the
main sentence, and instead of resuming it again, proceeds with the
parenthesis as if it were the main sentence.
Instances of almost all these characteristic difficulties will be found in
chap. v. of this Epistle, where, so to speak, they reach their culminating
point.
5. Two cautions are necessary, on account of the lax renderings of
our authorized version, by which the details of the argument of this and
other Epistles have been so disguised, that it is almost impossible for the
mere English student intelligently to apprehend them.
(a) The emphatic position of words is of the highest importance.
Pages might be filled with an account of misrenderings of versions and
Commentators from disregard to the rules of emphasis. The student
will continually find such instances alleged and criticized in these notes ;
and will be surprised that so momentous a matter should have been
generally overlooked.
(b) The distinetion between the aorist and perfect tenses is in our
authorized version very commonly disregarded, and thereby the point of
the sentence altogether missed. Instances are continually occurring in
the Epistles: and it has been my endeavour in the notes to draw the
student’s attention to them with a view to their correction.
6. For much interesting matter on this subject the student is referred
to Tholuck, Romerbrief, Einleitung: and to Dr. Davidson, Introd.
vol. 1. p. 144 ff,
CHAPTER III.
THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
SECTION I.
ITS AUTHORSHIP AND INTEGRITY.
1. As far as I am aware, the first of these has never been doubted by
any critic of note. Indeed he who would do so, must be prepared to
dispute the historical truth of the character of St. Paul. For no more
complete transcript of that character, as we find it set forth to us in the
Acts, can be imagined, than that which we find in this and the second
Epistle. Of this I shall speak further below (§ vii.).
45 |
PROLEGOMENA. | 1 CORINTHIANS. [cH. IIT.
2. But external testimonies to the Authorship are by no means
wanting.
(a) Clement of Rome, in his Epistle to this very Church of Corinth,
says, c. 47, p. 805 f. :—dvaddBere thy eriotoAyy ToD paxapiov IavAov Tod
amootoAov. Ti mpOTov ipiv ev apxyn evayyeAiov éypawev; em aAnOeias
TVEVPATUKOS eTreaTELAEV Lpty, TEpt adTOD TE Kal KybG kal "AmoAAG, 81a 7d Kal
TOTE TposkNices twas terorjobar’.
(8) Polycarp, ad Philippenses, c. 11, p. 1020 :— Qui autem ignorant
judicium Domini? An nescimus, quia sancti mundum judicabunt? ?
sicut Paulus docet.”’
(y) Ireneus adv. Her. iv. 27 (45). 3, p. 264:—‘ Et hoc autem apos-
tolum in epistola que est ad Corinthios manifestissime ostendisse, dicen-
tem: Nolo enim vos ignorare, fratres, quoniam patres nostri omnes sub
nube fuerunt’ &c.” And almost in the same words Cyprian, Testim.
i. 4, citing the same passage.
(6) Athenagoras, de resurrect. mort. 18, p. 3831:—evdyAov ravti 76
Aeurropevov, Ott ei, Kata TOV drdaTOAOV, TO POaprov TodTO Kal SiacKEdacToV
evdvoacbar apOapoiav *, iva x.7.X. :
(ce) Clement of Alexandria cites this epistle very frequently and
explicitly: e. g. Pedag. i. 6 (33), p. 117 P. :—oadéorara yotv 6 pakdptos
Tlatdos arnddagev Huas tHs CytHoEws ev TH Tpotepa mpds KopwOiovs Gdé Tws
ypapuv’ AdeAgoi, pa radia yiverbe Talis ppectv x.r..°—And he proceeds
to quote also 1 Cor. xiii. 11, with raAw 6 HavAos Aéyer.
(¢) Tertullian de Prescript. adv. Her. c. 33, vol. 1. p. 46,—“ Paulus
in prima ad Corinthios notat negatores et dubitatores resurrectionis.”
See Lardner: and Davidson’s Introd. vol. i. p. 253 f., where more
testimonies are given.
3. The integrity of this Epistle has not been disputed. The whole of
it springs naturally out of the circumstances, and there are no difficulties
arising from discontinuousness or change of style, as in some passages
of the Epistle to the Romans.
SECTION II.
FOR WHAT READERS IT WAS WRITTEN.
1. “Cortnru (formerly Ephyre, Apollod. i. 9,—which afterwards was
its poetic name, Ovid, Met. ii. 240. Virg. Georg. ii. 264. Propert. ii.
5. 1 al.) was a renowned, wealthy (Il. 8. 570. Hor. ii. 16. Dio Chrysost.
xxxvil. p. 464), and beautiful commercial city (Thue. i. 18. Cie. rep.
i. 4), and in the Roman times the capital of Achaia propria (Apul. Met.
x. p. 239, Bipont), situated on the isthmus of the Peloponnese between
1 1 Cor. 1. 10 f. 2 1 Cor. vi. 2. oT Cor. xo Lh
4 1 Cor. xv. 53. 5 1 Cor. xiv. 20.
46]
§ 11.] FOR WHAT READERS, &c. [PROLEGOMENA.
the Ionian and Agean seas (hence bimaris, Ovid, Met. v. 407 ; Hor.
Od. i. 7. 2,—appibdraccos, dubddacoos) and at the foot of a rock which
bore the fortress Acrocorinthus (Strabo, viii. 379; Plut. vit. Arat. 16; Liv.
xlv. 28),—forty stadia in circumference. It had two ports, of which the
western (twelve stadia distant) was called Lechzon (Aéxaiov, Lecheeum,
Leche, Plin. iv. 5), the eastern (seventy stadia distant) MKenchree
(Strabo, viii. 380; Paus. ii. 2,3; Liv. xxx. 17; al.). The former was
for the Italian, the latter for the Oriental commerce: so Strabo, l. ¢.:
Keyxpeat kojen Kat Ayunv aréxwv THs ToAEws doov EBdopynKovtTa orad.a.
ToUTHW fev xXpavTaL Tpds Tors ex THS “Acias, mpds O& Tos ek THS “Iradias
7@ Aexaiw. Arts and sciences flourished notably in Corinth (Pindar,
OL xii. 21; Herod. 1. 167 ; Plin. xxxiv. 3. xxxv. 5; Cic. Verr. ii. 19;
Suet. Tiber. 834). The Corinthian plate was especially celebrated. But
these advantages were accompanied by much wantonness, luxury, and
gross corruption of morals (Atheneus, vil. 281. xiii. 543; Alciphr.
il. 60; Strabo, viii. 378 ; Eustath. Iliad B. p. 220). (These vices were
increased by the periodical influx of visitors owing to the Isthmian
games, and by the abandoned and unclean worship of Aphrodite, to
whose temple more than a thousand priestesses of loose character were
attached. See testimonies in Wetst.) The city (lumen totius Grecie,
Cic. Manil. 5) was taken, pillaged, and destroyed by L. Mummius (Flor.
ii. 16; Liv. Epitome lii.) in a.v.c. 608, 146 B.c. (ef. Plin. xxxiv. 3),—
but re-established (as the colony Julia Corinthus) by Julius Cesar,
A.v.Cc. 710, B.c. 44,—and soon recovered its former splendour (Aristid.
Or. 3, p. 23, ed. Jebb), and was accordingly in St: Paul’s time the seat
of the Roman proconsul of Achaia (Acts xviii. 18). See, on the whole,
Strabo, vii. 378 ff.; Paus. ii. 1 ff.’ Winer, Realwérterbuch. An inter-
esting description of the present remains of Corinth will be found in
Leake’s Morea, vol. iii. ch. xxviii.
2. The Christian church at Corinth was founded by St. Paul on his
first visit, related in Acts xviii. (1—18.) He spent there a year and a
half, and his labours seem to have been rewarded with considerable
success. His converts were for the most part Gentiles (1 Cor. xii. 2),
but comprised also many Jews (Acts xvili. 8: see too ver. 5, and note) ;
both however, though the Christian body at Corinth was numerous
(Acts ib. 4, 8, 10), were principally from the poorer class (1 Cor. 1. 26 ff.).
To this Crispus the ruler of the synagogue (Acts xviii. 8; 1 Cor. i. 14)
formed an exception, as also Erastus the chamberlain (oixovduos) of the
city (Rom. xvi. 23), and Gaius, whom the Apostle calls 6 Eévos prov x.
oAns THS éekkAnotas. And we find traces of a considerable mixture of
classes of society in the agapz (1 Cor. xi. 22).
3. The method of the Apostle in preaching at Corinth is described by
himself, 1 Cor. ii. 1 ff. He used great simplicity, declaring to them
only the cross of Christ, without any adventitious helps of rhetoric or
47]
PROLEGOMENA. | 1 CORINTHIANS. [CH. IIT.
worldly wisdom. The opposition of the Jews had been to him a source
of no ordinary anxiety: see the remarkable expression Acts xviii. 5, and
note there. The situation likewise of his Gentile converts was full
of danger. Surrounded by habits of gross immorality and intellectual
pride, they were liable to be corrupted in their conduct, or tempted to
despise the simplicity of their first teacher.
4. Of this latter there was the more risk, since the Apostle had been
followed by one whose teaching might make his appear in their eyes
meagre and scanty. Apollos is described in Acts xviii. 24 ff. as a learned
Hellenist of Alexandria, mighty in the Scriptures, and fervent in zeal.
And though by the honourable testimony there given® to his work at
Corinth, it is evident that his doctrine was essentially the same with that
of Paul, yet there is reason to think that there was difference enough in
the outward character and expression of the two’ to provoke comparison
to the Apostle’s disadvantage, and attract the lovers of eloquence and
philosophy rather to Apollos.
5. We discover very plain signs of an influence antagonistic to the
Apostle having been at work in Corinth. Teachers had come, of Jewish
extraction (2 Cor. x1. 22), bringing with them letters of recommendation
from other churches (2 Cor. iil. 1), and had built on the foundation laid
by Paul (1 Cor. iti. 1O—18; 2 Cor. x. 18—18) a worthless building, on
which they prided themselves. These teachers gave out themselves for
Apostles (2 Cor. xi. 5, 18), rejecting the apostleship of Paul (1 Cor.
ix. 2; 2 Cor. x. 7, 8), encouraging disobedience to his commands
(2 Cor. x. 1, 6), and ‘disparaging in every way his character, and work
for the Gospel (see for the former, 2 Cor. iv. 1, 2 ff; v. 11 ff., and notes
in both places: for the latter, 2 Cor. xi. 16—xii. 12). It is probable, as
De Wette suggests, that these persons were excited to greater rage
against Paul, by the contents of the first Epistle; for we find the
plainest mention of them in the second. But their practices had com-
menced before, and traces of them are very evident in ch. ix. of this
Epistle.
6. The ground taken by these persons, as regarded their Jewish posi-
tion, is manifest from these Epistles. They did not, as the false teachers
among the Galatians, insist on circumcision and keeping the law: for
not a word occurs on that question, nor a hint which can be construed
as pointing to it. Some think that they kept back this point in a
church consisting principally of Gentiles, and contented themselves
with first setting aside the authority and influence of Paul. But I
should rather believe them to have looked on this question as closed,
6 ds mapayevduevos auveBdAeTo WoAd Tois memioTevKdow Sid THs XApiTos, ver. 27.
See also 1 Cor. iii. 6.
7 See especially 1 Cor. xvi. 12, and note.
48]
§ 11.] FOR WHAT READERS, &e. [PROLEGOMENA.
and to have carried on more a negative than a positive warfare with the
Apostle, upholding, as against him, the authority of the regularly con-
stituted Twelve, and of Peter as the apostle of the circumcision, and
impugning Paul as an interloper and innovator, and no autoptic witness
of the events of the Gospel history: as not daring to prove his apostle-
ship by claiming sustenance from the Christian churches, or by leading
about a wife, as the other Apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and
Cephas. What their positive teaching had been, it is difficult to decide,
except that, although founded on a recognition of Jesus the Christ, it
was of an inconsistent and unsubstantial kind, and such as would not
stand in the coming day of fiery trial (1 Cor. iii. 11 ff.).
7. That some of these teachers may have described themselves as
peculiarly belonging to Christ, is a priori very probable. St. Paul had
had no connexion with our Lord while he lived and taught on earth.
His Christian life and apostolic calling began at so late a period, that
those who had seen the Lord on earth might claim a superiority over
him. And this is all that seems to be meant by the éya d€ xpiorod of
1 Cor. i. 12, especially if we compare it with 2 Cor. x.7 ff., the only
other passage where the expression is alluded to. There certainly per-
sons are pointed out, who boasted themselves in some peculiar connexion
with Christ which, it was presumed, Paul had not; and were igno-
rant that the weapons of the apostolic warfare were not carnal, but
spiritual.
8. It would also be natural that some should avow themselves the
Sollowers of Paul himself, and set perhaps an undue value on him as
God’s appointed minister among them, forgetting that all ministers were
but God’s servants for their benefit.
9. It will be seen from the foregoing remarks, as well as from the
notes, that I do not believe these tendencies to have developed them-
selves into distinctly marked parties, either before the writing of our
Epistle or at any other time. In the Epistle of Clement of Rome,
written some years after, we find the same contentious spirit blamed
(c. 47, p. 808), but it appears that by that time its ground was altogether
different: we have no traces of the Paul-party, or Apollos-party, or
Cephas-party, or Christ-party : ecclesiastical insubordination and ambition
were then the faults of the Corinthian church.
10. Much ingenuity and labour has been spent in Germany on the four
supposed distinct parties at Corinth, and the most eminent theologians
have endeavoured, with very different results, to allot to each its definite
place in tenets and practice. I refer the student for a complete account
of the principal theories, to Dr. Davidson’s Introduction, vol. iu.
p. 224 ff., and Conybeare and Howson’s Life of St. Paul, vol. 1.
chap. xiii.:—and for separate expositions, to Neander, Pfl. u. Leit., 4th
edn. pp. 375—397 : Olshausen, Bibl. Comm. iii. 475 ff: Schatl, Gesch.
Vou. If.—49] d
PROLEGOMENA. | 1 CORINTHIANS. [CH. IIT,
d. christlichen Kirche, § 64: Stanley, Epistle to the Corinthians,
Introduction.
SECTION III.
WITH WHAT OBJECT IT WAS WRITTEN.
1. The object of writing this Epistle was twofold. The Apostle had
been applied to by the Corinthians to advise them on matters connected
with their practice in the relations of life (ch. vii. 1), and with their liberty
of action as regarded meats offered to idols (ch. viii.—x.) ; they had ap-
parently also referred to him the question whether their women should
be veiled in the public assemblies of the church (ch. xi. 8—16): and had
laid before him some difficulties respecting the exercise of spiritual gifts
(ch. xii.—xiv.). He had enjoined them to make a collection for the
poor saints at Jerusalem: and they had requested directions, how this
might best be done (ch. xvi. 1 ff.).
2. These enquiries would have elicited at all events an answer from
St. Paul. But there were other and even more weighty reasons why an
Epistle should be sent to them just now from their father in the faith.
Intelligence had been brought him by the family of Chloe (ch. i. 11) of
their contentious spirit. From the same, or from other sources, he had
learned the occurrence among them of a gross case of incest, in which the
delinquent was upheld in impunity by the church (ch. v. 1 ff). He had
further understood that the Christian brethren were in the habit of
carrying their disputes before heathen tribunals (ch. vi. 1 ff.). And it
had been represented to him that there were irregularities requiring
reprehension in their manner of celebrating the Agape, which indeed
they had so abused, that they could now be no longer called the Supper
of the Lord. Such were their weighty errors in practice: and among
these it would have been hardly possible that Christian doctrine should
remain sound. So far was this from being the case, that some among
them had even gone to the length of denying the Resurrection itself.
Against these he triumphantly argues in ch. xv.
3. It has been questioned whether St. Paul had the defence of his own
apostolic authority in view in this Epistle. The answer must certainly
be in the affirmative. We cannot read chapters iv. and ix. without per-
ceiving this. At the same time, it is most probable that the hostility of
the false teachers had not yet assumed the definite force of personal
slander and disparagement,—or not so prominently and notoriously as
afterwards. That which is the primary subject of the 2nd Epistle, is
but incidentally touched on here. But we plainly see that his authority
had been already impugned (see especially ch. iv. 17—21), and his
apostleship questioned (ch. ix. 1, 2).
50]
§ rv. | NUMBER OF EPISTLES. [PROLEGOMENA.
SECTION IV.
OF THE NUMBER OF EPISTLES WRITTEN BY PAUL TO THE CORINTHIANS.
1. If we were left to infer a priori, it would be exceedingly probable
that an Epistle had been sent to the Corinthians before this, which we
call the first. It appears from ch. xvi. 1 that they wanted some direc-
tions as to the method of making “ the collection for the saints.” We
may ask,—when enjoined and how? If by the Apostle in person, the
directions would doubtless have been asked for and given at the time.
It would seem then to follow, that a command to make the collection
had been sent them either by some messenger, or in an epistle.
2. The uncertainty, however, which would rest upon this inference, is
removed by the express words of the Apostle himself. In ch. v. 9 he says,
eypawa tyiv ev TH exioToAq, py ovvavaptyvvca. zopvors. In my note on
those words, I have endeavoured to shew that the only meaning which
in their context they will legitimately bear, is, that this command, not to
associate with fornicators, was contained in a previous Epistle to them,
which has not been preserved to us. Those who maintain that the
reference is to the present Epistle, have never been able to produce a
passage bearing the slightest resemblance to the command mentioned *.
3. The opinions of Commentators on this point have been strangely
warped by a notion conceived a priori, that it would be wrong to
suppose any apostolic Epistle to have been lost. Those who regard, not
preconceived theories, but the facts and analogies of the case, will rather
come to the conclusion that very many have been lost. The Epistle to
Philemon, for example, is the only one remaining to us of a class, which
if we take into account the affectionate disposition of St. Paul, and the
frequency of intercourse between the metropolis and the provinces, must
have been numerous during his captivity in Rome. We find him also
declaring, 1 Cor. xvi. 8 (see note there), his intention of giving recom-
mendatory letters, if necessary, to the bearers of the collection from
Corinth to Jerusalem: from which proposal we may safely infer that on
other occasions, he was in the habit of writing such Epistles to indivi-
duals or to churches. To imagine that every writing of an inspired
Apostle must necessarily have been preserved to us, is as absurd as
8 Perhaps the most extraordinary theory ever propounded by one who has evidently
spent some pains on his subject, is that of Mr. Paget, in his “ Unity and Order of the
Epistles of St. Paul,” in which, on account of a fancied resemblance of this command to
that in Heb. xii. 16 (which if examined proves to be xo resemblance), he maintains 7
émioToA7 here to be the Epistle to the Hebrews, which he imagines to haye been a sort
of general circular epistle to all the churches, written previously to those addressed to
particular congregations. I need hardly remind the student, how entirely all the data
of every kind furnished by that Epistle are against such a supposition.
51] a2
PROLEGOMENA. | 1 CORINTHIANS. [cH. IT.
it would be to imagine that all his sayings must necessarily have been
recorded. The Providence of God, which has preserved so many pre-
cious portions both of one and the other, has also allowed many, perhaps
equally precious, of both, to pass into oblivion.
4, The time of writing this lost Epistle is fixed, by the history, between
Paul’s leaving Corinth Acts xviii. 18, and the sending of our present
Epistle. But we shall be able to approximate nearer, when we have
discussed the question of the Apostle’s visits to Corinth’.
5. Its contents may be in some measure surmised from the data
furnished in our two canonical Epistles.
He had in it given them a command, py cvvavaplyvebat rédpvors,
which being taken by them in too strict and literal a sense, and on that
account perhaps overlooked, as impossible to be observed, is explained in
its true sense by him, 1 Cor. v. 9—12.
It also contained, in all probability, an announcement of a plan of
visiting them on his way to Macedonia, and again on his return from
Macedonia (2 Cor, i. 15, 16), which he changed in consequence of the
news heard from Chloe’s household (1 Cor. xvi. 5—7), for which altera-
tion he was accused of lightness of purpose (€Aadpia, 2 Cor. i. 17).
We may safely say also (see above) that it contained a command to
make a collection for the poor saints at Jerusalem. Further than this
we cannot with any safety surmise,
It was evidently a short letter, containing perhaps little or nothing
more than the above announcement and injunctions, given probably in
the pithy and sententious manner so common with the Apostle '.
SECTION V.
OF THE NUMBER OF VISITS MADE BY PAUL TO THE CORINTHIANS.
1. The controversy on this point will be cut very short, if the inter-
pretation given in the notes of 2 Cor. xii. 14, xiii. 1, be assumed as
correct :—and, as I have there maintained, I believe that neither the
words nor the context will admit any other. The Apostle had paid
two visits to Corinth before the sending of that, and consequently of
this Epistle.
2. The difficulty in this inference, which has led Commentators to
adopt an unnatural rendering of the above passages, is, that but one
visit is recorded, viz. that in Acts xviii. 1 ff. For both Epistles were
written before the second visit in Acts xx. 2, 3. (Compare Acts xix.
with 1 Cor. xvi. 8, and 2 Cor. ix. 2 with Acts xx. 1, 2.)
3. But manifestly, the history of St. Paul’s apostolic career in the
® See below, § v. 1 See Rom. xii. 9 ff.; 1 Thess. v. 16 ff.
52
§ v.] NUMBER OF VISITS. [ PROLEGOMENA.
Acts is very fragmentary and imperfect. Long and important journeys
are dismissed in a few words’: some, e. g. that to Arabia, and the
missionary tour in Syria and Cilicia, Gal. i. 21 ff., not being even men-
tioned. No notice is taken of the foundation of the churches of Galatia,
unless the cursory mention of Acts xvi. 6, be taken as such :—and of the
copious catalogue of perils undergone by him in 2 Cor, xi. 24 ff., but few
can be identified in the history. That a journey to Corinth should have
escaped mention, where more extensive journeys and more important
events have been omitted or slightly touched on, would not be at all
improbable.
4. Such a journey must of course be inserted between Acts xviii. 18,
when his first visit to Corinth ended, and xx. 2, when the second Epistle
was sent from Macedonia. But these limits are further narrowed by
the history itself. From xviii. 18 to xix. 9, when we find the Apostle
established at Ephesus, is evidently a continuous narrative. And as
plainly, no visit took place between the sending of the first and second
Kpistle, as is decisively proved by 2 Cor. i. 15—23. Now the first Epistle
was sent from Ephesus, in the early part of the year in which he left
that city, 1 Cor. xvi. 8. So that our terminus a quo is the settling at
Ephesus, Acts xix. 10, and our terminus ad quem the spring preceding
the departure from Ephesus, Acts xx. 1. During this time, a visit to
Corinth took place.
5. Let us see whether any hints of his own throw light on this
necessary inference. In 2 Cor. xi. 25 we read tpis évaudynoa, and this
in a description of his apostolic labours: so that we must not go back
beyond his conversion for any of these shipwrecks. Now his recorded
voyages are these: (1) From Czsarea to Tarsus, Acts ix.30. (2) Pos-
sibly, from Tarsus to Antioch, xi. 25: but more probably this was a
land-journey. (8) From Seleucia to Cyprus, xiii. 4. (4) From Paphos
to Perga, xiii. 18. (5) From Attalia to Antioch, xiv. 26. (6) From
Troas to Philippi, xvi. 11,12. (7) From Macedonia to Athens, xvii.
14, 15. (8) From Kenchree to Ephesus, xvii. 18, 19. (9) From
Ephesus to Czxsarea, ib. 21, 22. (10) From Ephesus to Macedonia,
xx. 1. Of these, it is certain that no shipwreck took place during (6),
for it is minutely detailed: it is extremely improbable that any took
place during (3), (4), and (5), as the account of the first missionary
tour is circumstantial and precise. The same may be said of (7), in
which the words ot d€ Ka@iordvovres tov IlatAov ayayov ews ’“AOnvav
will scarcely admit of such an interruption. It is hardly probable that
any shipwreck took place in those voyages the purpose of which is
described as being at once attained, to which class belong (8) and (9),
and, if it is to be counted as a voyage, (2). The two left, of which we
2 e.g., ch. xv. 41, xvi. 6, xvill. 23, xix. 1, xx. 2, 3.
53]
PROLEGOMENA. | 1 CORINTHIANS. (oH. Ink
have absolutely no account given, are (1) and (10). It is quite pos-
sible that he may have been shipwrecked on both these occasions, and
such an assumption with regard to (10) would suggest another inter-
pretation of the difficult allusion, 2 Cor. i. 8S—10. But even assuming
this, more voyages seem to be required to account for three shipwrecks.
It is true that the evidence thus acquired is very slight—but however
trifling, it is at least in favour of, and not against, the hypothesis of an
unrecorded visit to Corinth.
6. The nature of the visit may be gathered in some measure from
extant hints. It was one made év dvry, 2 Cor. il. 1, where see note:
why, we might well suppose, but are not left to conjecture: for he tells
them (2 Cor. xiii. 2 and note) that during it he warned them, that if
he came again, he would not spare (the sinners among them) ; and 2 Cor.
xii. 21, there is a hint given that God had, on this occasion, humbled
him among them. It was a visit unpleasant in the process and in recol-
lection: perhaps very short, and as sad as short: in which he seems
merely to have thrown out solemn warnings of the consequences of a
future visit of apostolic severity if the abuses were persisted in,—and
possibly to have received insult from some among them on account of
such warnings.
7. If we enquire what sort of sin had occasioned the visit, the answer
seems to be furnished by 2 Cor. xii. 21, pay waédw eAOovros pov Tarevdce
pe 6 eds prov Tpds ipas, Kal revOnow ToAXoOds TOV TponLapTyKOTWY Kal p47
petavonrdvrwy ézt TH akaSapoia Kal wopveia Kat doedyela 7 expacay. It
was probably on account of these, the besetting sins of the place, that
his second visit had been made in grief; it was to abstain from these
sins and the company of those who committed them, that he had en-
joined them in his lost Epistle: and accordingly, while we find in our
first Epistle detailed notice of the special case of sin which he had
recently heard of as occurring among them, the subject of zopveia is
alluded to (vi. 12—20) only in a summary way, and in one which shews
that he is rather replying to an excuse set up after rebuke in the matter,
than introducing it for the first time.
SECTION VI.
AT WHAT PLACE AND TIME THIS EPISTLE WAS WRITTEN.
1. The place of writing it is pointed out in ch. xvi. 8,—érmeva dé ev
> , Ld fol “
Edéow ews THs TevTnKooTHs, to have been Epnesvs.
A mistaken rendering of the words (ib. ver. 5) Maxedoviav yap &-
€pxopat, as if they signified ‘for I am passing through Macedonia,’—led
probably to the subscription in the rec. and our English Bibles, éypady
amd Piir7wv. But the idea has never been seriously entertained.
54]
§ vi.] TIME AND PLACE OF WRITING. [rrotzcomena.
2. The above notice from ch. xvi. 8 also shews, that at the time of
writing, the Apostle intended to quit Ephesus after Pentecost of that year.
And on connecting this with Acts xix., xx., it appears (see notes, and
chronological table in Prolegg. to Acts) that he reaily did leave Ephesus
about Pentecost in the year 57. We may assume therefore (as we have
no ground for supposing that he referred to a previous year and after-
wards changed his purpose) that the KHpistle was written in the former
part of the year 57.
3. It will be seen by my notes on 1 Cor. v. 7, that I cannot see in
the words xafwés éore alvpor any allusion to the fact of the days of un-
leavened bread being then present. I have endeavoured to shew that
external probability, as well as spiritual analogy, is against the idea
that St. Paul would have so expressed himself. But there still is no
reason, why the nearness or presence of that season may not have sug-
gested to him the whole train of thought there occurring,— especially
when we know independently that he was writing during the former
part of the year.
4. It is almost certain then that the Epistle was written before Pente-
cost, A.D. 57: and probable, that somewhat about Easter was the exact
time.
5. The Apostle had at this time already sent off Timotheus and Erastu
to Macedonia (cf. Acts xix. 22, and 1 Cor. iv. 17), the former (1 Cor.
ib.) with the intention of his proceeding on to Corinth, if possible
(1 Cor. xvi. 10), and preparing the way for his own apostolic visit (iv.
17). Possibly also his mission had reference to the collection for the
saints at Jerusalem (see 2 Cor. vil., and xi. 18); but the language
used is ambiguous, and we cannot pronounce positively that Timotheus
reached Corinth on this journey. (See below, ch. iv. § 2, 4.)
6. The Epistle is addressed in the name of Sosthenes 6 ddeAdds, as
well as in that of the Apostle. It is hardly possible that this Sosthenes
should be the same as the person of that name mentioned Acts xvii.
17°: see note there. The conjectures respecting him I have given on
1 Cor. i. 1. He bears no part in the Epistle itself, any more than
Timotheus in 2 Cor.: the Apostle, after mentioning him, immediately
proceeds edxyaptoTd TO Ged prov.
7. It is uncertain, who were the bearers of the Epistle: but perhaps
the common subscription is right in assigning that office to Stephanas,
Fortunatus, and Achaicus. For they are mentioned as being present
with the Apostle (1 Cor. xvi. 17) from Corinth: and as an injunction is
given (ib. 18) that they should be honourably regarded by the Corin-
thians, it is highly probable that they were intending to return.
3 Unless indeed, as Mr. Birks supposes, Hore Apostolic, p. 215 f., he was converted
subsequently to that occurrence.
55]
PROLEGOMENA. | 1 CORINTHIANS. [oH. m1.
SECTION VII.
MATTER AND STYLE.
1. As might have been expected from the occasion of writing, the
matter of this epistle is very various. It is admirably characterized by
Mr. Conybeare, in Conybeare and Howson’s Life and Epistles of St.
Paul, vol. ii. p. 28 (2nd edn.):
“ This letter is, in its contents, the most diversified of all St. Paul’s
Epistles: and in proportion to the variety of its topics, is the depth of
its interest for ourselves. For by it we are introduced as it were behind
the scenes of the apostolic Church, and its minutest features are revealed
to us under the light of daily life. We see the picture of a Christian
congregation as it met for worship in some upper chamber, such as the
house of Aquila or of Gaius could furnish. We see that these seasons
of pure devotion were not unalloyed by human vanity and excitement:
yet, on the other hand, we behold the heathen auditor pierced to the
heart by the inspired eloquence of the Christian prophets, the secrets of
his conscience laid bare to him, and himself constrained to fall down on
his face and worship God: we hear the fervent thanksgiving echoed
by the unanimous Amen: we see the administration of the Holy Com-
munion terminating the feast of love. Again, we become familiar with
the perplexities of domestic life, the corrupting proximity of heathen
immorality, the lingering superstition, the rash speculation, the lawless
perversion of Christian liberty: we witness the strife of theological
factions, the party names, the sectarian animosities. We perceive the
difficulty of the task imposed upon the Apostle, who must guard from
so many perils, and guide through so many difficulties, his children in
the faith, whom else he had begotten in vain: and we learn to appre-
ciate more fully, the magnitude of that laborious responsibility under
which he describes himself as almost ready to sink, ‘the care of all the
churches.’
“ But while we rejoice that so many details of the deepest historical
interest have been preserved to us by this Epistle, let us not forget to
thank God, who so inspired His Apostle, that in his answers to questions
of transitory interest he has laid down principles of eternal obligation.
Let us trace with gratitude the providence of Him, who ‘ out of darkness
calls up light ;) by whose mercy it was provided, that the unchastity of
the Corinthians should occasion the sacred laws of moral purity to be
established for ever through the Christian world ;—that their denial of
the resurrection should cause those words to be recorded whereon
reposes, as upon a rock that cannot be shaken, our sure and certain
hope of immortality.”
2. In style, this Epistle ranks perhaps the foremost of all as to sub-
56]
CH. Iv. ] 2 CORINTHIANS. [PROLEGOMENA.
limity, and earnest and impassioned eloquence. Of the former, the
description of the simplicity of the Gospel in ch. 11.,—the concluding
apostrophe of ch. ii, (ver. 16—end),—the same in ch. vi. (ver. 9—end),
—the reminiscence of the shortness of the time, ch. vii. 29—31,—the
whole argument in ch. xv.,—are examples unsurpassed in Scripture
itself: and of the latter, ch. iv. S—15, and the whole of ch. ix. ; while
the panegyric of Love, in ch. xiil., stands, a pure and perfect gem, per-
haps the noblest assemblage of beautiful thoughts in beautiful language
extant in this our world. About the whole Epistle there is a character
of lofty and sustained solemnity,—an absence of tortuousness of con-
struction, and an apologetic plainness, which contrast remarkably with
the personal portions of the second Epistle.
3. No Epistle raises in us a higher estimate of the varied and wonder-
ful gifts with which God was pleased to endow the man whom He
selected for the Apostle of the Gentile world: or shews us how large a
portion of the Spirit, who worketh in each man severally as He will,
was given to him for our edification. The depths of the spiritual, the
moral, the intellectual, the physical world are open to him. He sum-
mons to his aid the analogies of nature. He enters minutely into the
varieties of human infirmity and prejudice. He draws warning from
the history of the chosen people: example, from the Isthmian foot-race.
He refers an apparently trifling question of costume to the first great
proprieties and relations of Creation and Redemption. He praises,
reproves, exhorts, and teaches. Where he strikes, he heals. His large
heart holding all, where he has grieved any, he grieves likewise ; where
it is in his power to give joy, he first overflows with joy himself. We
may form some idea from this Epistle better perhaps than from any one
other,— because this embraces the widest range of*topics,—what mar-
vellous power such a man must have had to persuade, to rebuke, to
attract and fasten the affections of men.
CHAPTER IV.
THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
SECTION I.
ITS AUTHORSHIP AND INTEGRITY.
1. THE former of these is undoubted. No Epistle more clearly marks
itself out as the work of the Author whose name it bears. It is in-
separably connected with the First, following it up, and only differing
from it as circumstances since occurring had affected the mind of the
57]
PROLEGOMENA. | 2 CORINTHIANS. [CH. Iv.
writer. See this more dwelt on, when I speak of its style and matter,
below, § iii.
2. The external testimonies are,
(a) Ireneus, Her. iii. 7. 1, p. 182:
Quod autem dicunt, aperte Paulum in secunda ad Corinthios dixisse :
In quibus Deus seculi hujus exceecavit mentes infidelium.
(8) Athenagoras, de resurr. mort. xviii. p. 3831:
etdndov wavtl TO Aemopevov.... ExaoTos Kopionrar Sikatws & dia Tod
odparos expagey, cite dyaba ITE KAKG.
(y) Clement of Alexandria very frequently cites our epistle: e. g.,
Strom. iii. 14 [94], p. 553, P.:
aitixa PBudlerar tov UaidAov éx ris ardrys Ti yéverw ovviordvat. Néyew
did tovTwv: PoBodpar dé pip, Gs 6 dfis Evay e&yrdryoer, «.7.X. (2 Cor. xi. 3.)
And again, Strom. iv. 16 [102], p. 607, P.:
6 drdéatoXos (specified as Iladdos previously) .. . . eipnxev év TH Sevrépa
mpos tovs Kopw6iovs: axpr yap Tis onpepov Hpépas TO avTo Kavppa. Tots
roAXdois ext TH dvayvoce. THs Taras SuaOyKys pévet.
(8) Tertullian, de Pudicitia, ch. 13 init. vol. ii. p. 1003:
Novimus plane et hic suspiciones eorum. Revera enim suspicantur
apostolum Paulum in secunda ad Corinthios eidem fornicatori veniam
dedisse, quem in prima dedendum Satan in interitum carnis pronun-
tiarit, &c. He then cites 2 Cor. ii. 5—11.
See more testimonies in Davidson, vol. ii. p. 279.
3. The integrity of this Epistle has not however been unquestioned.
Semler (in 1767) imagined it to consist of three separate epistles,—(1)
chapters i. to viii. + Rom. xvi. 1 to 20+ch. xii. 11 to 13. This he sup-
poses to have been the letter which Titus bore on his second mission to
Corinth. (2) On receiving intelligence of the effect produced at Corinth,
the Apostle writes a second Epistle in justification of himself, chap.
x. 1 to xiii. 10. (3) An Epistle sent to the other churches in Achaia
on the subject of the collection for the saints at Jerusalem, ch. ix.
To this curious theory a convincing refutation was furnished by Gabler
(De capp. ult. ix.—xiii. poster. ep. P. ad Corr. ab eadem haud separan-
dis, Gotting. 1782). Weber again (de numero Epp. P. ad Corr. rectius
constituendo, 1798) thought it had been originally two Epistles, (1)
chapters i. to ix.4-xiii. 11 to 18,—(2) ch. x. 1 to xiii. 10, But Meyer
(from whom the foregoing particulars are taken) quotes respecting all
such fanciful discussions a good remark of Hug (Hinl. i. p. 376), that
it would be just as reasonable to suppose the epi oredavov of Demos-
thenes to be two orations, because in the former part the orator defends
himself calmly and in detail, and in the latter breaks out into fierce and
bitter invective. Certainly, on the principle which these critics have
adopted, the first Epistle to the Corinthians might be divided into at least
eight separate epistles, marked off by the successive changes of subject.
58 |
§i1.] CIRCUMSTANCES, &c. OF WRITING. [PRoLEcoMENa.
SECTION II.
CIRCUMSTANCES, PLACE, AND TIME OF WRITING.
1. At the time of writing this Epistle, Paul had recently left Asia
(2 Cor. i. 8): in doing so had come by Troas (ii. 12): and thence had
sailed to Macedonia (ibid.; cf. Acts xx. 1, 2), where he still was (ch. vil.
1; ix. 2, where notice especially the present xavxpar,—ix. 4). In Asia,
he had undergone some great peril of his life (2 Cor. i. 8, 9), which (see
note there) can hardly be referred to the tumult at Ephesus (Acts xix.
23—41)',—but from the nature of his expressions was probably a
grievous sickness, not unaccompanied with deep and wearing anxiety.
At Troas, he had expected to meet Titus (2 Cor. ii. 15), with intelli-
gence respecting the effect produced at Corinth by the first Epistle. In
this he was disappointed (ii. 18), but the meeting took place in Mace-
donia (vii. 5, 6), where the expected tidings were announced to him
(vii. 7—16). They were for the most part favourable, but not alto-
gether. All who were well disposed had been humbled by his reproofs :
but evidently his adversaries had been further embittered. He wished
to express to them the comfort which the news of their submission had
brought to him, and at the same time to defend his apostolic efficiency
and personal character against the impugners of both. Under these
circumstances, and with these objects, he wrote this Epistle, and sent it
before him to break the severity with which he contemplated having to
act against the rebellious (ch. xiii. 10), by winning them over if possible
before his arrival.
2. The place of writing is nowhere clearly pointed out. There is no
ground for supposing it to have been Philippi, as commonly imagined *.
Nay such a supposition is of itself improbable. In ch. vii. 1 he
announces to the Corinthians the generosity which had been the result of
God’s grace given & tuis éxxAjotats THs Maxedovias. It is hardly likely
that he would make such announcement, if he had hitherto been sta-
tionary at Philippi, the first of those churches on his way from Asia.
All that we can say is, that the Epistle was written at one of the Mace-
donian churches ; more probably at the last which he visited than at the
first. The principal of those churches were at Philippi, Thessalonica, and
Berea. We know from 1 Thess. ii. 17, 18, how anxious the Apostle was
1 T cannot help being surprised that any one who has studied the character and his-
tory of the Apostle should still refer this passage to that tumult. The supposition lays
to his charge a meanness of spirit and cowardice, which certainly never characterized
him, and to avow which would have been in the highest degree out of place in an
Epistle, one object of which was to vindicate his apostolic efficiency.
2 The common subscription assigns Philippi: but whether from tradition, or mere
hasty inference, is quite uncertain.
59]
PROLEGOMENA. | 2 CORINTHIANS. [CH. Iv.
again to visit the Thessalonian church: and in the absence of all detail
respecting this journey in Acts xx. 1,2, we may well believe that he
would have spent some time at Thessalonica. If then Philippi from its
situation is improbable, it would seem likely that Thessalonica was the
place. But all is conjecture, beyond the fact that it was written from
Macedonia.
3. The time of writing is fixed within very narrow limits. About
Pentecost a.p. 57 (see chronological table in Prolegg. to Acts) Paul left
Ephesus for Troas: there he stayed some little time: thence went to
Macedonia; and sufficient time had elapsed for him to have ascertained
the mind of the Macedonian churches and to have made the collection.
Here falls in our Epistle: after which (Acts xx. 2) he came into Greece
(Corinth) and abode there three months: and then is found, after tra-
velling by land through Macedonia, at Philippi on his return at Easter,
58. So that the Epistle was written in the summer, or autumn ob bf:
4. Two questions belong to this part of our subject, which it is not
very easy to answer. From 1 Cor. iv. 17, we learn that Timotheus had
been sent to Corinth by Paul (see also Acts xix. 22, where he is said to
have been sent with Erastus to Macedonia) to prepare the Corinthians for
his own coming by reminding them of his ways and teaching. And in
1 Cor. xvi. 10, 11, we find directions given to them for their reception of
Timotheus and speeding his return: “for,” adds the Apostle, “ I expect
him with the brethren.’ Here, however, some little uncertainty is ex-
pressed as to his visiting them, the words being eav de Abn Tyd6eos.
Now at the time of writing this second Epistle, we find Timotheus with
Paul in Macedonia (2 Cor. i. 1), without any hint given of his having
been at Corinth, or of any tidings respecting the church there having
come through him. Nay there is an apparent presumption that he had
not been at Corinth: for in 2 Cor. xii. 18 where speaking of those
whom he had sent to Corinth he mentions Titus by name, no allusion is
made to Timotheus. Had he been at Corinth, or not ?
I believe, in spite of these apparent obstacles to the view, that he had
been there. The purpose of his mission, as stated in 1 Cor. iv. 17, is too
plain and precise to have been lightly given up. And, as Meyer
suggests, the relinquishing of the intended journey of Timotheus as well
as that of the Apostle, would have furnished to the adversaries another
ground for the charge of fickleness of purpose, which they would not
fail to use against him. Had therefore the journey been abandoned,
some notice and apology would probably have been found in this Epistle.
That Timotheus is not mentioned in this Epistle as having gone to them,
is easily accounted for by the circumstance that he is associated with the
Apostle in the writing of the Epistle.
Meyer believes that tidings had been brought by him from Corinth of
an unfavourable kind respecting the effect of the first Epistle ; and that
60]
§ 11. ] MATTER AND STYLE. [PROLEGOMENA.
the state of the Apostle’s mind described in 2 Cor, ii. 12, vii. 5, is to be
traced to the reception of these tidings, not merely to the anxiety of
suspense.
5. The second question regards the mission of Titus to Corinth, which
took place subsequently to our first Epistle, and on the return from
which he brought to the Apostle the further tidings of the effect of that
letter, referred to 2 Cor. vii. 6. The most natural supposition is that he
was sent to ascertain this matter: and this is the view of De Wette and
others. Bleek however, with whom agree Credner, Olshausen, and
Neander, makes a totally different hypothesis, which is thus expressed by
the latter, Pfl. u. Leit. p. 437: ‘“ Timotheus had brought to the Apostle
painful tidings which excited his anxiety, especially respecting the
agitation caused by one individual, who insolently set himself against
Paul and endeavoured to oppose his apostolic authority. (This latter
view he defends by explaining 2 Cor. ii. 5, vii. 12, not of the incestuous
person of 1 Cor. v. but of some adversary of the Apostle.) On this
account Paul sent Titus to Corinth with a letter (now lost), in which
he expressed himself very strongly on these circumstances ; so that after
Titus had set out, his heart, full as it was of paternal love towards the
Corinthian church, was distressed with fear lest he had written some-
what too harshly, and been too severe upon them.” ‘This ingenious
conjecture, while it might serve to clear up some expressions in 2 Cor.
ii. 1—4, which seem too strong for the first Epistle, can perhaps hardly
be admitted in the absence of any allusion whatever of a clearer cha-
racter. All we can say is, it may have been so: and after all that has
been written on the visits of Timotheus and Titus, we shall hardly
arrive nearer the truth than a happy conjecture.
SECTION III.
MATTER AND STYLE.
1. In no other Epistle are these so various, and so rapidly shifting
from one character to another. Consolation and rebuke, gentleness and
severity, earnestness and irony, succeed one another at very short inter-
vals and without notice. Meyer remarks: “The excitement and in-
terchange of the affections, and probably also the haste, under which Paul
wrote this Epistle, certainly render the expressions often obscure and
the constructions difficult: but serve only to exalt our admiration of the
great oratorical delicacy, art, and power, with which this outpouring of
Paul’s spirit, especially interesting as a self-defensive apology, flows and
streams onward, till at length in the sequel its billows completely over-
flow the opposition of the adversaries. Erasmus strikingly says, Para-
phr. Dedicat..—‘ Sudatur ab eruditissimis viris in explicandis poetarum
61]
PROLEGOMENA. | APPARATUS CRITICUS. [cH. Vv;
ac rhetorum consiliis, at in hoe rhetore longe plus sudoris est, ut depre-
hendas quid agat, quo tendat} quid vetet: adeo stropharum plenus est
undique, absit invidia verbis. Tanta vafrities est, non credas eundem
hominem loqui. Nune ut limpidus quidam fons sensim ebullit, mox
torrentis in morem ingenti fragore devolvitur, multa obiter secum
rapiens, nunc placide leniterque fluit, nunc late, velut in lacum diffusus,
exspatiatur. Rursum alicubi se condit, ac diverso loco subitus emicat,
cum visum est, miris meeandris nunc has nunc illas lambit ripas, aliquoties
procul digressus, reciprocato flexu in sese redit.” We may also apply
to our Epistle the words in which Dionys. Hal., de admiranda vi dicendi
in Demosthene, ¢. 8, designates the style of that orator,—peyadorper?,
Airjv: wepittyv, arépitrov: e&mAXaypevnv, cvvyOn Tavyyvpixijv, adnan:
abatypyy, iAapav: ovvrovov, aveéevny: Hoctav, Tuxpav: NOKyv, TaOyTUKHV.”
2. The matter of the Epistle divides itself naturally into three parts:
1. ch. i. to vii. 16. Here he sets forth to them his apostolic walk and
character, not only with regard to them, though he frequently refers to
this, but i general.
2. viii. 1 to ix. 15. He reminds them of their duty to complete the
collection for the poor saints at Jerusalem.
3. x. 1 to xiii. 10. Polemical justification of his apostolic dignity and
efficiency against his disparagers.
CHAPTER V.
APPARATUS CRITICUS.
SECTION I.
1. Manuscripts written in uncial letters.
A. The CopEx ALEXANDRINUS, Cent. V. (See Vol. I.) '
B. The Coprex Vaticanvs, Cent. IV. (See Vol. I.) *
C. The Copex Epnramt, Cent. V. (See Vol. L.)
D. (Of the Acts.) The Coprx Buz», Cent. V. or VI. (See Vol. Z.)°
D. (Of St. Paul’s Epistles.) The Copex Cuaromontranus in the Im-
perial library at Paris, No. 107: a greco-latin MS., of, as Tischen-
dorf believes, the sixth century. It contains all the Epistles of Paul,
1 The texts, in parallel columns, of the MSS. A, B (also B of the Apocalypse), C, D
(codex Bezie), E (codex Laudianns), and D (codex Claromontanus), together with a
collation of 8, have been published by E. H. Hansell, B.D., Reader in Theology at
Magdalen College, Oxtord.
2 B(Verc) means the octavo edition of the New Testament portion of the MS. ; edited
by Vercellone on the basis of Mui’s.
8 An edition of this codex by Mr. Scrivener was published in 1864, and has been
used in preparing the present edition of this volume.
62]
§ 1]
MANUSCRIPTS REFERRED TO. [rrotecomena.
except Rom. i. 1 wavAos . . . . to ayarnrors Oeov, ver. 7. Another
hand, but an ancient one, has supplied 1 Cor. xiv.18 80 0 AaAwv.. .
to onpewov evow, ver. 22, Similarly Rom. i. 27—30. 'Tischendorf
remarks: “It is very difficult to distinguish the correctors who
have at different times touched this codex. The second corrector (D*,
about the eighth century), whom I have oftenest cited, found most of
the passages which he touched already corrected: hence D* denotes
generally two persons, of whom the former (D*) seldom differs from
the latter (D*>), so that the difference can be noted. D? touched a
few places, and correctors subsequent to D* about as many. Some-
times when it is hard to say which has corrected, I have marked it
Derr,” This codex was published by Tischendorf in 1852. “ It
is one of the most valuable MSS. extant: none of the texts pub-
lished by Tischendorf is so important, with the single exception of
the palimpsest Codex Ephremi.”’—Tregelles. Horne’s Introd. iv.
p-. 193.
E. (Of the Acts.) The Copex Lavpianvs (greco-latin: the latin being
in the left hand column, the greek in the right hand) in the Bod-
leian library at Oxford. It is written without accents, in rather
clumsy uncial letters, by a Greek scholar, but probably among the
Latins. Its place of writing has been imagined to have been
Sardinia, from the preamble of an edict, which is written at the
end: @Aduios Hayxpatws otv bed droerdpxwv Sov€ Sapduwias dhra
mo Ta vroteraypeva: but this, as Dr. Tregelles remarks, only
shews it to have been in that island during the period of the duces.
Now the Duces of Sardinia were first constituted by Justinian in
534 (Wetst.): and if, as Michaelis infers from the writing (see
also Marsh’s note), the MS. is more ancient than this Dux Sar-
diniz, its date might be at the earliest the end of the fifth or
beginning of the sixth century. But Bp. Marsh (note, as above)
has shewn by the writing that it is more recent than the Codex
Beze: which circumstance, if the date now usually assigned to the
Codex Bez be correct (the middle of the sixth century), would
bring it down about a century later. It was brought to England
from Sardinia, became, it is supposed by Wetstein, the property of
the Venerable Bede, as it, and no other Greek MS., contains the
various readings which he has noted in his commentary in the
Acts. It was lost sight of for a long time, till Abp. Laud became
its possessor, and gave it to the Bodleian library. Michaelis cha-
racterizes it as a MS. of the utmost importance, and ascribes to it
the merit of having decided him against the notion that the
ereco-latin MSS. have been corrupted from the latin. See
Michaelis, Marsh’s ed. vol. ii. pt. i. pp. 269—274; Horne’s In-
trod. vol. iv. pp. 187—189, where there is a facsimile of the
63]
PROLEGOMENA. | APPARATUS CRITICUS. [CH. v.
[E.
greek and latin of this MS. It was published by Hearne in
1715, but the edn. is very scarce, only 120 copies having been
printed. Tischendorf has re-examined the MS. and is going to
republish it.
(Of St. Paul’s Epistles.) The Copex SaNGERMANENSIS, now
Petropolitanus (having been rescued from the fire of the abbey of
St. Germain near Paris and taken to St. Petersburg), appears to
be only a copy, and that a faulty one, of D, the Codex Claro-
montanus, with its occasional corrections. It abounds with mis-
takes, and has some monstrous readings made up of the various
corrections of D: Tischendorf instances dixawownv, Rom. iv. 25 ;
peta taveira Tos dwevdexa, 1 Cor. xv. 5; wdilopevo Oearpilopevor,
Heb. x. 388. “ Probably not older than the ninth or tenth cen-
tury.” (Tregelles.) Only quoted in the lacune of D.]
F. The Copex AvGIeEnsIs, now in the library of Trinity College, Cam-
bridge. It is a greco-latin MS., which formerly belonged to the
Monastery of Augia Major in Switzerland, and was probably written
in the latter half of the ninth century (Tregelles thinks, the ezghth).
Published by Scrivener in 1859.
G. The Coprex Boernertanvs, also a greco-latin MS., now in the
Royal library at Dresden. This MS., which was also written in
the ninth century, has a singular affinity with the Codex Augiensis,
without being a copy of it. “It may be deemed certain that the
Greek of each of these MSS. was a copy (mediate or immediate)
of a more ancient codex; from which the copyist of each of these
departed at times by mere error. The general description of the
Codex Sangallensis (A of the Gospels) applies equally to this MS.,
to which it was once joined: and whatever shews the history of
the one will apply equally to that of the other. .... This MS. of
course is not a distinct authority from F as to the readings of
St. Paul’s Epistles: together, however, they are valuable as a united
testimony to the readings of the ancient and valuable codex from
which they must have alike sprung.” (Tregelles.) In this edition
we have only quoted this MS. when it differs from F, or when I
is defective.
H. (Of the Acts.) “ The Codex Mutinensis 196: of the ninth century.
It begins ch. v. 28, cat BovreoOar: is deficient from at ynpat, ch. ix.
39, to wdov, ch. x. 19: from wWia, xiii. 36, to repara, xiv. 3. From
kaxeHev, xxvil. 4, to the end, is supplied in uncial letters by some
hand of about the eleventh century. The other omissions have
been supplied by a more recent hand, in the fifteenth or sixteenth
eentury.”’ It was collated by Scholz, and since then more com-
pletely by Tischendorf and by Tregelles.
H. (Of St. Paul's Epistles.) The Coprx Cotstinranus No. 202 in
64]
§ 1.] MANUSCRIPTS REFERRED TO. [prorecomena.
the Royal library at Paris, apparently (Tischdf.) of the sixth century.
It once contained 14 leaves, but, as is noted in the codex itself,—
“post incendium librorum impressorum et subitaneam translatio-
nem manuscriptorum non inventa sunt nisi xii folia.” The two
missing leaves are in the Imperial library at St. Petersburg. Edited
by Montfaucon and accurately transcribed by Tischendorf.
I. Fragmenta Palimpsesta Tischendorfiana, Cent. V. to VII. (See
Vol. I.)
K. Codex Mosquensis, Library of the Holy Synod No. xeviii. Cent. LX.
(Matthei’s g). Formerly belonged to the monastery of St. Dio-
nysius on Mount Athos. Contains the Catholic Epistles with a
eatena and the Epistles of Paul with scholia by Damascene. It is
on parchment and in folio. Each page is divided into two columns ;
the text being written in large square uncials ; the commentary, in
round letters joined to one another. Collated by Matthzi, who
gives a facsimile of part of the text in the volume of his Gr. Test.
which contains the Cath. Epistles, and describes it in that con-
taining the Ep. to Rom. pp. 265-7. Scholz inserted this MS. by
mistake in his list of Cursives, as Acts 102, Epp. Paul 117.
L. Codex Angelicus Romanus, a MS. in the Angelican library of Augus-
tinian monks at Rome, formerly the property of Cardinal Passionei.
It contains the Acts, beginning viii. 10, pus tov eov,—the Catholic
Epistles, and the Epistles of Paul to Heb. xiii. 10. “It cannot
have been written,” says Tischendorf, ‘“ before the middle of. the
ninth century.” Formerly called G of the Acts—J of St. Paul’s
Epistles.
M. The Codex Uffenbachianus, Cent. X. Consists of fragments at
Hamburg and in the British Museum. The former contains the
beginning and end of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Published by
Tischendorf in his “ Anecdota Sacra et Profana.”’
& The Copex Sryarricus, Cent. IV. (See Vol. 1.)
Frag. Coisl. In the scholia of a MS. of part of the O. T. in the Bene-
dictine library at St. Germain, Wetstein found Acts ix. 24, 25,
written by the transcriber of the MS., i. e. in the beginning of the
seventh century. To this discovery Tischendorf has added several
more passages; ch. iv. 33, 384: x. 18, 15: xxii. 22, and some from
the Gospels. The MS. itself is called the Codex Coislinianus 1,
from Coislin Bp. of Metz, its earliest known possessor. See
Wetstein, Michaelis, and 'Tischendorf.
Frag. Tischdf. (See “I.” above.)
Vou. II.—65] e
PROLEGOMENA. | APPARATUS CRITICUS. fori
2. Manuscripts written in cursive letters.
Norr.—It is intended to include in this Table mention of those MSS. only which
contain, and of those particulars which concern, the portion of the N. T. comprehended
in this Volume.
a
Lambeth No. 1182. ‘“ Dates from the twelfth century at the
earliest 4.”
b. Lambeth No. 1183. Written a.p. 1358.
= 3
—
m.
. A manuscript once in the possession of Professor Carlyle; re-
turned to the Patriarch of Jerusalem in 1817. It was numbered
1184 in the Lambeth Catalogue. Mr. Scrivener gives its readings
from “a scholarlike and seemingly accurate collation of it with the
Greek text of Mill, made by the Rev. W. Sanderson of Morpeth,
in or about the year 1804.” Ascribed to the fifteenth century.
. Lambeth No. 1185. ‘“ Might almost be considered a series of frag-
ments in several different hands%.’”’ Assigned to the fifteenth cen-
tury or somewhat earlier.
. in Acts, Lambeth 1255. Contains Acts and Past Epp.—in Paul,
(= a. of the Apocalypse,) Lambeth No. 1186. Contains the
Pauline Epistles and the Apocalypse. Hleventh century.
. Codex Theodori. Bears date a.p. 1295.
. Codex Wordsworthianus. Thirteenth century.
. (=b. of the Apocalypse.) Codex Butler 2. British Museum,
Additional MS. No. 11837. It bears date a.p. 1157 °.
. Trin. Coll. Cantab. B. x. 16. Written a.p. 1816.
. (Scholz’s Act. 24, Paul. 29.) Chr. Coll. Cantab. F. i. 13. Written
about the end of the twelfth century.
(Scholz’s Act. 31, Paul. 37.) Coprx Lricrestrensis. Cited as
“69” in the Gospels, and as “f”’ in the Apocalypse. (See Vol. I.)
. (Scholz’s Act, 53, Paul 30.) Emm. Coll. Cantab. i. 4. 35. Of
about the twelfth century.
. (Scholz’s Act. 61 and 111, Paul 61 and 221.) University Library,
Cambridge, Mm. 6.9. Of the twelfth or thirteenth century.
. (Tischendorf’s “ lot.’”?) Coprx Lonpinensis TiscHENDORFIA-
nus. British Museum, Additional MS. 20,003. “ Unquestion-
ably the most valuable cursive MS. of the Acts yet known.”
(Seriv.) ‘ Can hardly be estimated too highly.” (Treg.) “ Haud
dubie antiquissimi codicis uncialis, qui ipse periit, exemplum est.”
(Tischdf.)
4 Scrivener. The readings of mss. “a” to “o” are cited from the Appendix to
Mr. Scrivener’s edn. of the “ Codex Augiensis.” It has not been thought worth while
to encumber the page with every various reading found in these manuscripts; but
whenever any variation of the uncials is mentioned, the testimony of these accurately
collated documents is added.
e Formerly Cod. Preedicatorum 8. Marci 701.
66]
MANUSCRIPTS REFERRED TO.
& wre fF
© DN
“20
21
22
Epp.
Paul.
IOS} BB wr
26
28
29
30
31
67]
| Paris, Coislinianus 205.
Designation,
| Reuchlini. Basle K. iii. 3 (late |
B. vi. 27).
Basle (late B. ix. ult.)
Corsendoncensis. Vienna, Theol.
5. (Kol.)
Basle (late B. x. 20).
Paris 106 (formerly 2871).
Paris 112 (formerly 3425).
Basle (late B. vi. 17).
Paris 102 (formerly 2870).
Not identified.
Cambridge Univ. Lib. MS. Kk.
6. 4.
Paris 237 (formerly 2869).
Paris 103 (formerly 2872).
See Vol. III. |
See Vol. III. (= Acts 47.)
| See Vol. III.
Paris 219 (formerly 1886).
| Paris 14 (COLBERTINUS 2844).
Paris, Coislinianus 199.
Paris, Coislinianus 25.
Paris, Coislinianus 26.
Paris, Coisl. 27 (formerly 247).
| Paris, Coislinianus 202 A.
Paris, Coislinianus 200. |
Bodleian, Misc. 136. Ebneri- |
anus.
Westmonasteriensis (935). Bri-
tish Museum. King’s Library
18%, Ale
Cambridge Univ. Lib. MS. Dd.
11. 90.
British Museum Additional MSS.
5115-7.
Bodleian, Baroccianus 3.
See above, “1.”
See above, “n.”
Brit. Mus. Harleian 5537.
1326?
XIII.
Collator, &c.
Wetstein “bis atque accurate.”
Mill (B. 2).
Walker and Alter. —
Mill (B. 3).
out Epp.
Stephens (8’) Wetst. Scholz.
Steph. (¢’) Wetst.
Readings given in Wetstein.
Text surrounded by various
Scholia from Gennad., (c.,
Sevrn., &c. On parchment.
Stephens (¢’) Acts 50. Zdentified
by some with 132 (Paul) below.
Steph. (c') Wetst.
Stephens (:a’).
Steph. (7) Weitst.
iii. 6—17. ]
Steph. (ve’) Wetst. “de integro.”
Wetstein (Acts). Reiche (Paul).
[Defective Acts ii. 20—31;
1 Cor. xii. 17—xiii. 2.] Paul
140.
[ Def. Acts
Wetstein.
Tregelles.
Wetstein.
Wetstein.
Wetstein.
Wetstein. [ mutilated. ]
Wetstein. [1 Cor. xvi. 17—2
Cor. i. 7, &e., supplied in a
later hand. |
Wetstein.
Steph. (6) Wetst.
Described by Schcenleben, occa-
sionally quoted by Wetstein.
Acts 48.
Wetstein.
(Def. Acts i.—xii. 1 ; xiv. 23 —xv.
10; Rom. xv. 14—16, 24—26 ;
xvi. 4—20; 1 Cor. i. 15—i.
12, &c. |
(Epp. Cent. xii. Scrivener)
« Obiter inspectus a Wetstenio.
Lectiones cap. xx. Act. mecum
communicavit Rey. Paulus.”
(Griesbach.) Paul. 75.
Mill (Baroc.). [Def. up to Acts
xi. 13.] 1 Cor. xv. collated by
Griesb.
Mill. (Cov. 2.) Acts xiv.
Wetstein, through-
Xvill.
Rom. i.—iy. collated by Griesb.
109
[PROLEGOMENA.
vo |
PROLEGOMENA. ]
Designation.
_———— eS
Brit. Mus. Harl. 5557.
Brit. Mus. Harl. 5620.
Brit. Mus. Harl. 5778.
Geneva 20.
Bodleian, Misc. 74.
See above, ““m.”
Bodleian, Laud. 31.
Lincoln Coll. Oxford, 82.
Trin. Coll. Dublin. Montfortianus.
Magdalen Coll. Oxford, 9.
New Coll. Oxf., 58.
Magdalen Coll. Oxford. Has
been ascertained to be part of
the same MS. as Paul 27. See
ol. LLL.
New Coll. Oxford, 59.
Leyden 77, Voss.
Situation unknown.
Vatican Alex. 179.
Vatican 2080.
Bodleian, Roe. 2.
Frankfort on the Oder. Seide-
lianus. .
Vienna. Theol. 300 (Nessel.).
See Vol. III.
See Vol. IIT.
Hamburg. Utfenbachianus.
Munich 375 (= Paul 55).
See above, “ M.”
Munich 412 (formerly Augsburg
5
The same MS. as Paul 14 above.
The same MS. as Paul 24 above.
The same MS. as Acts 46 above.
| See Vol. IIT,
Vienna. Theol. 23 (Nessel.).
The same MS. as Paul 8 above.
Vatican 165.
Paris Coisl. 204.
See Vol. III.
See above, ‘o.”
APPARATUS CRITICUS.
Cent. Collator, &c.
XII. | Mill. (Cov.3.) Readings of Acts
ii—iii. in Griesb. [Def. Acts
i. 1—11. 1 Cor. xi. 7—xv.
56. |
| XV. | Mill. (Cov. 4.) Perhaps a copy
of 29.
XII. | Mill. (Sin.) [Def. Acts i. 1—20.] |
XII. | Mill. (Genev.)
XIII.| Mill. (Hunt.1.) Begins Actsxv.19.
“ Perlegi Rom. v., viii.; 1 Cor.
xy....”” (Griesbach).
XIII.| Mill. (Zaud.2.) Rom. i.—v. re-
examined by Griesb.
XI. | Mill. (Zin. 2.) Acts collated by
Dobbin. [Def. Rom. i. 1—20. }
XVI. | Barrett and Dobbin.
XI. | Mill. (Wagd. 1.)
XIII.| Mill. (¥. 1.) Apparently the
MS. from which Cramer’s
Catena is printed.
Mill. (Magd. 2.) Contains only
Rom. Corr.
XI.
XIII.| Mill. (W. 2.)
XIII.| Sarrau. Mill’s Pet.1. Wetstein.
— |Sarrau. Mill’s Pet. 2. Be-
longed (with Pet. 1 and 3) to
Paul Petavius. [Def. Acts i.
1—xviii. 22 ; 1 Cor. iii. 16—x.
13. ]
XI. | Zacagniand Birch. Mill’s Pet. 3.
XII. | Inspected by Birch and Scholz. |
Paul 194.
XII. | Mill. Rom. and 1 Cor. xiv., col-
lated by Griesbach.
XI. | Middeldorpf, in Rosenmiiller’s
Comm. Theol. [Def. Acts ii.
3—34.]
XII. | Mill (Vien.) and Alter.
XV. | Wetstein and Bengel.
XI. | Bengel (Aug. 6). (c.’s comm.
[ Does not contain the Acts. |
XII. | Bengel. [Contains only Rom. vii.
7—xvi. 24. |
XIII.} Edited by Alter. Acts 65.
XII. | Edited by Zacagni. Called
Cryptoferratensis.
XI. | Inspected. Catena.
Mill’s Hal.
61
57
I
a |
92
| 12
MANUSCRIPTS REFERRED TO.
Be Designation.
Aa,
- | Paris 56.
The same MS. as Paul 50 above.
See above, “n.”
Paris, Arsenal 4.
. . | Bodleian, Clark 4.
. . | Copenhagen 1.
. . | Bodleian, Clark 9.
62 | Brit. Mus. Harl. 5588.
63 | Brit. Mus. Harl. 5613.
. . | See above, “0.”
[64]| See above, M.”
65 | Paris 60.
[66]| See Vol. III.
67 | Vienna. Theol. 302 (Nessel.).
68 | Vienna. Theol. 313 (Nessel.).
69 | Vienna. Theol. 303 (Nessel.).
.. | The same MS. as Paul 57 above.
.- The same MS. as Paul 67 above.
70 | Vienna. Theol. 221 (Nessel.).
71 | Vienna. Theol. 10 (Kollar).
72 | The same MS. as Acts 57 above.
73 | Upsala, Sparwenfeld 42.
74 | Wolfenbiittel xvi. 7.
75 |The same MS. as Acts 22
above.
76 | Leipsic.
77 | Vatican 360.
78 | Vatican 363.
79 | Vatican 366.
80 | Vatican 367.
— | Vatican 760. “
81 | Vatican 761.
82 | Vatican 762.
83 | Vatican 765.
84 | Vatican 766.
85 | Vatican 1136.
86 | Vatican 1160.
87 | Vatican 1210.
88 | Vatican, Palat. 171.
89 | Vatican, Alex. 29.
90 | Vatican, Urb. 3.
69]
Cent.
DIB E
Da
<i
1278 |
XIII.|
XU.
1407
XIV.
XII.
XIII. |
XIII. |
1331
UE
XII.
XII.
XIII.
| Birch (cursorily inspected).
.. Birch (cursorily inspected).
. | Inspected by Birch. Contains
[PROLEGOMENA.
Collator, &c. ze 8
6 |<
Inspected by Scholz. Paul 133. | — | 52
Inspected by Simon and Scholz.
Paul 130.
Inspected by Scholz. Paul 227.
Heusler in Birch. Paul 72. |234,
Inspected by Scholz. Paul 224.
Acts xi. xil. xiii... Rom. and 1
Cor. i.—vii., collated by Gries-
bach.
Acts i.—viii., Rom., 1 Cor., 2 Cor.
iii.,—collated by Griesbach.
Inspected by Griesbachand Scholz.
Alter and Birch. Acts 66.
Alter and Birch.
Alter and Birch.
Alter and Birch.
Alter and Birch.
1—9, &e.]
[ Def. Rom. i.
(2 Cor. XIth cent.) Aurivillius.
[ Def. up to Acts viii. 14. 1 Cor.
xiii. 6 —xv. 38 twice over. |
Knittel. in Matthei.
Matthei. Contains Rom., 1 Cor.
up to v: 3, - with Thl’s
comm.
*«Rom., 1 Cor. i.—iv. accurate
examinavi; reliqua cursim modo
perlustravi.” Birch.
Birch (“ Per omnia contuli”).
A MS. of the Acts inspected by
Birch and Scholz. Catena.
Inspected by Birch. €c.’s
comm.
Rom., Corr., with Catena.
Inspected by Birch. Comm. on
marg.
Inspected by Birch.
marg.
Epp. inspected by Birch. , a=
Inspected by Birch and Scholz. |141
Birch (Acts, Rom., al., “exacte”’). |142
Examined in select places by
Birch. Zacagni.
Comm. on
| Birch (‘‘ Per omnia accurate ex-
aminavi”). [Def. 2 Cor xi.15
—xii. 1.]
Inspected by Birch.
34
30
PROLEGOMENA. |
=
oO
OU
Designation.
Vatican, Pio 50.
Barberinus 377.
Rome, Propaganda 250.
Naples 1. B. 12.
Florence, Laur.
Florence, Laur.
Florence, Laur.
Florence, Laur.
Florence, Laur.
Florence, Laur.
Florence, Laur.
Florence, Laur.
Florence, Laur.
Florence, Laur.
See above, **h.”
Bologna, Can. Reg. 640.
Venice 5.
Venice 6.
Venice 10.
Venice 11.
Lib. 1
Lib. i
Lib. i
Lib. iv.
Lib. i
Lib. iv.
Lib.
Lib.
Lib.
Lib.
Wolfenbiittel. Gud. Gr. 104 A.
(Moscow ?) (Cod. Stauronicet.)
Moscow 5.
Moscow 334.
Moscow 333.
The MS. called “XK” above.
Moscow 193.
Moscow 292.
Dresden. (Cod. Matth.)
Moscow 380.
Moscow 328.
Moscow 99.
Moscow 250.
Escurial x. iv. 17.
Escurial x. iv. 12.
The same MS. as 61 above.
The MS. numbered Acts 9 above.
Munich 504.
Munich 455.
Munich 110.
Munich 211.
Munich 35.
The same MS. as Acts 54 above.
Camb. Univ. Lib. MS. Nn. 5. 27.
|
1387 |
XIV.
XVI.
XI.
XVI.
. | Mattheei (h).
Mattheei (i).
| Matthei (n).
| A folio copy of the Greek Bible
APPARATUS CRITICUS.
Collator, &c.
Birch (‘“ Per omnia diligenter bis
collatus”’).
Inspected by Birch.
Zoega in Birch.
Inspected by Birch.
Inspected by Birch.
-| Inspected by Birch.
Inspected by Birch.
Inspected by Birch.
Inspected by Birch.
Inspected by Birch.
Inspected by Birch. Comm.
Inspected by Birch. Comm.
| Inspected by Birch. Var. comm.
| Inspected by Birch. Catena.
Inspected by Scholz. -|
Rinck.
Rinck.
Rinck.
Rinck. [Def. Acts i. 1—12;
xxv. 21—xxvi. 18.]
(Scholz?) [Def. Acts xvi. 39— |
Xviii. 18. ]
| Mattheei (a).
Matthei (c).
Matthei (d).
., Mattheei (f).
Scholia, but Acts
i. l—ix. 12 given continuously.
Contains 1 and
2 Cor., with Thl.’s comm.
Matthei (k).
Matthei (1).
Mattheei (m).
Scholia.
Matthei (q). Contains Rom. i.—
xiii. with Thl’s comm.
Birch, Gospels.
printed “Basile per Joan.
Hervagium 1545.” A few
notes are written on the mar-
gin. Paul 222.
Inspected by Scholz.
Inspected by Scholz. Prob.
copied from the same MS. as
preceding.
A transcript of Rom. vii. 7—ix.
1, as written in MS. Paul 54.
Inspected by Scholz. Acts 179.
Inspected by Scholz. Thl.’s
| Paul 228. Moldenhauer. See
Birch, Gospels.
| Paul 229. Moldenhauer. See |
[ cit. Ve
ce) Me
So i
| o |<
— | 42
180 | 44
_— _—
| — | 75
— | 45
204) —
205 | 88
206 jomd.
209 | 46
241 | 47
242 | 48
296 —
228 | —
4AL | —
|
— | 82
comm. (So Hardt.)
71)
seq., by Scholz. [Def. Acts i.,
ii. |
—6§ 1d MANUSCRIPTS REFERRED TO. [PROLEGOMENA.
g a5 j i 4 ZC. = 3
2 Bs Designation. Cent Collator, &c é é
- - | 131 | Paris, Coisl. 196. XI. | Inspected by Scholz. Acts132. |830 | —
113 | 132 | Paris 47. 1364 | Reiche. 18 | 51
--| 183 | The same MS. as Acts 51
above.
114 | 134 |-Paris 57. XIII.| Reiche.
115 | 135 | Paris 58. XIII.| Inspected by Scholz. [Def. Acts
i. 1 —xiv. 27. ] =a) Des
1-116 | 136 | Paris 59. XVI. | Inspected by Scholz. 263 | —
117 | 137 | Paris 61. XIII.} Reiche.
118 | 138 | Paris 101. XIII.| Parts collated by Scholz. [Def.| — | 55
Acts xix. 8—xxii. 17.]
119 | 139 | Paris 102 A. X. Inspected by Scholz. [Def. 2 Cor. | — | 56
i, 8—ii. 4. ]
--| 140 | The same MS. as Acts 11
: above.
120 | 141 | Paris 103 A. XI. | Scholz. [Def. Acts xxviii. 23—
Rom. ii. 26. ] == We
121 | 142 | Paris 104. XIII.| Inspected by Scholz. — | —
122 | 143 | Paris 105. XI. | Scholz. Contains only (in this
vol.) Acts xiii. 48—xy. 22; xv.
29—xvi. 36; xvii. 4—xviii. 26 ;
xx. 16—xxviii. 17; Rom. i. 1—
iv. 16. —|—
123 | 144 | Paris 106 A. XIV. | Inspected by Scholz. —|—
— | 146 | Paris 109. XVI. | Inspected by Scholz. Contains
Rom., 1 Cor. — | —
— | 147 | Paris 110. 1511 | Inspected by Scholz. Contains
1 and 2 Cor. —|—
124 | 149 | Paris 124. XVI. | Inspected by Scholz. ——) | aya
125 | 150 | Paris 125. XIV. | Inspected by Scholz.
— | 151 | Paris 126. XVI.| Inspected by Scholz. =
126 | 153 | Paris 216. X. Inspected by Scholz.
127 | 154 | Paris 217. XI. | Inspected by Scholz. Reiche.
Thdrt.’s comm. on Epp. Paul.
128 | 155 | Paris 218. XI. | Inspected by Scholz. Catena. —|i-
129 | 156 | Paris 220. XIII.| Inspected by Scholz. Comm.,
txt often omitted. —|—
130 | — | Paris 221. XII. | Inspected by Scholz. [Def. Acts
xx. 38—xxil. 3. ] —|—
— | 157 | Paris 222. XI. | “Coll. magna codicis pars,”
Scholz. [ Def. Rom. i. 1—11,
21—29, iii. 26—iv. 8, ix. 11—
22; 1 Cor. xv. 22—43.] —|=—
131 | 158 | Paris 223. XII. | Inspected by Scholz. [Epistles
A.D. 1045. | —_- —
— | 159 | Paris 224. XI. | Inspected by Scholz. Catena. — | 64
— | 160 | Paris 225. XVI. | Inspected by Scholz. Fragments
with Thl.’s comm. —|—
— | 161 | Paris 226. XVI.| Inspected by Scholz. Contains
' Rom., with comm. —|—
— | 162 | Paris 227. XVI.| Inspected by Scholz. Contains
1 Cor. xvi., with Cat. —|—
— | 164 | Paris 849. XVI.| Inspected by Scholz. Thdrt.’s
comm., with text on marg.
132 The same MS. as Paul 132
above.
133 | 166 | Turin C. i. 40 (285). XIII.} Scholz, “accurate coll.” —|—
134 | 167 | Turin C. ii. 17 (19). XI. | Colld. Acts iii.—viii.; Rom. x.,
PROLEGOMENA. |
141
Turin C. ii. 38 (325).
Designation.
Turin C. ii. 5 (302).
Turin C. ii. 31 (1).
The same MS. as Acts 135 above. |
Ambros. Lib. Milan 6.
Milan 15.
Milan 97.
Milan 102.
Milan 104.
Milan 125.
The same MS. as Acts 137 above.
Venice 546.
Florence, Laur. Lib. vi. 27.
Modena 14. (MS. IT. 4. 14.)
Modena 243. (MS. III. B. 17.)
Part (written in cursive letters)
of the MS. ealled “H of the
Acts.”
Florence, Laur.
Florence, Laur.
Florence, Laur.
Florence, Laur. Lib. iv. 30.
Florence, Laur. Lib. 2574 (?).
Florence, Riccardi Lib. 84.
Lib.
Lib.
Lib.
vay st
vi. 36.
2708 (?).
Vatican, Ottob. 66.
Camb. Univ. Lib. MS. Nn. 3.
20, 21.
Brit. Mus. Harl. 5796.
Rome, Vallicella Lib. E. 22.
Rome, Vallicella Lib. F. 17.
Vatican 1270.
Vatican 1430.
Vatican 1649.
Vatican 1650.
Vatican 1714.
Vatican 1761.
Vatican 1968.
Vatican 2062.
The same MS. as Acts 41 above. |
.| Inspected by Scholz.
.| Inspected by Scholz.
Inspected by Scholz.
APPARATUS CRITICUS.
Collator, &c.
Comm.
[ Def. Rom. i. 1—iii. 19.]
Paul 170.
Inspected by Scholz.
Rom.,
1 Cor., 2 Cor. i. 1—v. 19;
written by a later hand.
Inspected by Scholz.
after Chr.
Inspected by Scholz.
Inspected by Scholz.
Inspected by Scholz.
Inspected by Scholz. Continuous
comm.
Comm.
Paul 176.
(Part Cent. xiii.) Inspected by
Scholz. Catena. Paul 215.
Inspected by Scholz. Paul
239.
Inspected by Scholz.
Inspected by Scholz.
.-| Inspected by Scholz.
.| Inspected by Scholz.
Inspected by Scholz.
Inspected by Scholz.
Inspected by Scholz.
Inspected by Scholz. Paul 230
= lect. 37.
Inspected by Scholz. Paul 199.
A copy of the printed Greek Test.
8vo. London, 1728, interleaved
and bound up in two volumes ;
contains MS. notes by John
Taylor. Paul 223.
Inspected by Scholz. Paul 240. |
| Inspected by Scholz. Acts 167.
Inspected by Scholz. Acts 170.
Inspected by Scholz. Comm.
contains (of St.
Rom., 1 Cor.
Inspected by Scholz.
Paul) only
.| Inspected by Scholz. Thdrt’s
Com.
Inspected by Scholz. [Def. Acts
i. 1—v.
Paul. }
Inspected by Scholz. Contains |
fragments of Acts, Rom., and
1 Cor.
Inspected by Scholz.
*Cursim coll. Cod. integer,”
Scholz. [Def. Acts i. 1—v. 28,
vi. 14—vii. 11.]
Inspected by Scholz.
Begins Acts xxviii. 19.
4. Comm. on Epp.
Scholia.
[CH. Vv.
& | -8
S =
o <
339
189
368
386
MANUSCRIPTS REFERRED TO.
Vatican, Ottob. 31.
Designation.
Vatican, Ottob. 61.
Vatican, Ottob. 176.
Vatican, Ottob. 258.
The same MS. as Acts 151 above.
Vatican, Ottob. 298.
Vatican, Ottob. 325.
Vatican, Ottob. 356.
Vatican, Ottob. 381.
Rome, Vallicella Lib. B. 86.
The same MS. as Paul 185 above.
Rome, Vallicella Lib. F. 13.
Rome, Ghigi Lib. R. v. 29.
Rome, Ghigi Lib. R. v. 32.
Rome, Ghigi Lib. R. viii. 55.
The same MS. as Paul 186 above.
bane MSS. in the Library of {
the Collegio Romano.
Naples (no number). <Appa-
rently the same MS. as Acts
83, Paul 93 above.
Naples 1, C. 26.
Rome, Barberini Lib. 29.
Vienna 167 (Lambec 46).
The same MS. as Acts 140 above.
Mon. of 8. Bas. Messana, 2.
Palermo.
Syracuse.
Leyden. Meermann 116.
Middlehill, Worcestershire 1461.
See “ Apoc. m,” Vol. IV.
The same MS. as Paul 128 above.
Strasburg. Molsheimensis.
Berlin, Diez. 10.
The same MS. as 61 above.
See Acts [110] above.
See Acts [152] above.
The same MS. as Acts 58 above.
The same MS. as Acts 9, Paul
11, above.
The same MS. as Acts 56 above.
The same MS. as Acts 108 above.
The same MS. as Acts 109 above.
The same MS. as Acts 150 above.
Two MSS. in a Monastery on
the Island of Patmos. {
——__
XII.
XIII.
.| Inspected by Scholz.
Collator, &c.
Inspected by Scholz. Comm.
[ Def. Rom. and greater part of
1 Cor. |]
Inspected by Scholz.
Inspected by Scholz.
Latin
Version. Begins Acts ii. 27.
Inspected by Scholz. Latin Ver-
sion.
Inspected by Scholz. [Def. Acts
iv. 19—v. 1.]
Inspected by Scholz.
Rom. with Catena.
Inspected by Scholz.
Contains
- Inspected by Scholz.
Inspected by Scholz.
Inspected by Scholz.
Inspected by Scholz.
Inspected by Scholz.
comm.
Comm.
Thdrt’s
Inspected by Scholz.
Inspected by Scholz.
Inspected by Scholz.
Inspected by Scholz.
Inspected by Scholz. Scholia.
Inspected by Scholz. Contains
Rom., 1 Cor., with Com.
Inspected by Munter.
Inspected by Scholz.
Cor. v. 1.
Inspected by Munter.
Dermout. [Def. Acts i. 1—14,
xxi. 14—xxii. 28; Rom. i. 1—
vii. 13.]
(Inspected by Scholz?) Once
Meermann 118. Paul 242.
Begins 2
Readings of Acts and Epp. com-
municated to Scholz. Paul 238.
[ Def. Acts i. 11—ii. 11; Rom. i.
1— 27; 1 Cor. xiv. 12—xv. 46;
2 Cor. i. 1—viii. 5. ]
400
[ PROLEGOMENA.
22
87
\ Inspected by Scholz. Paul 243. | — | —
PROLEGOMENA. | APPARATUS CRITICUS. [cH. v.
iS aS Designation. Cent Collator, &c. 3
<q | Fe <
—— S| ——$—$—$—$— nee -—_ |-—_—_———-sseoo—————_ —_— |_|"
183 | 231 | Gr. Mon. Jerusalem 8. XIV. | Inspected by Scholz. —\i—
184 | 232 | Gr. Mon. Jerusalem 9. XIII.) Inspected by Scholz. Comm. — | 85
185 | 233 | Mon. 8. Saba, nr. Jerusalem 1. XI. | Inspected by Scholz. foe
186 234 | Mon. S. Saba, nr. Jerusalem 2. XII. Inspected by Scholz. 457 | —
187 | 235 | Mon. S. Saba, nr. Jerusalem 10. | XIII.) Inspected by Scholz. 462 | 86
188 | 236 | Mon. S. Saba, nr. Jerusalem 15. | XII. Inspected by Scholz. ==
189 237 | Mon. S. Saba, nr. Jerusalem 20. | XIII.) Inspected by Scholz. 466 | 89
.. | 238 | The same MS. as Acts 180 above.
5 239 | The same MS. as Acts 141 above.
.. | 240 | The same MS. as Acts 153 above.
5 241 | The same MS. as Acts 97 above.
. | 242 | The same MS. as Acts 178 above.
.. | 243 | Thesame MSS. as Acts182 above.
- . | 243A
190 | 244 | Christ Church, Oxford, Wake 34.| XI. | Acts xviii. —xx. collated by
| | Scholz. — | 27
191 | 245 | Christ Church, Oxford, Wake 38.) XI. | Def. Acts i. 1—11.
192 | 246 | Christ Church, Oxford, Wake 37.! XI. | Def. Acts xii. 4—xxiii. 32.
8-pe 8-pe | St. Petersburg xi. 1. 2. 230. XII. | Muralt. 8-pe
The following is a List of Lectionaries.
Designation. Date. Name of Collator and other information.
lect-1 | Leyden 243. Scealigeri. XI. | Wetstein and Dermout. Contains (of
this Vol.) Acts i. 15—26; ii. 22—47;
iii. 12, 13, 18; iv. 1—21; id. 23—
| 31; x. 34—43; xiii. 84—42; xxviii.
11—31; Rom. v. 6—19; 1 Cor. xi.
25—32; xv. [= ev-6]
lect-2 | Brit. Mus., Cotton Vesp.| XI. | “Contains the portions of Acts and
Joi ley Epp. appointe.l to be read through-
out the whole year. Casley collated
it in 1735, and Wetstein inserted his
extracts.” (Michaelis.) Mutilated
at beg. and end.
lect-3 | Bodleian, Baroc. 202 ? 995 | (Quoted by Mill. Heb. x. 22, 23 qu. ?)
lect-4 | Brit. Mus., Harl. 5731. XIV.| Griesbach. Contains the following
fragments :—Acts vi. 8—vii. 5; vii.
47—60; 1Cor.i. 18—24; iv.9—16;
xii. 27 —xiii. 8. [= Gosp. 117]
lect-5 | Bodleian, Cromwell. 11. 1225 | Griesbach, who says “ Variantes lec-
[Olim 296.] <A liturgy tiones collegi e Rom. vi. 3—11; xiii.
book, containing 5thly 1l—xiv. 4; xiv. 19—238; xvi. 25—
(pp. 149-290), eday- 27; 1 Cor. i. 18—24; ix. 19—x. 4;
yeAoarorrTbAwy TeV xi. 23—32, Ke.”
heydAwy éwptav. |
lect-6 | Géttingen (C. de Missy). | XV. | Matthai (v). See his appendix to
Thess. Contains a large number of
the usual lections.
lect-7 | Copenhagen 3. XV. | Hensler in Birch. = ey-44]
lect-9 | Paris 32. XII. | Inspected by Scholz. = ey-84]
lect-10 Paris 33. XII. | Inspected by Scholz. = ey-85 }
lect-11 | Paris 34, XII. | Inspected by Scholz.
lect-12 | Paris 375. 1022 | Scholz. An important MS, [= ev-60] .
lect-13 | Moscow Synod, 4. os Matthei (b).
lect-14 | Moscow Synod, 291. XII. | Matthei (e).
4
§ 1]
lect-16
lect-17
lect-18
lect-19
lect-20
lect-21
lect-22
lect-238
lect-24:
lect-25
lect-26
lect-27
lect-28
lect-29
lect-30
lect-31
lect-32
lect-33
lect-34
lect-35
lect-36
lect-37
lect-38
lect-39
lect-40
leet-41
lect-42
lect-43
lect-44
lect-45
lect-46
lect-47
lect-48
lect-49
lect-50
lect-51
lect-52
lect-53
LIST OF LECTIONARIES.
[ PROLEGOMENA.
Designation.
Moscow Synod, 266.
Moscow Synod, 267.
Moscow Synod, 268.
Mosgow, Typogr. 47.
Moscow Typogr. 9.
Paris 294.
Paris 304.
Paris 306.
Paris 308.
Paris 319.
Paris 320.
Paris 321.
Bodleian, Selden 2.
Paris 370.
Paris 373.
Paris 276.
Paris 376.
Paris 382.
Paris 383.
Paris 324.
Paris 326.
Riccardi Lib. Florence 84.
Vatican 1528.
Vatican, Ottob. 416.
Barberini Lib. Rome 18.
Barberini Lib. Rome (no |
number).
Vallicella Lib. Rome, C. 46.
Rieeardi Lib. Florence
2742.
Glasgow (Missy BB).
Glasgow (Missy CC).
Ambros. Lib. Milan 63.
Ambros. Lib. Milan 72.
Laur. Lib. Florence 2742 (?).
Mon. St. Saba, nr. Jerus.
St. Saba 18.
St. Saba 26.
St. Saba (no number).
St. Saba (no number).
75]
Date.
XV.
1602
Mattheei (&).
Name of Collator and other information.
Contains Acts xiii. 25—
32; xix. 1—8; Rom. v. 6—9; vi.
18—23; 1 Cor. iv. 9—16; x. 1—4;
xii. 27—xiii. 7. [= ev-52]
Contain seve-
ral lections
in Acts, and
some in | [=ev-53 |
Rom.; 1{ [=ev-54]
Cor.; in 2
Cor. only xi.
21—xii. 9.
Matthxi (#). Contains Acts xii. 1—
11; xiii. 25—32; xxvi.1—20; Rom.
xili. 11—xiy. 4; xv. 1—7; 1 Cor.
i. 18—ii. 1; iv. 9—16; ix. 2—12;
x. 1—4; xii. 27—xiil. 7; xv. 1—11;
2 Cor. i. 8—11; xi. 21—xii. 9.
Matthei (x)
Mattheei ()
[= ev-55 |
Matthei (16). Contains Acts ii. 1—11.
A [= ev-56]
Inspected by Scholz. [= ev-83 |
Inspected by Scholz.
Inspected by Scholz.
Mostly O. T. lections; only a few from
NE
Inspected by Scholz.
Inspected by Scholz. Mutilated.
Inspected by Scholz. Defective.
Griesbach. [= ev-26]
Some lections from Gospp. and Epp.
[= ev-94]
Inspected by Scholz. [ = ev-82]
Entered in list of MSS. of Gospels as
324.
“Cursim coll. magna codicis pars.”
Scholz.
Inspected by Scholz.
Inspected by Scholz. [= ev-92]
Inspected by Scholz. [ = ev-93 |
See Acts 150, Paul 230 above.
[= ev-133]
Some parts of Cent. X.
The first 114 leaves are lost.
(Inspected by Scholz ?)
lanes collations by Missy were
once in Michaelis’ possession.
Inspected by Scholz.
Inspected by Scholz.
Inspected by Scholz.
(Inspected by Scholz ?)
Inspected by Scholz.
Inspected by Scholz.
Inspected by Scholz.
Inspected by Scholz.
[= ev-104]
[= ev-112]
[= ev-160]
PROLEGOMENA.| VERSIONS REFERRED TO. [CH. v.
lect-54
lect-56
lect-57
lect -58
Designation. Date. Name of Collator, and other information.
St. Saba (no number). SIL.
Frankfort on Oder, Seideli. A leaf of a lectionary bound up with ms.
Acts 42, Paul 48. Contains 1 Cor. ix.
2—12.
Ch. Ch. Oxf., Wake 1. XI. (26 Apoc.)
Ch. Ch. Oxf., Wake 4. 1712
SECTION II.
ANCIENT VERSIONS REFERRED TO IN THIS VOLUME. (vss.)
The Latrn Versions (latt).
vulg. The vulgate, usually quoted from the Clementine edition
(vulg-ed.). The Sixtine edition (vulg-sixt.) is occasionally cited
when it differs from the others ; as also are the following mss. :—
am. amiatinus, written about a.p. 541. Tischendorf has
edited it, and considers it the oldest and most valuable
extant.
demid. demidovianus. Published by Matthei. Written
in the XIIth century.
fuld, fuldensis. Readings given in lLachmann’s N. T.
Written in the VIth century.
flor. floriacensis.
harl. harleianus, No. 1772. Collation given by Griesbach
Symb. Crit.
lux. luxoviensis. A lectionary cited by Mabillon and Sa-
batier.
tol. toletanus. A collation was published by Blanchini in
his “ Vindicize Can. Script.”
F-lat. The Latin column of the Codex Augiensis. Cent.
15.
old-lat. The Old Latin Version in use before Jerome’s revision is
cited from the following manuscripts :—
D-lat. (Acts.) The Latin of the Codex Bez. Cent. VI.
D-lat. (Paul.) The Latin of the Codex Claromontanus.
Cent. VI.
E-lat. (Acts.) The Latin of the Codex Laudianus. Cent.
VI.
G-lat. The Latin written word by word over the correspond-
ing Greek words in the Codex Boernerianus.
fri. Fragments of St. Paul’s Epistles in the covers of certain
Codices Frisingenses at Munich. Written Cent. V. or VI.
Deciphered by Tischendorf.
guelph, Fragmenta guelpherbytana. Fragments of the Ep.
76]
Samy) ANCIENT WRITERS CITED. [prorecomena.
to Rom. in Knittel’s Wolfenbiittel Gothic palimpsests.
Edited by Tischdf. in his “ Anecdota sacra.”
spec. Mai’s Speculum.
The Syriac Versions (syrr).
Syr. The Peschito. Supposed to have been made as early as the
second century.
syr. The later or Philoxenian. Cent. V. Revised by Thomas
of Harkel, a.p. 616.
The Egyptian or Copric Versions (coptt).
copt. The Coptic or Memphitic.
copt-dz. Codex Diez. Written about the tenth century.
copt-schw. Schwartze’s edition.
copt-wilk. Wilkins’ edition.
sah. The Thebaic or Sahidic.
sah-ming. Mingarel’s edition.
sah-mnt. Munter’s edition.
sah-woide. Woide’s MS. Published in the Appendix to Cod. Alex.
basm. The Bashmuric so closely follows sah as to be of no critical
value except where sah is deficient.
The Goruic version (goth): made from the Greek by Uphilas about
the middle of the fourth century.
The Airutopic version (zth): assigned to the fourth century.
eth-rom. ‘The edition given in the Roman polyglott.
eth-pl. Pell Platt’s edition.
The ARMENIAN version (arm): made in the fifth century.
arm-use. Uscan’s edition.
arm-zoh. Zohrab’s edition.
SECTION III.
FATHERS AND ANCIENT WRITERS CITED IN THE DIGEST OF THIS
VOLUME?.
(N.B.—The abbreviation is designated by the thick type. In the remainder of the
word or sentence Latin writers are described in italics.)
Acacius, Cent’. IV. or V. (from | Ambrosiaster, i.e. Hilary the Dea-
Catenz.) con, fl. 384
Alcimus Ecdicius Avitus. (See | Ammonius of Alexandria, 220
Avit.) ' Amphilochius, Bp. of Iconium, 374
Ambrose, Bp. of Milan, a.p. 374— | Andreas of Crete, 635
397 Antiochus of Ptolemais, 614
1 Orig-c or Chr-cat means Orig or Chr as given in Cramer’s Catena. Orig-schol,
scholium ascribed to Origen. Chry)j, Chr hoc loco. Hippolytus is cited sometimes as
- Hip, sometimes as Hippol; Gregory of Nyssa, as Nys, Nyss, and Nyssen: in all cases
the abbreviation marked in the above list is the shortest used in this volume.
77]
PROLEGOMENA. |
Antonius Monachus, b. 251, d. 356
Archelaus of Mesopotamia, 278
Arnobius of Africa, 306
Athanasius, Bp. of Alexandria,
326—373
Athenagoras of Athens, 177
Augustine, Bp. of Hippo, 395—430
Avitus, Bp. of Vienne, 490—523
Barnabas, CentY. I. or II.
Basil, Bp. of Cxsarea, 370—379
Basil of Seleucia, fl. 440
Bede, the Venerable, 731; Bede-
gr, a Greek MS. cited by Bede,
nearly identical with Cod. “ E,”
mentioned in this edn only when
it differs from E.
Cesarius of Constantinople, 368
Cesarius, Episc. Arelatensis, 502—
544
Canons Apostolic, CentY. ITT.
Cassiodorus, b. 479, d. 575
Chromatius, Bp. of Aquileia, 402
Chronicon Paschale, Cent’. VII.
Chrysostom, Bp. of Constantinople,
397—407 ; Chr-mss as cited by
Tischdf. from Matthzi; -montf,
from Montfaucon; Chr-wlf,
Wolfenbiittel ms. of Chr written
in CentyY. VI.
Clement of Alexandria, fl. 194
Clement, Bp. of Rome, 91—101
Cosmas Indicopleustes, 535
Constitutions, Apostolic, Cent¥. III.
Cyprian, Bp. of Carthage, 248—258
Cyril, Bp. of Alexandria, 412—444
Cyril, Bp. of Jerusalem, 348S—386
Damascenus, Johannes, 730
Dialogue against the Marcionites
printed amongst the works of
Origen
“‘Dialogi de Trinitate,” variously
ascribed to Ath Thdrt Max
Didymus of Alexandria, 370
Diodorus, Bp. of Tarsus, 878—3894
78]
”
APPARATUS CRITICUS.
[CH. v.
Dionysius, Bp. of Alexandria, 247
—265
Dionysius Areopagita, Cent’. V.
Ephrem Syrus, b. 299, d. 378
Epiphanius, Bp. of Salamis in Cy-
prus, 868—4.03
Eucherius, Bp. of Lyons, 434—454
Eulogius, Bp. of Alexandria, 581—
608
Eusebius, Bp. of Cxesarea, 315—320
Eustathius, Bp. of Antioch, 323
Euthalius, Bp. of Sulci, 458
Eutherius, Bp. of Tyana, 431
Euthymius Zigabenus, 1116
Faustinus, 383
Fulgentius, Bp. in Africa, 508—
533
Gaudentius, Bp. of Brescia, 387
Gennadius, Bp. of Constantinople,
458—471
Gildas, fl. 581
Hesychius of Jerusalem, Cent’. IV.
or VI.
Hilary, Bp. of Poictiers, 354—368
Hippolytus, disciple of Irenzeus, 220
Homilies ascribed to Clement,
Cent’. ITI.
Idacius, the name under which Vig.
published his work “de Trini-
tate ”’
Ignatius, Bp. of Antioch, d. 107
Irenxus, Bp. of Lyons, 178
Isidore of Pelusium, 412
Jacobus, Bp. of Nisibis, cir. 8320—
340
Jerome, fl. 878 —420
Julian (cited by <Aug.), Pelagian
Bp. in Italy, 416
Justin Martyr, fl. 140—164
Leo, Bp. of Rome, 440—461
Leontius Scholasticus, 580
Lucifer, Bp. of Cagliari, 8354—367
Maearius of Egypt, 301—391
Marcellus, cited by Eus.
§ m1. ]
Marcion, 130; fragments in Epiph.
(Mcion-e) and Tert. (Mcion-t)
Marcosii, cited by Iren.
Marcus Monachus, 390
Martyrium Clementis
Maximus Taurinensis, 480—466
Maximus Confessor, fl. 6830—662
Maximin, the Arian, cited by Aug.
Meletius, Bp. of Antioch, 381
Methodius, fl. 290—312
Michael Psellus of Constantinople,
d. 1078
Nazianzenus, Gregory, fl. 370—389
Nestorius, Bp. of Constantinople,
428—431
Nonnus of Panopolis, Cent. V.
Novatzan, 251
Nyssenus, Gregory, Bp. 371
Ccumenius of Tricca in Thrace,
Centy. XI.?
Origen, b. 185, d. 254
“ Questiones et Responsiones ad
Orthodoxos” ascribedto Justin M.
Orosivs, 416
Orsiesius the Egyptian, 345
Pacianus, Bp. of Barcelona, 370
Palladius, Bp. of Hellenopolis, 368
—401
Pamphilus of Palestine, fl. 294
Paulinws, Bp. of Aquileia,776—804
Pelagii Ep. ad Demetr. 417?
Peter, Bp. of Alexandria, 300—311
Philastrius, Bp. of Brescia, fl. 8380
Philo Carpasius, 400
Photius, Bp. of Constantinople,
858—891
Polycarp, Bp. of Smyrna, d. 169
Porphyry, d. 304
“ Preedestinatus.” A work ascribed
to Vincent of Lerins (434)
Primasivs, Centy. VI.
Proclus, Bp. of Constantinople, 434
Procopius of Gaza, 520
“ De Promissionibus dimid. temp.”
79]
ANCIENT WRITERS CITED.
[PROLEGOMENA.
“ Queestiones ex vet. et nov. Testt.”
Printed among the works of Aug.
“ De Rebaptismate.” Among Cypr’s
works
Rufinus of Aquileia, 397
Salvianus, 440
Sedulivs, 430
Seniores, quoted by Iren., Cent’.
hor Th
Serapion of Egypt, 345
Severus of Antioch, Centy. VI.
Severianus, Bp. in Syria, 400
“ De Singwlaritate Clericorwm.”
Among Cypr’s works.
Synopsis ascribed to Athanasius.
Tarasius, Bp. of Constantinople, 786
Tatian of Syria, 172
Tertullian, 200
Thaumaturgus, Gregory, Bp. of
Neocesarea, 243
Theodore, Bp. of Mopsuestia, 399
—428
Theodore of the Studium, 795—
826
Theodoret, Bp. of Cyrus, 420—458
Theodotus the Gnostic. Extracts
made by Clement of Alexandria
Theodotus of Ancyra, 483
Pseudo Theodulus, Centy. XII.
Theophylact, Abp. of Bulgaria,
1071; Thl-sif, as edited by Sifa-
nius; Thl-fin, by Finettius, from
a Vatican MS.
Tichoniuvs, 390
Timothy, Bp. of Alexandria, 380
Titus, Bp. of Bostra, cir. 360—377
Victor Vitensis, an African Bp.,
Cent’. V.
Victor of Antioch, 401
Victorinws, 380
Victor, Episc. Tunwnensis, 565
Vigilius of Thapsus, 484
Zeno, Bp. of Verona, 362—880
Zonaras of Constantinople, 1118
PROLEGOMENA. | APPARATUS CRITICUS. [CH. v.
To this list may be added the following ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THE
DIGEST :—
aft, after.
al, alii.
appy, apparently.
’ bef, before.
beg, beginning.
comm, commentary—when appended to the name of a Father, de-
notes that the reading referred to is found in the body of his com-
mentary, and not in the text (txt) printed at the head of the com-
mentary. This last is often very much tampered with.
corr, corrector. corrd, corrected.
ctra, contra.
def, defective.
ed or edn, edition.
elsw, elsewhere.
elz, elzevir edition of the Greek Test.
e sil, e silentio collatorum.
exc, except.
expr, expressly.
follg or filg, the following words.
gr, Greek. gr-lat-ff, Greek and Latin Fathers.
ins, insert— “ins xa. AB” means that the MSS. A and B insert
Kal,
int, interpreter or interpretation—appended to the name of a Father
means that the citation is made from a translation, not from the
original. :
marg, margin.
om, omit—‘‘om «cat AB”’ means that the MSS. A and B omit the xa
given in the text or inserted by other MSS.
Ps, Pseudo—used in citing the spurious works ascribed to Ath. and
other Fathers.
pref, prefix.
rec, the fextus receptus, or received text of the Greek Testament.
This is used when Steph and elz agree.
rel, reliqui—means that all the other manuscripts named on the
margin have the reading to which it is appended.
simly, similarly.
Steph, Stephens’ Greek Testament.
transp, transpose.
txt, text—when followed by a list of MSS., versions, &c., means that
the reading adopted in this edition is supported by those MSS.
versions, &c. (See also under comm above.)
80]
§ 1v.] BOOKS QUOTED. [PROLEGOMENA.
ver, verse.
vss, versions.
vv, verses.
The figures 2, 3, &c., inserted above the line to the right hand, imply
a second, third, &c., hand in a MS. Thus B’ means the original
scribe of B; C%, the first corrector of C; C*%, the second; D’, a
recent scribe in D, by whom corrections were made or parts not
originally in the MS. supplied.
The same figures below the line, imply recurrence of the reading 2, 3,
&c. times in the author mentioned; e. g. Aug, Orig;, Bas, : similarly
are used the words sepe, aliq, or alic (aliquoties or alieubi), ubique *.
Words printed in the digest in the larger type used for the text
itself are to be taken as of equal authority with the reading printed in
the text: the place in the text where such readings occur being indicated
by an asterisk.
Notice referred to on pp. 15, &e.
amas would seem to be the true reading in 56 passages of the N. T.,
in only 14 however of these is it found without any variation in the
uncial mss. In the 42 remaining cases some one or more uncials have
substituted zas. On the other hand zas occurs upwards of 1100 times,
and in no more than 4, or at the most 10 cases have uncial mss. put
amas in its stead—so that the tendency of the transcribers has clearly
been to alter amas into ras; on examination it also appears that this
tendency has been alike yielded to by the scribes of the recent and of
the ancient mss. In cases, therefore, where the rarer word is sup-
ported by any trustworthy mss., however few in number and however
great the array in favour of zas, amas has been accepted as the true
reading.
SECTION IV.
LIST, AND SPECIFICATION OF EDITIONS OF OTHER BOOKS QUOTED,
REFERRED TO, OR MADE USE OF IN THIS VOLUME.
N.B. Works mentioned in the list given in the Prolegg. to Vol. I. are
not here again noticed.
Brscor, History of the Acts of the Holy Apostles confirmed &c., Oxf.
1840.
Bisprne, Erklirung des Briefes an die Rémer, Munster 1854. Rom.
Catholic.
2 -y-mss appended to the name of a Father means that the reading cited is contained
in two mss. of that Father.
Chr-5-mss, means that in 5 mss of Chrysostom the reading cited occurs 3 times.
Vou. II.—81] f
PROLEGOMENA. | APPARATUS CRITICUS. [CH. v.
BorneMann, Acta Apostolorum ad fidem codicis Cantabrigiensis &e.,
Grossenhain et Lond. 1848.
CaTENA in Acta Apostolorum, ed. Cramer, Oxf. 1838.
Curysostom, Opera, cited by Benedictine pages in Migne, or in loc.
CoNnYBEARE AND Howson, Life and Epistles of St. Paul, with maps,
plates, coins, &c., 2 voll. 4to. London 1850-52: 2nd edn., 2 voll
8vo., Lond. 1856.
Davinson, Dr. S., Introduction to the New Testament, vol. ii., Acts—
2 Thess. ; Lond. 1849.
De Werte, Exegetisches Handbuch u.s.w.—Apostgeschichte, 2nd edn.,
Leipzig 1841: Romer, 4th edn., Leipzig 1847: Corinther, 2nd edn.,
Leipzig 1845.
Estrus, Comment. in omnes Pauli Epistolas, 2 voll. folio, Douay 1614.
Ewsank, W. W., Commentary on the Ep. to the Romans, Lond. 1850.
Frirzscue, Pauli ad Romanos Epistola, 3 voll., Hal. Sax. 1836.
Hackett, Pror., Commentary on the Acts, Boston, U.S, 1852.
Hemsen, Der Apostel Paulus u.s.w., Gottingen 1850.
Humeury, W. G., Commentary on the Acts, Lond. 1847.
Jowett, Pror., The Epistles of St. Paul to the Thessalonians, Galatians,
Romans: with critical Notes and Illustrations: Lond. 1856. (See
Vol. III. Prolegg. ch. v. § i. par. 1, note.)
LacuMANN anDd Burrmann, Novum Testamentum grece et latine &c.,
vol. u., Berlin 1850.
Lewy, T., Life and Epistles of St. Paul, 2 vols., London, 1851.
Meyer, H. A. W., Kritisch-exegetische Commentar tiber das Neue
Testament :—Apostg., Gottingen 1835: 1 Corinth., 2nd edn., do.
1849: 2 Cor., 2nd edn., do. 1850.
Neranpver, Ave., Geschichte der Pflanzung u. Leitung der christlichen
Kirche durch die Apostel, 4th edn., Hamburg 1847.
(cumeEntvus, Commentaria, &c., 2 vols. folio, Paris 1631.
Patry, Hore Pauline: ed. Birks, Lond. 1850.
PE1LE, Dr., Annotations on the Apostolic Epistles, vol. i. Rom.—Corr.
Lond. 1848.
Puriierr, Dr. F. A., Commentar iiber den Brief Pauli an die Rémer,
vol. i., Frankf. 1855.
ScHRADER, Der Apostel Paulus, u.s.w., 5 voll. Leipzig 1829-36.
Smiru, James, Esq., On the Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul, Lond.
1848: 2nd edn., Lond. 1856.
Stanitgy, Very Rey. A. P., D.D., now Dean of Westminster, The
Epistles of St. Paul to the Corinthians: with Critical Notes and
Illustrations °.
% The reader will observe that I have worked with Dean Stanley’s book in preparing
this edition, and have often extracted from, and referred to it. It is a valuable contri-
bution to the literature of these important Epistles: not so much in its scholarship, as
82]
§ tv. ] CODEX VATICANUS. [PROLEGOMENA.
Srrer, Dr. Ruporr, Die Reden der Apostel, Leipzig 1829.—Andeu-
tungen fiir glaiibiges Schriftverstindniss: zweite Sammlung,
- Leipzig 1828.
Stuart, Moses, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, Lond.
1838.
TERTULLIANtS, ed. Migne.
THEODORET, In omnes Pauli Epp. Parsi. Oxf. 1852.
THEOPHYLACT, Comm. in Epp. Pauli, Lond. 1636.
Tuotvuck, Rémerbrief, u.s.w., Halle 1842: 5th edn., 1856.
Trecettes, Dr., An Account of the printed Text of the Greek New
Testament, London 1854.
Umpreit, Dr., Der Brief an die Rémer auf dem Grunde des Alten
Testamentes ausgelegt, Gotha 1856 *.
Worpswortu, Ven. Arcupracon, D.D., The Greek Testament, &c.
Part ii., Lond. 1857.
Readings of the Codex Vaticanus (B) in the text of this volume, which have been
ascertained by the Editor’s personal inspection of the MS. at Rome, February, 1861.
Acts i. 11. ovros, not ovrws as Bentley. 21. The codex has trapayevopevov
17. the vrep in the margin before a prima manu.
77s dak. isnot from the 2.m., 25. prima manus has eBec@a.
but much later. 38. ta is added by 1. m. and 2.
ii. 7. in amwavtes, the first ais written m.
over the line by 1. m. vii. 10. 2. m. has efeA., not efiA. as
34. o bef xupios is added by 1. m. Bentley.
38. aft apapriwy ins vuwy, not 11. yqvpickor is in codex.
nuwy as Beh. 17. nyyilev, not -irev as Birch.
iii. 2. the ro after eBarra¢e is super- 22. oy. kK. epy., not epy. K. Aoy. as
added by 1. m. Bentley.
21. the twy before am aiwvos is 39. add’, not adda as Bentley.
written in the margin by 2. m. 47. o1k0d. a prima manu.
iv. 4. @s, not wset, as in Mai. 51. kapdias, not -av as Bentley.
6. o apxtepevs is the reading of viii. 25. evnyyeAtLovto, not eveyyeAn.
the codex. as Birch.
14. re@apam. and reGepar. are both 28. tov mpod. no., not no. Tov
from the 1. m. mpop. as Birch.
18. rov before inoov is added by 34. Tovto is a prima manu.
1. m. and 2. m. ix. 6. adda.
20. evdapev: over the ec is written 13. gov is in codex, not omitted,
o by 1. m., over the a is writ- as in Bentley.
ten o by 2. m. 25. after ka€nkey, avtov, not -ov
y. 2. ovvduins, but e is written as Bentley.
over by 1. m. and 2. m. 26. evs cepova., not ev as Birch.
in the power of illustration, and graphic description of usage and cireumstance, which
pervade the notes. The second edition is referred to in this present volume.
4 A very valuable work, which I only regret that time has not allowed me to consult,
in preparing this fifth edition, as much as I wished. The reader will find several refer-
ences to it in the notes on the earlier part of the Epistle.
83] £2
PROLEGOMENA. |
36.
x. 45.
Acts xi. 3.
12.
1S.
18.
24.
xiii. 1.
Tike
ig}
26.
or
id.
13.
24.
. TaVTa TA YEYP.,
. Beporaios, not pou as Birch.
. Kexpetker 1. m., Kexpiker 2. m.
. Aeyov as Mai ed. 1, not -wy, as
+ THY KAnpovomiay, not KAnp. as |
- (6 ed. Vere.) rposevé., not nué. |
Tis qv mad., not Tis pad. as |
Bentley.
my. Tov ay. not my. ay. as
Bentley.
eronadev, not -Ges as Bentley.
diakpewavtTa, not -voyvTa as
Bentley.
atnyy-, not avnyy. as Bentley. |
apa kat, not apa-ye kat as Mai.
Tw kupiw is in margin a 2. m.
oupuewy, not cm. as Bentley.
emecey, not ememecey as Mai.
avexO. is 1. m., not avax@. as
Mai.
net, as in Mai ed. 1, not vu,
as in ed. 2.
not mavtTa
vyeyp. as Bentley.
. €V vouw, not Tw vouw as Birch.
. pev Bapy., not Bapy. as Bentley.
. mepiOunre is 1. m., but the ad- |
dition is 1. m. also.
. kakerBey ers, as in Mai ed. 1,
not kK. Te es, as in ed. 2.
. AeyovTes evvat, not ev. Acy. as
Bentley.
. Gere1, not GeAor as Mai ed. 1.
. apeom. is 1. m., -w7. is 2. m.
. ovd, not ovde as Mai.
- upas, not wey vuas as Bentley. |
- THSTVYX., not cvyx.as Bentley. |
. ov ov dSuyno. as Mai ed. 2, not
ov duyno. as ed. 1.
ed. 2.
. Stott as Mai ed. 2, not d10 as |
ed. 1. |
Muralto, and Tischendorfed.7. |
- avapavayres is 2. m.
. l.m. repeats eAeyay after mvev- |
Maros.
as Bentley.
adAndovs kai, not xa: as Bent- |
ley.
obefore mavAos is added by1.m.
Eupnoovra is 1.m.as Rulotta
and Vercellone.
APPARATUS CRITICUS.
24.
28.
Sx: 7.
18.
| Acts xxiii.
35.
| xxvil. 14.
28.
xxvill. 11.
16.
Rom. i. 1.
12.
Vole
vii. 22.
8.
xiii. 2.
a tah
xiv. 6.
xv. 26.
Xv. 7
xxii. 5.
m., -plov.
Xxv. 25.
[CH. Vv.
1. m. has mpeoBureperoy: 2.
avetatlecOa, not -rat- as Bent-
ley.
1. m. has moAetreray.
AaAyqoavTos, not -ovyTos as
Bentley.
got is written over by 1. m.
28. katnyayov to avTwy is in
marg. a 1. m.
keAevoas, not KeAevoas TE as
Bentley.
in avtov Se Tov mavAou, mavAou
has dots over it a 1. m.
1. m. decidedly wrote evpakv-
Awv: 2. m. placed v over the
a, and A between the « and
v, and altered the A to A, but
in so doing, he has left the
right foot of the A of 1. m.
visible beyond the corner of
his own A.
evpoy opyutas elkoo1, not evpov
eikoot as Bentley.
adetavSpiyw has y written over
the 1, but not by 1. m. as
Rulotta.
emetpamrn, not -me: as Birch.
xv ww, not w xu as Mai.
2. m. has ouu7., not ovr7.
exopev is 1. m.: exouev 2. m.
Tw vou., not TL vou. as mis-
printed in Mai ed. 2.
. G€ avo, not aro.
. Ta Tov mv. as Mai ed. 1, not
Tov mv. as ed. 2.
. tris added by 1. m.
. ovyyevwy is in the original
text, there has been no era-
sure: the words adeApwy pou
Twy are in the margin by the
2nd hand).
Touvteotiy oT1 a 1. m.
avOeor., not aéeor. as mis-
printed in Mai ed. 2.
vuas, not nuas as Bentley.
kat o €o8., not o ev8. as Bent-
ley.
moinoacbe 1. and 2. m.:
correction.
yeyovay, not -acw as Mai.
no
5 Supplied by the Rey. C. Cure.
84]
§ rv. ]
1 Cor. 1. 2.
CODEX VATICANUS.
Ty €kKAX., not exkA. as Bentley.
1 Cor. ii. 13. Sidanrous, not Tw.
iii. 2.
9.
iv. 11.
ise
vii. 5.
Suvacbe, not cduv.
ovvepyo 1. m.
1. m. yuuverr.: 2. m. -vnrT.
eyevynoa, not -ev7n- as Bentley.
There is no writing in the mar-
gin, as asserted by Woide from
Mico.
17. wepepixev 0 Kuptos, not o Geos.
OvTwS TepimaTEITW Kal, not
omitted, as Bentley.
vill. 11. 0 adeAdos, not adeAgos as
x. 9.
20.
xii. 24.
xiv. 16.
Bentley.
amwAA., not amoAa. as Bentley.
yerveoOa 1. m., not yer. (2. m.)
as Bentley.
tis not omitted, as in Bentley.
evAoyns €v mvevuaTi, NOt evdo-
yns Tw mvevpati as Mai.
85]
39.
xv. 19.
2 Cor. i. 4.
ii. 15.
iv. 6.
ea liays
vii. 4.
ix. 2.
x. 12.
Klas
[PROLEGOMENA.
pov is not expunged as Mai,
but left faint (as 1. m. wrote
it) by 2. m., with a dot over
each letter.
nXirikoTES ETPEV povov, not as
Bentley.
Ty OAnver, not GAnper as Bent-
ley.
avayewvwoKnTal, Not -era1, as
Mai.
ott Geos, not ot: o Geos as Mai.
oTt ets, not oT: ex ets as Mai,
€v Ty Xapa, not Tn xapaas Mai.
mepuot, not mepior as Mai. (2.
m. has corrected it to repyct.)
evkpeivat and ouvepeivat, with-
out any erasures of the e by
1. m. as stated by Rulotta.
de: ov, with no punctuation as
in Mai.
: mia. |
tag 1 oe a
;
\ ee ee, ee re
oi a rt » i ™ AS + — te .
* i “ws eax
crs ah OES, te
ro) ne ar ir ig 8 om ay
THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES,
THE EPISTLES TO THE ROMANS AND CORINTHIANS.
ar ae
as) a
o. a
_ ‘C1 -= of
ao
ya
\ a. =
Cave. TVEULATOC aytov, ove eéeAtburo, * avednupOn.
Matos...
ABCD
EN abe
dfghk
mop 13
HWPAZEIS AMOSTOAQN.
i l To sx b ~ pV , d? , A ,
; ov “yey “mowrov “Aoyov “ Exotnoauny TEpl TAaVTwY,
by a * ” ? ~ ~ \
w Oeogire, © wv ‘notaro Incove moty te Kat OtdacKety >
9 g * g7 5.7 hh’? Le - ? , i ‘ x
axot ®no ® nuépag * evretAauevoc Toc amoaroAotc * da
a (;L€v solita-
riam) Rom.
vii. 12 reff.
of two, Matt.
xxi. 2%, 31.
Heb. viii. 7.
ix. 6. x. 9.
2 Kings
XVili. 27.
c = here only.
if ‘
3 ole Kal
2 Macc. xv.37. 0 Mev mpdt. Adyos Hv Hutv, @ Oeddote, Tept K T-A. Philo. Q. om. prob. liber, § 1,
vol. ii. p. 444. See 1 Chron. xxix. 29.
dnudora yeappuata, Herodian vii. 6. 6.
16. 2 Cor. i. 6.
Mark i. 45. Luke xiii. 25.
xiii. 47. John xiv. 31.
xvi. 19. 4 Kings ii. 9.
see Gen. ii. 3.
1Jobn iii. 24. Gen.ii. 3. Zeph. iii. 11.
i traject., see ch, xix. 4 al.
(-Anuwus, Luke ix. 61.)
d= here only. Xen. Cyr. i.6.13. €roince
eattr., Matt. xviii. 19. ver. 22. ch. ii. 22. iil. 25. vii.
Winer, § 24. 1. f = Matt. iv. 17.
h constr., ch.
g Luke i. 20. xvii. 27.
k—vy.1l,22. Mark
TITLE: rec ins twv ay.iwy bef amoor., with a b d gh k 13 and the subscriptions of
A@EGH; twy B(Btly Rl) m p Orig Chr Synop: om B(Bch Mai) D(-&s): om _amo-
orodwy also X.—pref Aovka 0, AovKka evayyeAicrov b 13. 40, mpakarootoAos guy Ow Tw
ayiwv arogToAwr* Aouka Tov evaryyeAcorou d, at g h.—apxn guy Bew mpatamooronos f.
Crap. I. 1. ree ins o bef inc. (the o of nptato was probably mistaken for the ar-
ticle), with AEN p 13. 36 rel Constt: om BD.
2. avednudén bef evreiAquevos... efeActaro D.
at end add kat exeAevoe Knpuo-
cew To evayyeAtoy D syr-marg Aug, simly sah.
On the title, see Prolegomena. 1—3.
INTRODUCTION. | 1. Tov pev top. A. |
The latter member of this sentence, taviv
dé,... is wanting (see Winer, § 63, II.
2, e), and the Author proceeds at once to
his narration, binding this second history
to the first by recapitulating and en-
larging the account given in the conclu-
sion of the Gospel. mavtwv | What-
ever latitude may be given to this word, it
must at all events exclude the notion that
Luke had at this time seen the Gospels of
Matt. or Mark, in which many things which
Jesus did and taught are contained, which
he had noé related in his mp@tos Adyos.
On Theophilus, see notes, Luke i. 3.
dv jpgato Inc.| I cannot think jptaro
here to be merely pleonastic. Its posi-
tion here shews that it is emphatic, and
the parallel cases (see reff.) all point to a
distinct and appropriate meaning for the
word. That meaning here seems to be, that
the Gospel contained the apxds, the out-
set, of all the doings and teachings of our
Vou. Il.
Lord, as distinguished from this second
treatise, which was to relate their sequel
and results. Meyer understands it—which
Jesus first of all men did, &e. But this
introduces a meaning irrelevant to the
context, besides not giving the emphasis to
Hptaro, but to "Incots. The position of
emphasis given to the verb shews, that the
beginning of the doing and teaching of
Jesus must be contrasted with the con-
tinuance of the same, now about to be ,
related. 2. évred. Tt. atr.| See Luke
xxiv. 48 ff., and ver. 4 below. Sia tv.
ay. may be joined either with éevre-
Aduevos (asin vulg copt Chr Thl) ; or with
éfeAétato (as in syrr eth Cyr Aug Vig).
In the former case, our Lord is said to
have given His commands to the Apostles
through, or in the power of, the Holy
Ghost. Similarly He is said, Heb. ix. 14,
Sia mvevpatos alwviou éautby mposevey-
kat %uwpov TP OeG. In the latter, He is
_said to have chosen the Apostles by the
power of the Holy Ghost. saa tag in ch.
2
1 — ch. ix. 41.
Rom. vi. 13,
16, 19, xii. 2.
2 Cor. xi. 2.
Gen. xlvii. 2
(Ald.).
mabs., Luke
xxii. 15.
(xxiv. 46.)
ch. iii. 18.
Oeov.
n = Matt. vi. 7.
Heb. ix.26 al." TegogoA wy ta) “xwotleaOar, adXa * TEOmevELY
IIPAZEIZ AIOZSTOAQN.
L
' rapéot noe éavrov Cwvra pera to ™ wabetvy avrov “Ev
moAXoie ° Tekpnplotc Poy NMEpwY TEsoEpakovTa 4 Omra-
vousvocg avroic Kal Agywv ta TepL THC "BastArtiac Tov
4 kat *ouvadiZouevog avtoig ‘mapnyyerev aro
‘
THY
1Cor.iv.4. w ? NM = pole Fes > , x of? ‘| ,
o here only t. emTayye lav TOU TAaTPOC HY HNKOvGaTE LOU, OTL @Wav-
Wisd. v.11.
xix. 13. 8 Macc. iii.24. Xen. Mem. i. 1. 2. p — Heb. ii. 15. (ch. v. 19. xvi. 9. xvii. 10?) q here
only. 3 Kings viii. 8. Tolst xii. 19 only. r Loke ix. 11. ch. viii. 12. xix. 8. s here only t.
(Ps. xl. 5 alins in Hexapl.) Herod.i. 62. Xen. Anab. vii.3.48. cuvavA:{., Prov. xxii. 24. t = Luke
viii. 66. ch. iv. 18. v. 28,40. 1 Kings xxiii. 8. u =—ch. xviii. 1,2. 1 Chron. xii. 8. v here
only. Gen. xlix. 18. Wisd. viii. 12 ocly.
Heb. iv. 1 et passim. Amos ix. 6.
xx. 13. Winer, § 30. 7.
w — Lake xxiv. 49. ch. ii. 33. Gal. iii. 14, 22. Eph. iii. 6.
x constr., Matt. vii. 24, 26. tade ov Gkougoy, Lucian Dial. Deor.
3. reoo. bef nuep., omg dia, D: 5 is written over the line by D-corr'.
pevots D}. Tas D}. ,
4. cuvadioKouevos D!: cuvadieyouevos D8: cuvavaArouevos b? ¢ d' e m 36!. 40, the
Greek fathers are confused between this reading and txt (see Tischdf): convescens vulg
E-lat? Jer Bede: convivens D-lat. aft ovvad. ins pet avtwy D. rec mapnyy. bef
avtois, with B D(see above) & rel 36 vulg copt Phot (Ze Thl Hil Aug: txt ACE Chr.
—rapnyyedAev E-gr b d. nv nkovoa (-care D%) pnow dia Tov cTouatos pov D
vulg eth Hil Aug Jer; am D-lat om pyjow; and in D-gr gnaw dia Tov oroparos are
omTTavo-
marked for erasure by a later hand.
xx. 28, Paul tells the Ephesian elders, that
the Holy Ghost had made them overseers in
the Church of God. The former construc-
tion however appears much the best, as ex-
pressing not, as might at first seem, a mere
common-place, but the propriety of the
fact,—that His last commands were given
in the power of (see John xx. 22) the
Holy Ghost. To take da my. ay. with
aveAhupen (see Olsh. i. 629) seems to me
inadmissible ; as also is Dr. Burton’s ren-
dering, “having told His Apostles that
His commands would be more fully made
known to them by the Holy Ghost.”
aveAnpdh.| = avepepero eis Toy
ovp., Luke xxiv. 51. The use of the verb
in this abbreviated form, without the e?s r.
ovp., testifies to the familiarity of the
apostolic church with the Ascension as a
formal and recognized event in our Lord’s
course. 3. év am. tecp.| See Luke
xxiv. 31, 39, 43. The ev is in its significa-
tion of investiture, in which it introduces
the element or condition in which, and thus
the means by which, an agent operates.
dmrravépevos| od yap &srep mpd
Tis dvactdoews ws cael per ad’Tay jy,
otw kal réTe’ ov yap elme TEOOEPAKOVTA.
Hpépas, GAAG BV Apepav TeroepdxovTa’
eplatato yap kal aploraro madw, Chry-
sostom. This is the only place where the
interval between the Resurrection and the
Ascension is specified. 7a Tep. T. B.
7. 0.| 74, in the widest sense ; not pjuara
merely :—the matters. The article has
been taken to imply (and so in my earlier
editions), that during this period they re-
ceived from our Lord the whole substance
of the doctrine of ‘ the Kingdom of God.’
But this remark seems to lose its propriety
owing to the present participle Aéywr.
Both the participles, émtavduevos and
A€ywv, carry with them a ratiocinative
force, in dependence on texunptois: “proofs,
consisting in this, that He” &c. And
thus the art. rd gives the sentence the
meaning, “and inasmuch as the things
which he said were those pertaining to
the Kingdom of God ;” thus serving only
to define Aeydueva.
4—14.] THE LAST DISCOURSES AND
ASCENSION OF THE LORD. RETURN OF
THE APOSTLES TO JERUSALEM; RECA-
PITULATION OF THEIR NAMES. 4.
ovvahil.] not middle, ‘assembling them,’
as Caly. (congregans eos), Grot., Olsh.,
and others, which is without example ; but
passive, = cuvadioGels, Hesych., as E. V.
Chrys., the Vulg., &c., interpret it ‘eating
and drinking ;? so E. V. marg., Thl., Ge.,
&e., kowwvay addy, mistaking the ety-
mology. The conjecture of Hemsterhuis,
ovvadrCouevdis (which however is found
in Didymus), is quite unnecessary.
Grd ‘Iep. ph xwp.| See Luke xxiv. 49.
‘Simul manere jussi sunt, quoniam uno
omnes Spiritu donandi erant. Si fuis-
sent dispersi, unitas minus cognita fuisset.’
Calvin. arepip. | to await, i. e. wait
till the completion of: the wep: implies
this. The ancient idea mentioned by
Wordsw. that our Lord commanded the
Apostles to remain at Jerusalem for fwelve
years after the Ascension, is sufficiently
refuted by His own words here, and by
the subsequent history: cf. ch. viii. Ke.
That, in the main, they confined them-
selves to circuits in Palestine for some
ABCD
EXabe
dfghk
mopl3
1 ay
A ’ , vs € - By: Cee ? y
vn¢g petv eBamticev voaTt, upeic E €v TvEevmsaTe Baz-
, Lose) > ‘ ‘ Zz , Onell,
riaOnceabs ayly ou pera moAXae * ravrac nespac.
b , 4 > ‘ rE ,
HOWTWY auTOV EYOVTEC Kvote,
piv ovv *ouvedOovrec
“et ev Tw
Sg ‘
tw Looand ;
d 4 , e? , ‘ ,
Xeovm TovTw atokaNioravetce TH BactA&lav
ie oe ‘ > ‘ 5) £) ’ 2
slTEVv C& TOV avTOUC Ovx Uuwy EoTiy 3.)
MIPAZEIS AIOZTOAQN. 3
y Matt. iii. 11
4 Mk. L. John
6 ¢ 1.33.
OL zconstr., here
only, see
note, and
Exod. ii. 23.
a= ch. ii. 6.
v. 16. x. 27.
xvi. 13. xix.
1 Cor. xi.
Ezek.
XxXxiii. 30.
~ g , xn gh ‘ «a e ‘ i” i? ~ x
yvwvat Xeovouc 7] Katooucg Ovc O TaTyno Gero EV T)) b Matt. xv. 23
: banat
ce — Matt. sii.10. ch. vii. 1. xix. 2. xxi. 37 al.
iii. 5 fj. vili. 25. ix.12{) Mt. Heb. xiii. 19 only. Lev. xiii. 16. pres., Matt. xi. 5.
g1 Thess. v. 1. i
i=—ch.v.4. Hagg. ii. 19, see Luke ix, 44. xxi. 14. ch. v. 4. xix. 21.
iii. 2. see Matt. xx. 23.
1. see ch. xiv. 17.
3 Kings i. 27. d = Matt. ii. 7 al. e Mark
3 f gen , 2 Thess.
Dan. ii. 21. h = Matt. xvi. 3. 2 Tim. iii.
5. ree Bamricd. bef ev rvevu., with ACEX? 13. 36 rel Orig (ec Thl Ambr Rebapt
Gaud : mv. ay. Barr. D Did Hil Victorin Aug: txt BX! p.—add kar 0 wedAeTe AapBaverv
D'(and lat) tol Hil Aug.
Aug.
6. for cuvedd., eAPovTes NL
13: txt ABC!}X& Chr-comm.
aft nuepas add ews Tys tevtnkogTns D'(and lat) sah
rec ernpwrwy, with C’DE rel 36 Cc, -rour C, -rov d
amokatacTaveis eis THY B. Tov icp. D: om es D8(and
lat) ; for tov, tw D8(appy): Aug has sometimes representaberis ? et quando regnum
Israel ? sometimes presentabis regnum Israel.
7. evmev, omg de, B! Syr sah: ecrey ovy B-corr: o de ermey C Aug: kat ermev D, 0
de amoxpibers exw. K eth: txt AX rel vulg syr copt Thl.
vulg coptt.
years, appears to be true ; but surely would
not be in compliance with such a command.
T. éwayy. T. Tatpés] See note on
Luke xxiv. 49. 5.| The Lord cites
these words from the mouth of John him-
self, reff, Matt.;—and thus announces to
them that, as John’s mission was accom-
plished in baptizing with water, so now
the great end of His own mission, the
Baptism with the Holy Ghost, was on
the point of being accomplished. Calvin
remarks, that He speaks of the Pentecostal
effusion as being the Baptism with the
Holy Ghost, because it was a great repre-
sentation on the whole Church of the sub-
sequent continued work of regeneration on
individuals : ‘Quasi totius Ecclesize com-
munis baptismus.’ I may add, also be-
cause it was the beginning of a new period
of spiritual influence, totally unlike any
which had preceded. See ch. ii. 17.
#Sar. and év mv. ay. are slightly distin-
guished. The insertion of the preposition
bef. wv. ay. seems to give a dignity which
the mere instrumental dative, #5a71, wants.
tavtas | serves to bind on the od
TOAA. nu. to the day then current; as we
say, ‘one of these days.’ See Winer,
§ 23. 5, who instances ‘ante os quinque
dies’? in Lat., and quotes mpd moAA@y
Tevde Huepov, from Heliod. ii. 22. 97.
‘Numerus dierum non definitus exercebat
fidem discipulorum,’ Bengel. 6.] This
cuvedSdvtes does not belong to another
assembling, different from the former ;
but takes up again the cuvadr(éuevos of
ver, 4. Olsh. has mistaken the sense of
the wév ody, which refers, not to another
for mp. avtous, avros E
incident, but to other actors; they, as dis-
tinguished from Him who had been speak-
ing. Kupue, et... ] The stress of
this question is in the words, prefixed for
emphasis, €v T@ xpov@ TovTw. That the
Kingdom was, iz some sense, and at some
time, to be restored to Israel, was plain;
nor does the Lord deny this implication
(see on ver. 8). Their fault was, a too
curious enquiry on a point reserved among
the arcana of God. Lightfoot’s idea, that
the disciples wondered at the Kingdom
being about to be restored to the ungrate-
ful Jews, at this time, now that they had
crucified Him, &c., would make our Lord’s
answer irrelevant. See Micah iv. 8,
LXX. Meyer would refer ev 7@ xp.
vov. to the interval designated by od wera
TOAA. Tav. Nu. ‘during this time” But
this does not seem natural: I should rather
understand it, at this present period,—
now. The pres. adwoxafiortdvets, is that
so often used in speaking with reference
to matters of prophecy, importing fixed
determination: as in 6 épxduevos (ref.
Mt.) and the like. So that we must not
render, “ Art thou restoring ?” but “wilé,”
or “dost thou restore?” As to the word
itself, ca®totdvw (= ornut) is to establish
or set up, and amd gives the sense of com-
pleteness, or the cognate one of entire
restitution. See Wordsw.’s note.
7.] This is a general reproof and assers
tion, spoken with reference to men, as for-
bidden to search curiously into a point
which Omniscience has reserved—the
times and seasons of the future divine
dealings. But it is remarkable that not
B 2
+
k=Lukeiv. 79! : ‘ie
sutke: idta efovata
Ps. Ixvii 35. « 7
1 Luke i. 35. ay
1 Kings xi. 7.
IIPAZ EIS AIOSTOAQN.
i.
8 adAa Annwbeobe * Sbvanev 1 tmeADdvroe Tov
, Soe, Seat Nr, , m , ”
ov Tvevmatocg Ep Umac, Kal EceoHE prov ™ waprupEC EV
\
i \ -~» \ '
m = Luke ssiv- re ‘TeoovaaAnpe Kal [ev] racy ty Lovdata cat Lapageta Kar
and Acts
ne Oo? , oO =
pean Pst EWC Eo aTOU TNC yue-
’ , \ ’ € , > . ,’ A ~
P exnpOn, Kat vepedn 4 brédaBev avrov ‘a7To TwY
. 1. Isa, . -
xliii. 10.
n ch, xiii, 47 auTWV
only, from Isa. xlix. 6 F.
John xiii. 18 al. met., 2 Cor. x. 5.
r= Luke xxiv. 31.
Prov. iii. 5.
o constr., see Heb. i. 2.
‘ ~ ’ 4 ,
9 kat TavTa ELTWYV BAerovtwv
1 Pet. i. 20. Jade 18. p Luke xxiv. 50.
q — here (ch. ii. 15 reff) only. Ps. xxix. 1.
8. rec wot (corr to the common constr eceoGe wo), with E rel 36 Orig, Epiph Chr
Thi: txt ABCDN Orig,.
9. exrovtwy NX! m.
BAerovtwy B.
6eds, but 6 marhp, is here used; and this
cannot fail to remind us of that saying
(Mark xiii. 32), wep) 5& rs Tjucpas exelvns
A tis Spas ovdels oldev, ovdé Byyedos ev
ovpave, ovde 5 vids, el ph 6 waryp. It
may be observed however, that the same
assertion is not made here: only the times
and seasons said to be in the power of the
Almighty Father, Who ordereth all things
Kata Thy BovdAyy tod OeAnuatos avTov.
The Knowledge of the Son is not here in
question, only that of the disciples. It is
an enquiry intimately connected with the
interpretation of the two passages, but
one beyond our power to resolve, how far,
among the things not yet put under His
feet, may be this very thing, the knowledge
of that day and hour. Bengel attempts
to evade the generality of the odx tduav
éotw :—‘que apostolorum nondum erat
nosse, per Apocalypsin postea sunt signifi-
cata” But signified to whom? What in-
dividual, or portion of the Church, has ever
read plainly these xpdévovs 7) Katpovs in
that mysterious book? There is truth in
Olsh.’s remark, that the Apostles were to be
less prophets of the future, than witnesses
of the past ; but we must not so limit the
buay, nor forget that the yva@va: xpdvous
}) kaip. has very seldom been imparted by
prophecy, which generally has formed a
testimony to this very fact, that God has
them in His foreknowledge, and, while He
announces the events, conceals for the most
part in obscurity the ¢imes. xp:
Katp.| not synonymous; as Meyer ob-
serves, kaipds is always a definite limited
space of time, and involves the idea of
transitoriness. See also Tittmann, N. T.
Synonymes, pp. 39—45. €0. év rq 18.
#£.] Some (De Wette, al.) render ‘hath
appointed by His own power ;’ I should
rather take év éf as in ch. v. 4, in His
own power, and understand by &ero kept,
‘(hath) placed, as E. V. But the aor.
sense should be preserved: the period
referred to being that of the arrangement
om ev AC!D ah p 40 coptt Orig, Hil: ins BC*EX rel
36 vulg syrr Orig, Sevrn-c Chr Did-int Thl.
KauTa emovtTos avTou vedeAn uTeBadev avTov kat amnpOn ato
08. avr. D, simly sah Augalig; et hee D-lat: ins tw bef op@. D?.
of the divine counsels of Redemption.
8.] ‘ Quod optimum frenandx cu-
riositati remedium erat, Christus eos revo-
cat tam ad Dei promissionem, quam ad
mandatum.’ Calvin. aAXa, ‘ antithe-
ton inter id quod discipulorum erat, vel
non erat ; tum inter id quod illo tempore
futurum erat, et inter id quod in ulteriora
reservatum erat.’ Bengel. Svvapev,
that power, especially, spoken of ch. iv. 33,
connected with their office of witnessing to
the resurrection; but also all other spiritual
power. See Luke xxiv. 49. mov, not
emphatic, as Wordsw. here and often else-
where: see note on Matt. xvi. 18. The
emphasis would be extremely out’ of place
here: it was not their subordination to
Him, but their office as witnesses, which
was the contrast to their ambitious as-
pirings. paptupes | This was the pe-
culiar work of the Apostles. See on vv.
21, 22, and Prolegg. Vol. I. ch. i. § 3. 5.
a gC eee ee | By the exten-
sion of their testimony, from Jerusalem to
Samaria, and then indefinitely over the
world, He reproves, by implication, their
carnal anticipation of the restoration of the
Kingdom to Israel thus understood. The
Kingdom was to be one founded on pap-
tupla, and therefore reigning in the con-
victions of men’s hearts ; and not confined
to Juda, but coextensive with the world.
They understood this command only
of Jews scattered through the world, see ch.
xi;19. De Wette observes, that these
words contain the whole plan of the Acts :
Afuberbe Svvauw x.7.A., ch. ii. 1—end ;
év ‘lepovoaAhu, ch. iii. 1—vi. 7; then the
martyrdom of Stephen dispersed them
through Judea, vi. 8—viii.3; they preach
in Samaria, viii. 4—40; and, from that
point, the conversion of the Apostle of the
Gentiles, the vision of Peter, the preaching
and journeys of Paul. In their former
mission, Matt. x. 5, 6, they had been ex-
pressly forbidden from preaching either to
Samaritans or Gentiles. 9.] This ap-
avtwy bef
ABCD
ENabe
dfghk
mop 13
8—12. TIPAZEIS AIOSTOAQN. 5
> ~ Siu es ‘\ €
o¢0a\nov adtrov. 1° Kat He " areviovrec yoav £iC TOV sw. cinch.
= a t - ; nd iii, 4, vi. 15.
vii. 55. 6.
eer TOOEVOMEVOU auTOV, "kal loud avdpec ovo * iad xii etl
> eer , , - » 13.
etoTnkétoay avtoic Ev “ eoQiceot * XEvKaIC, Ilo? kat cimav w. tae 1c.
J Nena ~ mn Ae , : iii. 12 re’
epine Avdoerg TadtXator, tt eorncare YeuPAérovrec ste Tov Sofa toe
ABCD .° es nae ¢ = x! > EN) eae ee sp. Joh
EX abe OUPaVOV 5 OUTOC O Incove o avaAnupbetc ap vuwy ele xt 7a
Aighk —* ? ‘ e IEE ad , wa 2 u red., Luke ii.
lmop TOV Ouvpavov oUTwC eXevaerat “ov "ogy eDeacacle 21. vi 7).
13 2a Mie b , Z ts DELS. , 12 v ver. aref.
aUTOV TOPEVOLMEVOY ELC TOY ~OUpaVvoY. TOTE “vméotpeav ch. xxvii, 23.
w here (Luke
2 Macc. iii. 33 only.
Jsa. li.
xxiv. 4 rec.) only.
xi. 8. y w. es, Matt. vi. 26.
ch. vii. 28. 2 Tim. iii. 8only. Gen. xxvi. 29. ee ch. xv. 11.
26 refi.
10. rec ecOntt AcuKy, with C3DE rel 36
p vulg Syr coptt arm (Eus).
11. [esmav, so ABC!DX p. |
Chr-mss vary:
om 2nd es Tov ovp. D 33!. 34. 105
pears (see Prolegg. Vol. I. ch. iv. § 4. 2) to
be an account of the Ascension given to
Luke subsequently to the publication of his
Gospel, more particular in detail than that
found in it. He has not repeated here
details found there; see Luke xxiv. 50—52.
On the Ascension in general, see note on
Luke, 1. c. émypoy| “was taken
up,—we may understand of the com-
mencing ascent. . . . bwéAaPev by a pregn.
constr. involves the idea of away as well as
up, and hence takes after it a6. This
verb describes the close of the scene, as
far as it was visible to the spectators.”
Hackett. vededn| There was a
manifest propriety in the last withdrawal
of the Lord, while ascending, not consist-
ing in a disappearance of His Body, as on
former occasions since the Resurrection ;
for thus might His abiding Humanity have
been called in question. Asit was, He went
up, past the visible boundary of Heaven, the
cloud,—in human form, and so we think
of and pray to Him. 10. arevil. Foav |
they were gazing, stood gazing. eis
7. ovp. belongs to atevi¢., not to mopevop.,
see reff. mropevonevov, not mopev-
Oéyros: implying that the cloud remained
visible for some time, probably ascending
with Him. TapeLoTyKEeLoay, imperf.
in sense, as the perf. is present: were
standing by them. avBpes] _evi-
dently angels. See Luke xxiv. 4; John
23 eed Wr 11. of kal elrrav | who (not
only appeared but) also said. There is a
propriety in the address, &vdp. Tad:Aato..
It served to remind them of their origin,
their call to be His disciples, and the duty
of obedience to Him resting on them in
consequence. dv Tpdtrov | in the same
manner as;—to be taken in all cases
literally, not as implying mere certainty :
John xx. 12. Eccl. ix. 8. 2 Mace.
a Matt. xxiii. 37 |.
ech, viii.
= = Matt. xvii. 2 |.
1, zZ = ver. 2 reff.
b 1 Pet. iii. 22.
syr Orig-int Chr Cosm Th] Aug: txt ABCX!
BAerovtes BEX! d g k o p13 Eus Thdrt, Thl-sif:
txt ACDN? rel 36(sic) Thdrt, Thl-fin, aspicientes vulg E- lat Augatiq.
tol Aug, Vig Avit.
see reff. oUTws, 1. e. ey vepeAn,
Luke xxi. 27. His corporeal identity is
implied in odtos 6 *Inaois. éhev-
oetat| ‘Non ii, qui ascendentem viderunt,
dicuntur venturum viswri. Inter ascen-
sionem et inter adventum gloriosum nullus
interponitur eventus eorum utrique par:
ideo hi duo conjunguntur. Merito igitur
Apostoli ante datam Apocalypsin diem
Christi ut valde propinquum proposuerunt.
Et congruit majestati Christi, ut toto inter
ascensionem etinteradventum tempore sine
intermissione expectetur.’ Bengel.
12.] In so careful a writer (see Luke i. 3)
there must be some reason why this minute
specification of distance should be here in-
serted, when no such appears in the Gospel.
And I believe this will be found, by com-
bining the hint dropped by Chr ysostom,—
Seer tad por kal caBBary yeyovevat
Taita’ ov yap by ottw Td bidoTHUa
eOndwoev..... ei ph wpiopéevoy Tt wKos
éBadiCov ev TH Huepa Tov caBBatov,—
with the declaration in the Gospel (xxiv.
50) that he led them out as far as to
Bethany. This latter was (John xi. 18)
jifteen stadia from Jerusalem, which is
more than twice the Sabbath-day’s journey
(2000 cubits = about six furlongs). Now
if the Ascension happened on the Sabbath,
it is very possible that offence may have
arisen at the statement in the Gospel : and
that therefore the Evangelist gives here the
more exact notice, that the spot, although
forming part of the district of Bethany,
was yet on that part of the Mount of
Olives which fell within the limits of the
Sabbath-day’s journey. This of course
must be a mere conjecture; but it will not
be impugned by the fact of the Ascension
being kept by the Church in after ages on
a Thursday. This formed no hindrance to
6 IIPAZ EIS AMOZTOAQN. L
, J ‘ , om - , d? ~
a Lake xix. 29. ei lepovoadrn a0 O90uvC TOU ma hovninay, eAawyvoc, 0 fee
1, 37 only
oe, Antt. Vil. corey eyyve ‘Tepovsain, saBarou “ Exov ‘ 086y. 13 Kat fen k
70 Gp. THY
én,
Luke xix. 37
k
Ore * etcnAOor, sic To” UrEpWwoV avéBnoav ob ‘Hoav Kata~ 13
al. MEvovTEC, O TE Ilitpoc Kat ‘Iwdvyne Kat Laxw[3o¢ Kal
e see John viii. |
67. ix. 21, 23.
f = Luke ii, 44.
: _iee xix.
va = ch.
Matt. viii. %
, ? ,
al. ellips., "Totéeac laxwPov. 14
here only
h ch. ix. 32, 39. povvTec
xx. 8 only
83. Ezek
oF opobupadoy 7
Avdpiac, Pilimmog Kat Owmnac, BapPodXopatoc kat Maf-
Daioc, ‘laxwBoc “AX paiov Kat Liuwv o CyAwTHe, Kal
ovrot
, iz 1
TavTeg Noav moockapTe-
~ ‘ \
* MPocenyxy ouv yuraniiv Kal
2 Kings xvii Mapia TH unr pl TOU *Inoov Kal ToIC aded Hoic aurou.
xii. 7. i constr., ch. ii. 6 reff.
Rom. xii. 12. xiii. 6.
al8. Rom. xv. 6 only. L. P. Num, xxiv. 24 al.
18. eismAGev D-gr.
k here only. Num. xx.1 al.
Col, ‘iw. 2 (Mark iii. 9) only. Num. xiii. 2] only. Sas. 6 Theod.
1 = ch. vi. 4 alt.
m ch. ii. 45
nabs., Matt. xxi. 13 J, from Isa. lvi.7. Ps. iv. 2 al.
rec aveBnzav bef ets T. ur. (corn to avoid the ambiguity of
eisnd0. ets To u7.), With DEX rel 36 tol syrr coptt: om aveB. &!: txt ABC!’ p vulg
Orig Chr Thl-fin-comm Bede-gr.
rec transp tax. and iwav., with (E) rel 36: txt
ABCDX® p vulg Aug.—k. avip. bef x. wav. E Bede-gr: petr. et joh. et andr. et jac.
Bede-lat. om 38rd kat D.
om o bef (nAwtns X'.
ins o tov bef aApaov D a.
om 7th ka D.
14. & has ouodupzadoy both before and after mposkapr., &3 disapproving the 2nd.
rec (aft mposevxn) ins ka tn Senoe (Phil iv. 6), with C3 rel 36 (Orig); Kar dence,
omg 77, m:
Aug Jer Bede. ins tas bef yuv. D}.
BE p 40 sah: txt ACDN rel 36.
om t7 D!:
om ABC'DEN p Hr vulg syrr coptt eth arm Chr, Thl-fin-comm Cypr
aft yuv. ins kat Texvors D.
) Japlop.
ins D2, om tov B.
rec ins ouy bef tos ad. avt. (corn, to avoid connecting the brethren of owr Lord with
His mother), with BCE rel syrr Chr: om AC'DN vulg coptt eth arm Cypr Aug.
Chrysostom in making the above suppo-
sition : although the festival was certainly
observed in his time (see Bingham, Orig.
Eccl. xx. 6.5. There is no mention of it
in the Fathers of the first three centuries).
Forty days from the Resurrection is an ex-
pression which would suit as well the Satur-
day of the seventh week as the Thursday.
The distance of the Mount of Olives
from Jerusalem is stated by Josephus at
five stadia, Antt. xx. 8. 6,—at six stadia,
B. J. vy. 2. 3; different points being taken
as the limit. The present church of the
Ascension rather exceeds the distance of six
stadia from the city. The use of eAady,
-ovos, here (and in reff.) by Luke only is
remarkable, especially as the whole passage
is so much in his own distinctive style as to
preclude the idea of his having transferred
a written document. éxov is not for
amréxov, but as in rpidk. K. OKT. ETN Exar,
John y. 5, and in reff.; the space or time
mentioned being regarded as an attribute
of the subject. 13. elsqXO.] ‘into
the city ;’ see reff. To wrepo.| The
idea that this was a chamber in the Temple
has originated in low literal-harmonistic
views, Luke having stated (Luke xxiv. 53)
that they were 51a wavrds ev rq@ iepg. As
if such an expression could be literally un-
derstood, or taken to mean more than that
they were there at all appointed times (see
ch. iii. 1). It is in the highest degree im-
probable that the disciples would be found
assembled in any public place at this time.
The upper chamber was perhaps that in
which the last Supper had been taken ; pro-
bably that in which they had been since
then assembled (John xx. 19, 26), but ce7-
tainly one in a private house. Lightf.
shews that it was the practice of the Jews
to retire into a large chamber under the flat
roof for purposes of deliberation or prayer.
See Neander, Pfl. u. Leit., p. 13, note.
Epiphanius, de ponderibus, c. 14 (vol. iii. p.
170), relates that when Hadrian came to
Jerusalem, eipe thy wéAw wacay Sadiope-
vnv Kal Td tepdy Tod Oeod KatamenaTHMEVOY,
mapexTos OAlywy oiknudtwy Kal Tis TOU
Geod é€xxAnolas pixpas otons, @vOa sro-
otpéewavtes of pabntal, bre 5 cwrhp av-
eEAndOn ard Tov "EAatavos, avéBnoay eis
7) bmwep@ov. ket yap @Koddunto, TovT-
éotw ev TG méper Sidvs Fris awd rijs
épnudoews mepieAT pen, . . . . Ews xpdvou
Maét{uov rod éemoxdmov ral Kwvoraytivov
Tov BaciAéws, os aKnvh ev duredavi,
kata 7 yeypaupévoy. And Nicephorus
viii. 30 (see Wordsw.) says that the Em-
press Helena enclosed in her larger church
the chamber where took place 7 Tov
aylou Tvetuaros ea ev 7@ brepde.
iy jioav kat.] not to be taken as
in E. ‘where abode both Peter, &ce.;
which ze: es the idea that Peter, &e. were
already in the chamber, and the rest joined
13—16.
TIPAZEIS ATMOSTOAQN. ?
15 K eat re - aa; , p? . , ;
ev och. vi. 1.
at Taig nueoatg tavraic Pavacrag Tlérpoc evech.yit.
,
hEow
~ > ~ a =
Trev TadeAgav eizev (Hv TE "oxAoe * Ovomatwv ‘emp artsy
e a ff.
TO aUTO *we EKaTOV elkoot) 164” A y8oec aded pot, aya ” aX n= 9 = chix. 80
rch. vi. 7 reff.
= ‘ ‘ ay -~ ~
owPnva thy * yeagny [ravrnv | nv ¥ wposimev TO * rvevpa eRe eh,
xvi. 53.
a ch, vii. 2 al. fr. v=ch. iv. 12 reff.
Luke iy. 21. John xix. 24. 2 Tim. iii. 16.
Rom. ix. 29 al.
15. for xa: ev, ev 5¢ DE sah syr-marg Aug,.
t ch. ii. 1, poe (iii. 1). iv. 26 (from Ps. ii. 3).
4 xi.13. Num,
1 Cor. xi. 20. Ps. xxxvi. 38.
x = Mark xii. 10.
Gal. v. 21. 1 Thess. iv. 6 only ¢+. mpveip.,
w =ch. iii. 18 reff.
y
z Heb. iii. 7. ix. 8. x. 15. see 2 Pet. i. 21.
ins o bef rertp. D. euueow ACE,
rec for adcApwv, wabntwy (corrn, to avoid the triple recurrence of ader. in vv.
14, 15,16. Meyer and De W. take ad. to have been a corrn to suit avdp. adeApor in
ver. 16, but the other is much more prob), with CDE rel 36 syrr Chr Thl Cypr Aug, :
txt ABC'!8 13 vulg coptt eth arm Aug.
copt Cypr Aug: yap D!: preterea D'-lat: om sah eth.
for ovonatwy, avSpwy E: hominum vulg(not fuld) Syr eth Aug.
rec eikoow, with rel: txt ABCEN fm p 13. 36: px’ D.
40 Thl-fin: ws BDE rel.
for te, 5e CD? vulg D?-lat E-lat syrr
ins o bef oxAos D.
* cel ACR
16. de: D (txt D-corr') vulg Iren-int(principal-mss: given nominatim by Stieren)
Aug Vig Gild. (Iren-int has oportebat apud Harvey.)
them there :—but, on entering the city,
they went up into the upper chamber,
where they (usually) sojourned (not
‘dwelt :’ they did not all dwell in one
house; see John xix. 27, note), namely,
Peter, &c. On the catalogue of the
Apostles, see Matt. x. 2, note. 14.]
ovy yuvatétv has been rendered ‘ with their
wives,’ to which sense Bp. Middleton in-
clines, justifying it by ocby yuvatly ral
Téxvois, ch. xxi. 5. But the omission of
the articles there may be accounted for on
the same principle as in Matt. xix. 29, viz.
that which Bp. M. calls enumeration, ch.
vi. § 2. Here Il think we must take civ yuv.
not as meaning ‘ with women, as Hackett,
but, the art. not being expressed after the
preposition suv, as = avy tats yur. (see
Middl. ch. vi. § 1), and interpret yuv.,
the women, viz. those spoken of by Luke
himself, Luke viii. 2, 3,—where, besides
those named, he mentions €repa: mwoAAat.
Many of these were certainly not wives of
the Apostles ; and that those women who
were ‘last at the Cross and earliest at the
tomb’ should not have been assembled
with the company now, is very improbable.
kat Mapiqa] The kai gives emi-
nence to one among those previously men-
tioned. So tavde civera, cal vis imepy,
Herod. i. 73. See Hartung, Partikellehre,
i. 145. This is the last mention of her
intheN.T. The traditions, which describe
her as (1) dying at the age of fifty-nine, in
the fifth year of Claudius (Niceph. H. KE.
ii. 21), or (2) accompanying John to Ephe-
sus, and being buried there (see Winer,
Realwérterb. art. Maria), are untrustwor-
thy. Other accounts, with the authorities,
may be seen in Butler’s Lives of the
Saints, Aug. 15. The fable of the As-
om tavtnv ABC'N p Hr yulg
sumption has xo foundation even in tradi-
tion. Tots adeAd. adt.} This clearly
shews, as does John vii. 5 compared with
vi. 69, 70, that none of the brethren of our
Lord were of the number of the Twelve.
When they were converted, is quite uncer-
tain. See the whole subject discussed in
note on Matt. xiii. 55, and in the Prole-
gomena to the Epistle of James. In both
cases of one being distinguished from a
number, cited here by Wordsw. to shew
that James the Less may have been one of
these brethren, viz. that of Mapia, as dis-
tinguished among the women here, and that
of Joseph, ch. vii. 9, he does not observe that
the general statement precedes the indivi-
dual distinction, as indeed it naturally must.
15—26.] ELEecTION OF A TWELFTH
APOSTLE TO FILL THE ROOM OF JUDAS
IscaRIor. 15. év tT. Hp. T-] In the
days between the Ascension and Pentecost;
during which it appears that the number of
the assembly had increased, not probably
by fresh conversions, but by the gathering
round the Apostles of those who had pre-
viously been disciples. jv te] The
very frequent use of re is a peculiarity of
the Acts, and should have its weight in de-
termining the reading, even where, as here,
d€ seems more appropriate. It occurs in
the Gospel 5 times: in the Acts, 121.
évopatev! See note on Rev. iii. 4.
ékatov etkoot] De Wette asks, ‘ where
were the 500 brethren of 1 Cor. xv. 6?’
We surely may answer, ‘not in Jeru-
salem.’ See Neander, Pf. u. Leit., p. 72,
note. 16.] We may enquire, by what
change in mind and power Peter was able,
before the descent of the Spirit, thus
authoritatively to speak of Scripture and
the divine purposes? The answer will be
8 TIPAZEIS AMOSTOAQN.
I.
a=Lukei.70.7o 7 ayiov dia “orouatoc Aaveld reot lobda tov yevonévou
D | Maroc e YErer
ch. iii, 18, 21.
iv. 25. xv.7. b £
fh oonyou Tole “avdAaBovoww “Inaovy, !7 ore * carnoOun-
xxxvi. 2), 22.
b Matt. xv. 14.
er 16, 24. , *
om. ii. 19
only. Ezra Kovlac TauTync.
viii. l only. m
a iy.2
a
pévoc “ny ev naw Kat
Ss
c — Matt. xxvi. 55 |. ch. xii. 3a). Jndg. vii. 25.
e w. perf. part., ch. xxii. 29 reff.
viii. 19 only.) 3 Mace. vi. 1.
k — John iv. 5. ch. iv. 34. v. 3, 8. xxviii. 7.
iv. 4 reff.
p here only t. Wisd. iy. 19 only.
f = 2 Pet.i. 1 (Luke i.9. John xix. 24) only.
g ch. viii. 21 reff.
1 Chron, xxvii. 27.
n 2 Pet. ii. 13, 15. see 2 Macc. viii. 33.
q = ch. xvi. 27 al.
‘eXNaxev Tov ®xAnpov rnc " dta-
\
% ee , k , 1 2
OUTOC [MEV OUV ’ EKTYH CATO Xwelov eK
o Qov rn 2° AOUKL \p ET , i> ¥-
MtaVou TIC aouKlac, Kal Tmpnvyc yevouevoc EAGAKNOEV
dhereonly. Gen.1.3. 2Chrov. xxxi. 19.
(1 Kings xiv. 47. Wisd.
h —ch. xx. 14 reff. ich. xxii. 28 reff.
1 — Matt. xx. 2. xxvii. 7. m = Rom.
o — Luke xiii. 27. 1 Kings iii. 13, 14.
r here only t.
coptt «th arm Orig, Eus Ath Did Vig Gild (omitted by homeotel: or erased as un-
necessary with nv, and perhaps, as Mey. and De W., because no citation immediately
«
Sollows) : ins C3DE rel 36 syrr Did Chr Iren-int Aug.
C3DE rel 36 Chr Thl: om ABC & Eus Did.
rec for ev, suv (corrn to better Greek ; see ref 2 Chron), with rel
syrr Chr: txt ABCDEN p 13 Hr vulg coptt Orig,
17. om nv X'.
Digr: txt Dt,
rec ins toy bef iaour, with
Eus Iren-int Aug. for Kat, os
ins umep bef 7. dak. Bt-marg(sic, see table).
18. rec ins tov bef ui08. (corrn in ignorance of the usage which omits the art aft a
preposition ; see Middleton, ch. vi. 1), with o Thl-fin: om ABCDEN rel Hr Eus Chr.
aft adic. ins avrov D.
found in the peculiar gift of the Spirit to
the Apostles, John xx. 21, 23; where see
note. The pre-eminency of Peter here
is the commencement of the fulfilment of
Matt. xvi. 18, 19 (see note there).
17.| 61, not ‘although’ (Kuinoel), but
because: it gives the reason of the pre-
vious assertion, viz. that Judas held, and
had betrayed, that place of high trust of
which the prophecy spoke. Thus the 8tu
has reference to the substance of the pro-
phecy, already in Peter’s mind, and serves
to explain 4 €mavAis abrod and 4 émokom})
avrov. €Xaxev Tov KApov] not lite-
rally, but inasmuch as the dof of every man
is regarded as being cast and appointed by
God. kAjpos, first, the Jot itself; then,
that apportioned by lot; then, any species
of apportionment, whether possession, or
office, as here. 18.] This verse can-
not be regarded as inserted by Luke ; for,
1. the place of its insertion would be most
unnatural for a historical notice: 2. the
Bev ody forbids the supposition: 3. the
whole style of the verse is rhetorical, and
not narrative, e.g. obros, uic000 THs adixlas.
The ékthoato xwplovy does not
appear to agree with the account in Matt.
Xxvii. 6—8; nor, consistently with com-
mon honesty, can they be reconciled, wnless
we knew more of the facts than we do. If
we compare the two, that of Matthew is
the more particular, and more likely to
give rise to this one, as a general inference
Srom the buying of the field, than vice
versd. Whether Judas, as Bengel sup-
poses, ‘initio emtionis facto, occasionem
dederat ut Sacerdotes eam consummarent,’
we cannot say: such a thing is of course
possible. At all events we hence clearly
see that Luke could not have been ac-
quainted with the Gospel of Matthew at
this time, or surely (not, he would have
repeated St. Matt.’s account, as Dr. Words.
unfairly represents me to say, but) this ap-
parent discrepancy would not have been
found. The various attempts to reconcile
the two narratives, which may be seen in
most of our English commentaries, are
among the saddest examples of the shifts
to which otherwise high-minded men are
driven by an unworthy system. See asa
notable example, Dr. Wordsw.’s note,
written since the above. I need hardly
say to any intelligent and ingenuous
reader, that his way of harmonizing,—viz.
that as the Jews are said to have crucified
our Lord when they were only the ocea-
sion of his being crucified, so Judas may be
said to have bought the field when he only
gave occasion to its being bought by the
Chief Priests,—is entirely precluded here
by the words ék picOod ris adiclas, ‘out
of the wages of his iniquity,’ which plainly
bind on the purchase to Judas as his per-
sonal act. kat mp. yev.] The con-
nexion of this with the former clause
would seem to point to the death of Judas
having taken place in the field which he
bought. See also ver. 19. ™pHVvAS
yevopevos will hardly bear the meaning as-
signed to it by those who wish to har-
monize the two accounts,—viz. that, having
hanged himself, he fell by the breaking of
the rope. mpnvhs* em mpdswrov mertw-
Kka@s, Hesych. 6Aov mev 7d cua KetoOau
mpnves A€youev, Stay pmev ‘yaorhp
Kkadtwbev, &vwhev 5é 3} 7 v@rov, Galen,
cited by Wetstein. mpnvis, eis rotu-
mpoobev, emt orduaros, Etymol. Nor
again is it at all probable that the Apostle
would recount what was a mere accident
ABCD
EX abe
dfghk
lmop
13
17—20.
ee \t? , ’ Xu , > -
flsooc Kal eey vn TavTa Ta omdayyxva autTou,
~
. -
‘ yvwotor eyéveTo maa ToC
U ~
were KAnOnvat TO
~ ,
Yautwy AxedSapay, * tovtéctw
ix. 5 (6?) only.
wconstr., ch, ii. 9, 14al5, Matt, xxiii. 21.
iii. 34. x ver. 18,
only. Esth. ix. 26.
om tavta A Thl-sif Gaud.
19. ins o bef kar D-gr X(but erased) 18 Aug: Kaz Tovto sah.
avtwy bef dad. E 163 Aug.
zth-mss are appy divided: txt(-ax) ABD KE(-ax) & p 40
arm Aug: ins AB?CE rel.
C 18 rel vulg syrr copt Chr :
IIPAZ EIS AIOSTOAQN. 9
19 \ s constr., Luke
Kal XRiii. 45.
Gen. xv. 10.
Ww - c ,
KaTOLKOvVoLV IepovcaA nn, t = (-xeiv,
, a hoe - ar “ , Matt. ix. 17.)
*\wolov EKEWO TH Ee ota | z ie 2 Kings xx.
x / ad ]
Xwolov aluaroc. 20 yé- uli iad te
eat) 2 Macc.
v = Jobn xviii. 15, 16. ch. ix. 42. xv. 18. xix.17. Ps. Ixxv.1.
Luke xiii.4. Rev. (xii. 12, v. r.) xvii. 2 only.
y soJohn x.12. 2 Pet. iil. 16,
a ch, xix. 4 reff.
Hos. x. 5. 1 Macc.
zch. ii. 6,8 al8. Acts
om 16:2 B'DN sah
rec akeAdaua, with
am demid fuld tol lux sah Eus Aug Bede.—axead. AX p 40, haceldamach tol, achel-
damac am fuld lux Bede, akyldamach sah, -demach wth-pl.—axrerAdaiuax D.
accompanying his death, when that death
itself was the accursed one of hanging.
What then are we to decide respecting the
two accounts? That there should have
been a double account actually current of
the death of Judas at this early period is
in the highest degree improbable, and
will only be assumed by those (De Wette,
&e.) who take a very low view of the accu-
racy of the Evangelists. Dismissing then
this solution, let us compare the accounts
themselves. In this case, that in Matt.
xxvii. is general,—ours particular. That
depends entirely on the exact sense to be
assigned to aayy§aro (727), Kal arhytato,
2 Sam. xvii. 23): whereas this distinctly
assigns the manner of his death, without
stating any cause for the falling on his
face. It is obvious that, while the gene-
ral term used by Matthew points mainly
at self-murder, the account given here
does not preclude the catastrophe related
having happened, in some way, as a divine
judgment, during the suictdal attempt.
Further than this, with our present know-
ledge, we cannot go. An accurate ac-
quaintance with the actual cireumstances
would account for the discrepancy, but
nothing else. Another kind of death
is assigned to Judas by Gicumenius, quot-
ing from Papias: foropet Mamias 6 Tov
*Iwavvov Tov amooT. HabnThs Aeywv" péya
THS doeBelas brdderypa ev TOUT@ To Koon
meplem aT no ev *Iovdas* mpnadels yap em) thy
adpka, &Sste wh SdvacOa SiedrOeiv, audins
padlws Stepxomerns, bmd Tis audins emieaOn,
&ste Ta &yxata avtod exxevwOjvat. Theo-
phylact quotes the same on Matt. xxv ii.,
but without the last words, ird THs au.
k.T.A., Which De Wette supposes to have
been inserted from (cumenius having
misunderstood Papias. If so, the tradi-
tion is in accordance with, and has arisen
from an exaggerated amplification of, our
text. See the whole passage from Theo-
phylact cited, and a discussion whether it
is rightly ascribed to Papias, in Routh,
Reliquiz Sacre, vol. i. p. 9, and notes.
éhaknoev | cracked asunder: it im-
plies bursting with a noise. It is quite
possible that this catastrophe happening
in the field, as our narrative implies, may
have suggested its employment as a burial-
place for strangers, as being defiled. So
Stier, Reden der Apostel, i. 10. 19.]}
It is principally from this verse that it has
been inferred that the two vv. 18, 19 are
inserted by Iuke. But it is impossible to
separate it from ver. 18; and I am dis-
posed to regard both as belonging to
Peter’s speech, but freely Grecized by
Luke, inserting into the speech itself the
explanations 77 [i3{q] d:aA. adr., and Tovr-
éoTw x. alu., as if the speech had been
spoken in Greek originally. This is much
more natural, than to parenthesize these
clauses ; +4 is, in fact, what must be more
or less done by all who report in a lan-
guage different from that actually used by
the speaker. The words and idioms of
another tongue contain allusions and na-
tional peculiarities which never could have
been in the mind of one speaking in a dif-
ferent language; but the ear tolerates
these, or easily separates them, if critically
exercised. yvwotov... | See Luke
Xxiv. 18. &ste| in Matt. xxvii. 8, the
name ‘the field of blood’ is referred to
the fact of its having been bought with the
price of blood : here, to the fact of Judas
having there met with a signal and bloody
death. On the whole, I believe the result
to which I have above inclined will be found
the best to suit the phenomena of the two
passages,—viz. that, with regard to the
purchase of the field, the more circum-
stantial account in Matthew is to be
adopted; with regard to the’ death of
Judas, the more circumstantial account of
Luke. The clue which joins these has
been lost to us: and in this, only those
will find any stumbling-block, whose faith
10
b Luke xx. 42,
c here only.
ypamrat yao ev ” BiBry °
IIPAZEIS AIMOSTOAQN. a
Padpov Pen fire 7 n “emavdtc
bis 1 d ¢ \
; 5a avurou EpNILOC, Kal Bn zotw “oO KaTouKwy év aury. Kal
art., Ma ~
ict Sa Th © emiskomiy aurou AaBérw ee tat a oct ouv TaY
1 (Luk Pes
xa 1 * cuveA Dovtwv nai avepiy év TavrTl Xodvy @ ® even ADev
et. ii. 1%
2 i
oman kat © e&nAOev © Ep mac oO KUpLOG ‘Tnoove, “ apbapevoc
TALL. amo tov Pamtispatoc "Iwavvov twe 7™¢ pepee nC
(Mark xiv. 1> ,
63.) ,
g Eurip. Phen. a eAnupOn
34,5. see
ch. ix. 28.
Ps. cxx. 8.
Deut. xxxi. 2. h = Luke ii. 8. xii. 14.
1 Pet.iv.17. Ezek. ix. 6. k attr., ver. 1 reff.
o=ch. ii. 3l. iv. 34. Rom. vi.5. Phil. iii. 10.
20. for Ist avrov, avrwy m! o p vulg(not am demid &c) D!-lat «th-rom arm.
rec for AaBeTw, AaBa (corrn to suit .xx), with E rel: txt
eotw, 7 D!: txt D*.
ABCDX p Eus Chr.
21. ins tw bef xpovw D.
om ABC!D-corrX! p vulg Aug.—ws D!; quoniam D!-lat; eum copt.
add xpioros D syr wth Aug.
22. for ews, axpt AN p.
ABCDR k m p 40 vulg arm Chr, Aug.
23. aft ca: ins TovTwy AexGevtwy E.
in the veracity of the Evangelists is very
weak indeed. *AxedBapax | NOT PIT
The field originally belonged to a potter,
and was probably a piece of land which
had been exhausted of its clay fit for his
purposes, and so was useless. Jerome re-
lates that it was still shewn on the S. side
of Mount Sion (év Bopelois tod Siwy dpovs,
but by mistake, Eusebius), in which neigh-
bourhood there is even now a bed of white
clay (see Winer, RWB., ‘ Blutacker’).
20.] yap, the connexion being, ‘all
this happened and became known,’ &c., ‘in
accordance with the prophecy,’ &e. Ps.
lxix. is eminently a Messianic psalm,—
spoken in the first place of David and his
kingdom and its enemies, and so, accord-
ing to the universal canon of O. T. inter-
pretation, of Him in whom that kingdom
found its true fulfilment, and of His ene-
mies. And Judas being the first and most
notable of these, the Apostle applies emi-
nently to him the words which in the
Psalm are spoken in the plural of all such
enemies. The same is true of Ps. cix., and
there one adversary is even more pointedly
marked out. See also Ps. ly. ém-
oKomyy = mIPe office, or charge. The
citations are freely from the LXX.
21.] odv, since all this has happened to
Judas, and since it is the divine will that
another should take the charge which was
his. év mwavtt xpévw] This defini-
tion of the necessary qualification of an
apostle exactly agr "ees with our Lord’s
saying in John xv. 27: Kal duets 5& waptu-
peire, Bre dew’ aipxiis a é€uot eore. See
Prolegg. Vol. L. i. 3.5. els AO. x. ERA.
m? , « ~
ap Hwy,
° ~ ‘ C.>. , 0 7 ,
QuTOu GUY 7)LIV YEvEo at é€vad TOUTWY,
Heb. x. 21.
1 Pet. i. 8. iii. 21 3.
TC
23
" “waorvoa ° avaorasewe
\ p ”
at EoTNOaV
iw. &76, Matt. xx. 8. ch. viii. 35. x. 37.
1 = ver. 2 reff. m = ver. 9. n ver. 8 reff.
pch. vi. 6. xvii. 3).
for
rec ins ev bef w, with C5(and appy C?) EX? rel Chr:
at end
rec yeveoOat bef cvy nu., with E 13 rel Thl-sif: txt
eotnoey D'(and lat: txt D-corr!) «th-rom
ép pas] An abridged construction for
eisHard. ed’ Huds Kk. e&HAO. ad” Tuer.
22. Bart. Iwav.| Not ‘ His being baptized
by John’ (as Wolf, Kuin., &e.); but the
baptism of John, as a well-known date,
including of course the opening event of
our Lord’s ministry, His own baptism.
That John continued to baptize for some
time after that, can be no possible objec-
tion to the assignment of ‘ John’s baptism’
generally, as the date of the commence-
ment of the apostolic testimony (agst De
Wette). We may notice, that from this
point the testimony of the Evangelists
themselves in their Gospels properly be-
gins, Matt. iii. 1, Mark i. 1, Luke iii. 1,
John i. 6. papt. THS avacr.| This
one event was the passage-point between
the Lord’s life of humiliation and His life
of glory,—the completion of His work
below and beginning of His work above.
And to ‘give witness with power’ of the
Resurrection (ch. iv. 33), would be to
discourse of it as being all this; in order
to which, the whole ministry of Jesus
must be within the cycle of the Apostle’s
experience. It is remarkable that
Peter here lays down experience of mat-
ters of fact, not eminence in any sub-
jective grace or quality, as the condi-
tion of Apostleship. Still, the testimony
was not to be mere ordinary allegation of
matters of fact: any who had seen the
Lord since His resurrection were equal to
this ;—but belonged to @ distinct office
(see John xiv. 26: also ch. v.31, note), ve-
quiring the especial selection and grace of
God. 23.] €atyay, viz. the whole
21—25.
ovo, "Iwonp tov KaAotpevov Bapsaf3Bar, O¢ * emexAnOn
Kat moocevSapevor
"lovoroc, kat Maf@iav. 4
?
KUOLe
, ~ , ov 9 - ‘ , ~ t ,
Tourwy Tw dvo Ewa * AaBew TOv ToTOoV THC ‘ Clakoviac
> ~ > ’ a
“arootoAnc, ap n¢
, \
TavTne Kal
2 Macc. ix. 23. see Luke i. 89.
Gal. ii. 8 only. Deut. xxii. 7.
(Sir. xxiii. 18.)
Aug.
vulg Syr Eus Chr :
zth. (13 def.)
24. om ov Do.
txt ABEN b
ex T. T. 5. Syr arm.
25. romoyv bef tov D.
company, to whom the words had been
spoken; not the eleven Apostles.
*loond .... | The names "Iwojp and
*Iwofs, different forms of the same, are
confused in the MSS., both here and in ch.
iv. 36. But Barsabbas (or Barsabas) and
Barnabas are not to be confounded : they
are different names (Barsabbas = son of
Sabba or Saba: on Barnabas, see ch. iy.
36, note) ; and Barnabas is evidently intro-
duced in iv. 36 as a person who had not
been mentioned before. Of Barsabas,
nothing further is known. LEuseb., iii. 39,
states, on the authority of Papias, that he
drank a cup of poison without being hurt.
In all probability both the selected
persons (see Eus. i. 12) belonged to the
number of the Seventy, as it would be
natural that the candidates for apostleship
should be chosen from among those who
had been already distinguished by Christ
Himself among the brethren. Justus
is a Roman cognomen, assumed according
to a custom then prevalent. The name
Justus seems to have been common:
Schéttgen, Hor. Hebr., on this place,
gives two instances of Jews bearing it.
Ma@@iav| Nothing historical is
known of him. Traditionally, according
to Nicephorus (H. E. ii. 40, Winer), he
suffered martyrdom in Authiopia ; accord-
ing to others, in Colchis (Menolog. Gree.
iii. 198, Winer): another account (Pe-
rionii Vite Apost. p. 178 sqq., Winer)
makes him preach in Judiea and be stoned
by the Jews. Clem. Alex., Strom. ii. 9,
p. 452 P., vii. 18, p. 882 P., mentions the
mapaddcers of Matthias, which perhaps
were the same as an apocryphal gospel
onee current under his name, mentioned
by Eus., H. E. iii. 25. See Winer, RWB.
24.| Itis a question, to Whom this
prayer was directed. I think all proba-
bility is in favour of the Apostle (for Peter
TIPASZEIS AIOSTOAQN.
" Kapdioyvwara TavTwy, ° avacecoyv 0 Ov eLerebw Ek
v = here (Matt. xv. 2, 3.
for wan, twonyv B(Ble) 5 lect-1 syr sah.
11
q = ch. iy. 36.
c= 5al Dan.
a
timav Sv rch. 8 8
Herm. Past.
ii. 4. 3 (see
Nov. Test.
Sinait., fol.
145*).
Luke x.1
* only. Hab,
iii. 2. =
t ver. 17. u Rom.i. 6. 1 Cor. ix. 2.
2 ehas 9) nile Exod. xxxii. 8!
y Tapé3n ‘loveac zo-
rec BapoaBay, with C rel
f g p am fuld syr coptt Eus-mss.—apvaBay D tol
rec ex T. T. dvo eva bef oy efed. (with none of our manu-
scripts) : txt ABCDEX rel syr copt Eus Bas Chr, Dion-areop Thl Procop:
for eva, ava, making avadaBew, D!:
rec (for to7ov) kAnpov, with C3ENX rel syrr: om eth (rnv
diakoviay TavTns T. aroot.): txt ABC!D vulg coptt Procop Aug.
eva ov eter.
txt D4.
rec (for ag’)
certainly was the spokesman) having ad-
dressed his glorified Lord. And with this
the language of the prayer agrees. No
stress can, it is true, be laid on kvpie: see
ch. iv. 29, where unquestionably the Father
is addressed: but the é€eAéfm, compared
with od ey tuas Tovs Sédexa ebedega-
pyv, John vi. 70, seems to me almost deci-
sive. See also ver. 2; Luke vi. 13; John
xiii. 18, xv. 16, 19. The instance cited
on the other side by Meyer, e&eAééato
6 Oeds Sia Tov otdépards pov akovoa Ta
€6vn x.7T.A., is not to the point, as not
relating to the matter here in hand ;
nor are the passages cited by De Wette,
2 Cor.i.1; Eph. i. 1 ; 2 Tim. i. 1, where
Paul refers his apostleship to God, since
obviously all such appointment must be
referred ultimately to God :—pbut the
question for us is,—In these words, did
the disciples pray as they would have
prayed before the Ascension, or had they
Christ in their view? The expression kap-
Stoyveora (used by Peter himself of God,
ch. xv. 8) forms no objection: see John
xxi. 17, also in the mouth of Peter himself.
We are sure, from the mposkuyjcaytes
avtév of Luke xxiv. 52, that even at this
time, before the descent of the Spirit, the
highest kind of worship was paid to the
ascended Redeemer. Still, I do not re-
gard it as by any means certain that they
addressed Christ, nor can the passage be
alleged as convincing in controversy with
the Socinian. ava8eg. «7.A.| Not,
as in E. V., ‘shew whether of these two
Thow hast chosen, but appoint (see reff.)
one of these two [him] whom Thou hast
chosen. The difference is of some im-
port : they did not pray for a sign merely,
to shew whether of the two was chosen,
but that the Lord would, by means of
their lot, Himself appoint the one of His
choice. 25.] roémov is from internal
12
TIPAZEIS AMOZSTOAQN.
I. 26.
- ’ ‘ , ‘ , 9 \ 7 ,
w=mat, pevfjvat sic rov “ romoy Tov tdiov, *° Kal * ZowKav ¥ KAH- ABP.
> - 4 a e - 5. ’ ‘
jobavill 21. gouge auToic, Kat *Emecev O *xAnoocg * ert MabOiav, cai {te
13
x = hereonly.
see Luke xy.
22. — BaddX.,
Matt. xxvii.
LE Kat
’ ~
€v TW
35 |. y — Matt. xxvii. 35 only. Neh. x. 34. see ver. 17.
(-pwous, 1 Chron, xxxvi. 21.)
only t.
et, with E rel Chr; de vulg E-lat:
Aug. itov tom. C: Tom. T. Sixasoy A.
b — Luke ix. 51 (viii. 23) only ¢.
in quo sah:
* ouyKarenpicOy pera tov tvoeka atoato\wy.
> ouvtAnoovobat tiv hugpay rhe
z Jonah i. 7. a here
txt ABCDX p copt Bas, @ D-lat
26. rec (for avros) avrwy (see note), with D'E rel syr Chr, Aug-mss: om Syr Aug-
ed: txt ABCD2X p
oupnp. D'(but analy. Karetp. Xl.
Cuap. II. 1. for kai ev Tw, Kat evyeveTo ev Tals nNmepais ekewais Tov D.
evidence, as well as MS. authority, the
preferable reading. It has been altered
to kAjpoy to suit ver. 17. Staxovias,
implying the active duties; amooro\js,
the official dignity of the office :—no figure
of €v bia dvoiv. Tov TétTov Tov
{tov} With the reading réxov before, I
think these words may be interpreted two
ways: 1. that Judas deserted this our
témos, our office and ministry, to go to his
own Témos, that part which he had chosen
for himself, viz. the office and character of
a traitor and enemy of God; 2. regarding
the former word rézos as being selected to
correspond to the more proper and dreadful
use of the word here, that Judas deserted
his téros, his appointed place, here among
us, that he might go to his own appointed
témos elsewhere, viz. among the dead in
the place of torment. Of these two in-
terpretations, I very much prefer the
second, on all accounts; as being more
according to the likely usage of the word,
and as more befitting the solemnity of such
a prayer. At the same time, no absolute
sentence is pronounced on the traitor, but
that dark surmise expressed by the eu-
phemism tdv rémoy 7. 15., which none can
help feeling with regard to him. Torefer
the words zrop. eis rT. tTé7. 7. 75., to the sue-
cessor of Judas (Knatchbull, ‘Hammond,
al.), ‘ut oceupet locum ipsi a Deo destina-
tum, (1) is contrary to the form of the
sentence, which would require ka mopev-
Oijvar; (2) is inconsistent with the words
mop. K.T.A., Which are unexampled in this
sense; (3) would divest a sentence, evi-
dently solemn and pregnant, of all point
and meaning, and reduce it to a mere tau-
tology. It appears to have been very early
understood as above ; for Clement of Rome
says of Peter (1 Cor. v.), ofrw papruphoas
emopetOn eis Thy detAduevoy témov Tis
ddéns, an expression evidently borrowed
from our text. Lightf., Hor. Hebr. in
loc., quotes from the Rabbinical work
Baal turim on Num. xxiv. 25,—* Balaam
13 vulg coptt «eth(appy) Chr,.
for evdexa 1B’ D, xii D-lat; so also Eus.
om 6 Dr m!; ins D?.
Tas
ivit in locum suum, i. e. in Gehennam.’
26. Sw. KAyjpouvs aitois| They
cast lots for them, avrois being a dativus
commodi. The ordinary reading, whether
avra@y is referred to the Apostles or to the
candidates, would require to’s KAjpous.
Avr@yv has been an alteration, to avoid the
rendering ‘ they gave lots to them.’ These
lots were probably tablets, with the names
of the persons written on them, and shaken
ina vessel, or in the lap of a robe (Prov.
xvi. 33); he whose lot first leaped out
being the person designated. ovy-
kat.| The /ot being regarded as the divine
choice, the suffrages of the assembly were
unanimously given (not in form, but by
cheerful acquiescence) to the candidate
thus chosen, and he was ‘ voted in’ among
the eleven Apostles, i. e. as a twelfth.
That Luke does not absolutely say so,
and never afterwards speaks of the twelve
Apostles, is surely no safe ground on which
to doubt this. Stier seems disposed
to question (in his Reden der Apostel, i.
18 ff., which however was a work of his
youth) whether this step of electing a
twelfth Apostle was altogether suitable to
the then waiting position of the Church,
and whether Paul was not in reality the
twelfth, chosen by the Lord Himself. But
I do not see that any of his seven queries
touch the matter. We have the prece-
dent, of all others most applicable, of the
twelve tribes, to shew that the number,
though ever nominally kept, was really
exceeded. And this incident would not
occupy a@ prominent place in a book where
Paul himself has so conspicuous a part,
unless it were by himself considered as
being what it professed to be, the filling
up of the vacant Apostleship.
Cuap. Il. 1—4.] Tur Oureourtne or
THE Hoty Spirit ON THE DISCIPLES.
1. é€v tO ovvTAnpotofar.... |
While the day of P. was being fulfilled :
“during the progress of that particular
day :’ this is necessitated by the pres. tense.
13
2 ‘ cch. xx. 16.
KQL " } Cor. xvi. 8
only t.
d (ch. xx. 18, v.r.) John iv. 36. xx. 4, xxi. 2. Ezra ii. 64.
ech, i. 15 ref.
ir I, 2. TIPAZEIS AIOSTOAQN.
~ * ,
“revTnKooTNC Noav TavrTeEc
Tobit ii. 1. 2 Mace. xii. 32.
Job iii. 18 Symm,
nuepas vulg D-lat E-lat Syr «th arm Aug, Vig. rec amaytes, with m rel Thl-
sif: om EX! Chr: txt ABC'N? ¢ d p.—ovtwy avtwyv maytwy D Syr eth.—add o: amo-
otoAo. ce dk m Ht Thi-fin. rec (for ouov) omodvmadoy, with C3E rel Chr ‘Thl-sif:
om D (Syr ?) copt sah(inter se for ou. €. To av.): txt ABC'N p Ath, pariter vulg,
d* cc) ie lem | ‘ Lee
OMoU "ETL TO auTO.
simul ¥.-lat.
In sense, it amounts to ‘ when the day of P.
was fully come, as K. V.: but not in gram-
mar. Professor Hitzig, in a letter to Ide-
ler, “ Ostern und Pfingsten, u.s.w.,” main-
tains that the meaning is, ‘As the day of P.
drew on,—‘was approaching its fulfil-
ment :? but this view is refuted by Neander,
“ Pflanzung u. Leitung, u.s.w.,” p. 10, note.
Hitzig supports his view by ver. 5, taking
katoikouvtes to imply constant residence,
not merely sojourning on account of the
Jeast, which latter he says would have been
specified if it were so. Neander replies, 1.
that év tT. cuvrA. T. 7. T. 7. Must necessa-
rily mean that the day itself had arrived ;
compare 7Afpwua Tod xpdvou or THY KaLpay,
Gal. iv. 4 and Eph.i.10. In Luke ix. 51,
it is not said of the day, but of the days of
His being received up, including the whole
period introductory to that event: and, by
the very same interpretation, the day of P.
must in this case have arrived, {and was
being accomplished, i. e. in process of pass-
ing.] And again, if only the approach of
that day were indicated, why should the day
itself have been mentioned, seeing that it
would then be no way concerned in the
narrative? On the propriety of the day
itself as belonging to the narrative, see
below. 2. It is true that in ver. 5, if we
had that verse only before us, we should
interpret karo. of dwelling, permanently
(no real difference being traceable between
kaTtoikety with an accus., and katoirety év);
but if we compare it with ver. 9, we shall
see, that the same persons would thus be
kaTotkovyTes in Jerusalemand several other
localities,—which necessarily restricts the
meaning, in ver. 5, to a temporary sojourn.
And, granting that there may have been
some residents in Jerusalem among these
foreign Jews, the éemdnuodrvtes “Papator
certainly point to persons who were for
some especial reason at Jerusalem at the
time, as also the proselytes. And in ver. 14
Peter distinguishes the avdpes *lovdator, —
the residents, from oi katokovyTes ‘Iepovc.
a&maytes,—the sojourners. T. jp. THS
w.| The fiftieth day (inclusive) after the
sixteenth of Nisan, the second day of the
Passover (Levit. xxiii. 16),—called in
Exodus xxiii. 16, ‘the feast of harvest, —
in Deut. xvi. 10, ‘the feast of weeks ;’—
one of the three great feasts, when all the
males were required to appear at Jeru-
salem, Deut. xvi. 16. No supplying of
jmépas, or éopris, is required after mev-
TnkooT7s: the word had passed into a
proper name, see ref. Tobit, where it is in
appos. with éopr7, and ref. 2 Mace. At
this time, it was simply regarded as the
feast of harvest: among the later Jews, it
was considered as the anniversary of the
giving of the law from Sinai. This infer-
ence was apparently grounded on a com-
parison of Exod. xii. 2 and xix. 1. Jo-
sephus and Philo know nothing of it, and
it is at the best very uncertain. Chry-
sostom’s reason for the event happening
when it did is probably the true one: @e:
yap éoptis ovons mdAw taita yevéo@at
wa of mapdvtes TE oTuvpH tod xpioTod,
oito. Kal tatra i6wow (in Catena).
See a number of other reasons given by
Wordsw., more suo. The question, on
what day of the week this day of Pente-
cost was, is beset with the difficulties at-
tending the question of our Lord’s last
passover ; see notes on Matt. xxvi. 17, and
John xviii. 28. It appears probable however
that it was on the Sabbath,—i. e. if we
reckon from Saturday, the 16th of Nisan.
Wieseler (Chron. des Apostol. Zeitalters,
p- 20) supposes that the Western Church
altered the celebration of it to the first day
of the week in conformity with her observ-
ance of Easter on that day. If we take the
second day of the Passover as Sunday, the
17th of Nisan, which some have inferred
from John xviii. 28, the day of Pentecost
will fall on the first day of the week. ‘The
custom of the Karaites was, to keep Pen-
tecost always on the first day of the week,
reckoning not from the day after the great
Passover-Sabbath, but from that following
the Sabbath in Passover week—understand-
ing N07 in Levit. xxiii. 15 of the ordinary
Sabbath ;—but this cannot be brought to
bear on our enquiry, as it probably arose
later. mavres | Not the Apostles only,
nor the hundred and twenty mentioned
ch. i. 15; but all the believers in Christ,
then congregated at the time of the feast
in Jerusalem. The former is manifest from
ver. 14, when Peter and the eleven stand
forward and allude to the rest as oita:
and the latter follows on the former being
granted. Both are confirmed by the uni-
14
dch. xvi. 26. eyévero
i a . 5 h ‘ ;
gy te 8 ryone "Piaiac Kal
e — Luke (iv. 3
37) xxi. 25.
*«
v
Heb. xii. 19 se
k ,
caOnwevor, Kat
f= hew only.
Isa. x xviii. 4
15, 18.
Isa. lix. 1 i = Jobn xii. 3.
Rev. xiv. 6. xvii. 15. Jer. xxxi. (xlviii.) 43.
iii. 2, 16. m = Luke xii. 52 al. Gen. x. 25.
rey xi. 2,7. Rev.xx.4. Gen. viii. 3 (4).
v. 18.
2. aft «ar ins esdov (7. e. sdov) D.
NPAZEIS AMOSTOAQN.
d Mv , ~ , ~
apyvw &K TOU pean
for ex, amo E.
for oAov, mayta D, omnem E-lat Vig, :
IL.
* WoC womep " peponevnc
' ewAnowoey OAov Tov olKov ov
' wpOnoav avroug ® CrapepiZoue val
yAwaoa " WCEL TUpdC, * exadiaev TE Ep eva éxaorov autor,
‘
kat ? a cay ft aTavrec Tvevparoc ayiou, Kal np&avro
g£=< here (ch. xvii. 25) only. Job xxxvii. 10. see Thacyd. iv. 100.
9. Hag. il. &. see Isa. vi. 4.
b here only. = Exod. xir. 21.
k= Matt. iv. 16. Luke xxi. 35.
1 Matt. xvii. 3. Lukei.1l.ch. vii.2, 26 al. Exod.
n = Luke xxii.44. Rey. i. 14. oconstr,
p = Lake i. 15. ch. iv. 8, 31. ix. 17. xiii. 9. see Eph.
Bunt. bef zvo. D 93. 95?.
totam vulg D-lat : totum Cypr.
KabeCouevor CD: txt ABEN rel Cyr-jer Thdrt,.
3. for yAwooa wset, yAwooe R'.
for exad. Te, kat exaf. B(Mai Btly) & p D-corr
(and lat) Ath, Cyr-jer, Did, Chr Cyr: rat exaé. re D!:
exa. (alone) B(Bch):
exaé. de
C!E-lat Did, Aug: txt AC3D2E rel syrr copt Eus Ath, Cyr, Thdrt Thl.—exaé@icay
(corrn to suit yAwooau) D-gr X! syrr copt Ath, Did, Cyr.
versality of the promise cited by Peter, vv.
17 ff. See Chrys. below, on ver. 4.
épov]} together: the rec. duodvuaddy im-
plies more, viz. that their purpose, as w ell
as their locality, was the same. ert
76 avté| Where? evidently not in the
temple, orany part of it. Theimprobability
of such an assemblage, separate and yet so
great, in any of the rooms attached to the
temple,—the words éAov dv olkoy in ver. 2
(where see note),—the ouv7Adev 7d 7A7-
os, ver. 6,—the absence of any mention of
the temple,—all these are against such a
supposition. Obviously no @ priori con-
sideration such as Olshausen alleges (in
‘loe.), that ‘‘ thus the solemn inauguration
of the Church of Christ becomes more im-
posing by happening in the holy place of
the Old Covenant,” can apply to the en-
quiry. Nor can the statement that they
were 51a mavrds év 7G fep@, Luke xxiv. 53,
apply here (see above on ch. i. 13); for
even if it be assumed that the hour of
prayer was come (which it hardly could
have been, seeing that some time must
have elapsed between the event and Peter’s
speech), the disciples would not have been
assembled separately, but would, as Peter
and John, in ch. iii. 1, have gone up, mingled
with the people. See more below.
2. AX. Gsm. hep. tvofs Bratas| could not
be better rendered than in E. V., a sound
as of a rushing mighty wind. The dis-
tinction between mvojs and mvetmatos, on
which De Wette insists, can hardly be ex-
pressed in our language. It is possible that
Luke may have used rvojjs to avoid the con-
currence of mvetmaros Bialov and mvetua-
tos aylov. It doubtless has its especial pro-
priety ;—it is the breathing or blowing
which we hear: it was the sound as of a
violent blowing, borne onward, which ac-
companied the descent of the Holy Spirit.
To treat this as a natural phenomenon,—
even supposing that phenomenon miracu-
lously produced, as the earthquake at the
crucifixion,—is contrary to the text, which
does not describe it as jos pepouevns my.
Bu., but Axos Gstrep p. wv. Bi. It was the
chosen vehicle by which the Holy Spirit was
manifested to their sense of hearing, as by
the tongues of fire to their sense of seeing.
© épeoGar ad violentum quo venti
moventur impetum notandum adhiberi
solet. 2]. Hist. An. vii. 24, émesdav 7d
mvevua Blatov éexpepnta: Diog. Laért.
x. 25. 104, 5:4 tod mvetpatos modAdov
pepouévov, Kypke. olxoy] Cer-
tainly Luke would not have used this
word of a chamber in the Temple, or
of the Temple itself, without further ex-
planation. Our Lord, it is true, calls the
Temple 6 ofkos bjudv, Matt. xxiii. 38,—
and Josephus informs us that Solomon’s
Temple was furnished teiakovra Bpaxéow
otkots, and again érw@coddéunvro d€ tovTas
tivwOev Erepor olka: but to suppose either
usage here, seems to me very, far-fetched
and unnatural. 3. G8. adtois ]—not,
‘ there were seen on them,’ as Luther ; but
as E. V., there appeared to them.
StapepiLopevar| not, ‘distributed, as pe-
ptomots in Heb. ii. 4: from the construc-
tion, d:au. must refer to something charac-
teristic, not of the manner of apportion-
ment, but of the appearance itself. eset
amupds| see reff. They were not rupds, as
not possessing the burning power of fire,
but only beak mupds, in appearance like
that element. éxd@ioev | viz. 7d dat-
véuevoyv: not 7d mvedua, nor yA@ooa,
but the appearance described in the pre-
ceding clause. I understand é«d@. as
usually interpreted, lighted on their
heads. This also was no effect of natural
cause, either ordinarily or extraordinarily
3, 4.
AaXsv 4 Eréoalc : yAwsoatc
r= Matt. xvi.17. ch. x. 46. xix. 6. 1 Cor. xii. 10, &c. xiv. 2,&c. Gen. x. 5.
Luke i. 74, John vy. 20, ver. 27 and ch, xiii. 35 (from Ps. xy. 10). ch. x. 40. xiv. 3.
t = Matt. xiii. 11.
IIPAZEIS AIOSTOAQN.
8 ‘ ‘ ~
KaQwe ro wvevpa
15
tea 4
q = 1 Cor. xiv.
£Si8ou az 1 oor. x
xxx. 9.
s = ch. xi, 29 reff.
4. mavres ABDEN p: txt (see prolegomena, ch. v. § 3, ad fin.) C rel Cosm Thl. (Tischdf
says that B? has amaytes: not so Rl Bch Verc.)
employed: see on ver. 2. 4.] On
a@mavtes, Chrys. says, odx ay elre mavres,
kal amootéAwy bvtwy éxet, ef ph Kal of
HwAAoL pmetéeaxov. mpéavto adetv
érépats yAdooats | There can be no ques-
tion in any unprejudiced mind, that the
fact which this narrative sets before us
is, that the disciples began to speak in
VARIOUS LANGUAGES, viz. the languages
of the nations below enumerated, and
perhaps others. All attempts to evade
this are connected with some forcing of
the text, or some far-fetched and inde-
fensible exegesis. This then being laid
down, several important questions arise,
and we are surrounded by various difficul-
ties. (1) Was this speaking in various lan-
guages a gift bestowed on the disciples for
their use afterwards, or was it a mere
sign, theirutterance being only as they were
mouth-pieces of the Holy Spirit? The
latter seems certainly to have been the
case. It appears on our narrative, ka0ws
7) mvevua edid0v aropbeyyerOat avTois,
as the Spirit gave them utterance. But,
it may be objected, in that case they would
not themselves understand what they said.
I answer, that we infer this very fact from
1 Cor. xiv.; that the speaking with tongues
was often found, where none could inter-
pret what was said. And besides, it
would appear from Peter’s speech, that
such, or something approaching to it, was
the case in this instance. He makes no
allusion to the things said by those who
spoke with tongues; the hearers alone
speak of their declaring ra peyadeta Tod
@cod. So that it would seem that here, as
on other occasions (1 Cor. xiv. 22), tongues
were for a sign, not to those that believe,
but to those that believe not. If the first
supposition be made, that the gift of speak-
ing in various languages was bestowed on
the disciples for their after use in preach-
ing the Gospel, we are, I think, running
counter to the whole course’ of Scripture
and early patristic evidence on the subject.
There is no trace whatever of such a
power being possessed or exercised by the
Apostles, or by those who followed them.
(Compare ch. xiv. 11, 14; Euseb. iii. 39 ;
Tren. iii. 1, p. 174.) The passage cited
triumphantly by Wordsw. from Iren. iii.
17, p. 208, to shew that Zreneus under-
stood the gift to be that of permanent
preaching in many languages, entirely fails
npéato D': txt D-corr!. aft To
of its point:—* Quem et descendisse Lucas
ait post ascensum Domini super discipulos
in Pentecoste, habentem potestatem om-
nium gentium ad introitum vite [which
Dr. W. renders “in order that all nations
might beenabled toenterintolife,” suitably
to his purpose, but not to the original] et
ad assertionem novi Testamenti: unde et
omnibus linguis conspirantes hymnum
dicebant Deo, Spiritu ad unitatem redi-
gente distantes tribus, et primitias omnium
gentium offerente Patri.’ Here it will be
observed is not a word about future
preaching ; but simply this event itself is
treated of, as a symbolic one, a first fruit
of the future Gentile harvest. The other
passage, id. v. 6, p. 299, shews nothing but
that the gift of tongues was not extinct in
Trenzeus’s time: there is in it not a word
of preaching in various languages. I be-
lieve, therefore, the event related in our
text to have been a sudden and powerful
inspiration of the Holy Spirit, by which
the disciples uttered, not of their own
minds, but as mouth- -pieces of the Spirit,
the praises of God in various languages,
hitherto, and possibly at the time itself,
unknown to them. (2) How is this é érépais
yAdooas Aadeiv related to the yAdoon
Aadetv afterwards spoken of by St. Paul ?
I answer, that they are one and the same
thing. yAéoon daX. is to speak in a@ lan-
guage, as above explained ; yAdooais (éré-
pats, or kawais, Mark xvi. 17) Aad., to
speak in languages, under the same cir-
cumstances. See this further proved in
notes on 1 Cor. xiv. Meantime I may re-
mark, that the two are inseparably con-
nected by the following links,—ch. x. 46,
xi. 15,—xix. 6,—in which last we have the
same juxtaposition of yAdéooats Aadeiv
and mpopnrevery, as afterwards in 1 Cor.
xiv. 1—5 ff. (3) Who were those that
partook of this giff? I answer, the whole
assembly of believers, from Peter’s appli-
cation of the prophecy, vv. 16 ff. It was
precisely the case supposed in 1 Cor. xiv.
23, éay odv Tver By n éxKAnola bAn em)
7) avTd Kal mavtTes AaAGow ydroats,
eiséAOwow 5& idi@rat ) &riorou, odK €pov-
ow $71 watvesbe; These iSi@rar and
&morot were represented by the érepa of
our ver. 13, who pronounced them to be
drunken. (4) I would not conceal the
difficulty which our minds find in conceiv-
ing a person supernaturally endowed with
16
uyer14-ch. " aropOeyyecOat avtoic.
only. 1
Chron. xxv. J. Ps. lviii.7. Exek. xiii. 9,19. Mic.v.12. Zech. x. 2 only.
viii. 1, 13. Luke i. 10, 20. Jer. xxxiii. (xxvi.) 20.
mv. ins to aytov E vulg eth.
IIPAZEIS AMOSTOAQN.
IT.
5 * aay ot ev Leoovoadnu Karoi-
v constr., ch. i. 13, 14.
rec avtas bef aropbeyy. (corrn for the sake of
perspicuous order; but these trajections and insertions between a governing and a
governed word are characteristic of Luke, and esp in Acts), with C3E rel syr Cyr-jer:
txt ABC!DR® p vulg (sah ?) arm Ath Cyr, Did Ambr Vig [36 def'].
5. for ev, ess AN‘.
the power of speaking, ordinarily and con-
sciously, a language which he has never
learned. I believe that difficulty to be in-
superable. Such an endowment would not
only be contrary to the analogy of God’s
dealings, but, as far as I can see into the
matter, self-contradictory, and therefore
impossible. But there is no such contra-
diction, and to my mind no such difficulty,
in conceiving a man to be moved to utter-
ance of sounds dictated by the Holy Spirit.
And the fact is clearly laid down by Paul,
that the gift of speaking in tongues, and
that of interpreting, were wholly distinct.
So that the above difficulty finds no place
here, nor even in the case of a person
both speaking and interpreting : see 1 Cor.
xiv. 13. On the question whether the
speaking was necessarily a/waysin a foreign
tongue, we have no data to guide us: it
would seem that it was; but the conditions
would not absolutely exclude rhapsodical
and unintelligible utterance. Only there is
this objection to it: clearly, languages were
spoken on this occasion,—and we have no
reason to believe that there were two dis-
tinct kinds of the gift. (5) It would be
quite beyond the limits of a note to give
any adequate history of the exegesis of the
passage. A very short summary must suf-
fice. (a) The idea of a gift of speaking in
various languages having been conferred
for the dissemination of the Gospel, ap-
pears not to have originated until the gi/?
of tongues itself had some time disappeared
from the Church. Chrysostom adopts it,
and the great majority of the Fathers and
expositors. (8) Gregory Nyss. (see Suicer.
Thes., yA@ooa), Cyprian, and in modern
times Erasmus and Schneckenburger, sup-
pose that the miracle consisted in the mul-
titude hearing in various languages that
which the believers spoke in their native
tongue: play pey e&nxetobat pwvqy, wod-
Aas 5¢ akoverOa. This view Greg. Naz.
mentions, but not as his own, and refutes it
(Orat. xli. 15, p. 743), saying, ekelvws pey
yap Tay akovdvTwy ky ein mGAdov 7) TaV
Acydvtwy Td Oatua. This view, besides,
would make a distinction between this in-
stance of the gift and those subsequently
related, which we have seen does not exist.
ev cep. bef noav, omg de, D.
katutk. bef ev sep. C Syr
(y) The course of the modern German ex-
positors has been, (1) to explain the facts
related, by some assumption inconsistent
with the text, as e. g. Olshausen, by a mag-
netic ‘rapport’ between the speakers and
hearers,—whereas the speaking took place
Jirst, independently of the hearers ;—Eich-
horn, Wieseler, and others, by supposing
yAdéoon Aadeiy to mean speaking with the
tongue only, i.e. inarticulately in ejacula-
tions of praise, which will not suit yAéroats
Aad. ;—Bleek, by interpreting yAéooa =
glossema, and supposing that they spoke in
unusual, enthusiastic, or poetical phraseo-
logy,—which will not suit yAdcon Aad. ;—
Meyer (and De Wette nearly the same),
by supposing that they spoke in an entirely
new spiritual language (of which the yAdéo-
gat were merely the individual varieties),
as was the case during the Irvingite delusion
in this country,—contrary to the plain
assertion of vv. 6—8, that they spoke,
and the hearers heard, in the dialects or
tongues of the various peoples specified ;
—Paulus, Schulthess, Kuinoel, &e. by
supposing that the assembly of believers
was composed of Jews of various nations,
who spoke as moved by the Spirit, but in
their own mother tongues,—which is clearly
inconsistent with ver. 4 and the other pas-
sages, ch. x. and xix., and 1 Cor. xiv., above
cited :—(2) to take the whole of this nar-
rative in its literal sense, but cast doubts
on its historical accuracy, and on Luke’s
proper understanding of what really did
take place. This is more or less done
by several of the above mentioned, as a
means of escape from the inconsistency of
their hypotheses with Luke’s narrative.
But, fo set aside, argumenti gratia, higher
considerations,—is it at all probable that
Luke, who must have conversed with many
eye and ear-witnesses of this day’s events,
would have been misinformed about them
in so vital a point as the very nature of
the gift by which the descent of the Spirit
was accompanied ? There is every mark, as I
hope I have shewn abundantly in the prole-
gomena, of the Acts having been written in
the company and with the co-operation of
St. Paul: can we suppose that he, who
treats so largely of this very gift elsewhere,
ABCD
Exabe
dfghk
lmop
13
Pu. 6...
ABCDE
INabec
dfghk
lmop
13
5—7.
—Kouvrec ’lovdator avooec “ vAaBeic “ard mavroc Ovoue
B. yevouerne od tHe * pwvne tav-
mle S Whe. MN ‘ ’ ,
TiwV ~ UTO TOV ovoavov.
TIPAZEIS AMOSTOAQN.
17
w Luke ii. 25.
ch. viii. 2.
Xxii.12 only.
Lev. xv. 31.
Micah vii. 2
F. only.
rnc “ouvnA\Dev ro > rrANDoe Kat ° suvexvOn’ Ore NKovov , FF ii
sic ° Exaatoc ™ Lola ‘ duadextw AaAovwrwv avrav. 7! &-
y ch. iv.12. Col.i. 23. Deut. xxv. 19.
a= ch. i. 6 reff.
27,31only. Gen. xi. 9, Jonah iv. 1.
1 Kings xiii. 2U Ald. ech. i. 19 reff.
copt Aug,: covdaro: bef karo. E.
avdp. D.
6. for ott, ra: D: qui D-lat'.
Aug, Bede: .nkovaay 40. 96.
b abs., ch. vi. 5. xv. 12, 30. xix, 9. xxiii. 7.
1 Macc. iv. 27.
avdp. bef sovd. C!: om tovd. &.
51. John xi.
1. ch. xvii. 13.
Xxiii. 34 al.
z Luke ix. 35. ch. xix.34. Rev. xi.15. 2 Chron. vy. 13.
c ch. ix. 22. xix. 32. xxi.
dch. xx.3l. Eph. iv. 16. Col. iv. 6.
f = ch. viii. 13 reff.
evA. bef
nrovoev BN: nkovev C p, audiebat vulg syrr sah
om eis EX e 36.
for T7 16. Siad. Aad. auT.,
Aadouytas Tas yAwooats avrwy D Syr: Tats yAwoous avtwy syr-marg Aug,: lingua
sua vulg D-lat E-lat, linguam suam Bede.
would have allowed such an inaccuracy to
remain uncorrected, if it had existed ? On
the contrary, I believe this narrative to
furnish the key to the right understanding
of 1 Cor. xiv. and other such passages, as I
there hope more fully to prove. Kad-
@s «.7T.A.] according as (i.e. ‘in such
measure and manner in each case as’) the
Spirit granted to them to speak (be-
stowed on them utterance). There is no
emphasis, as Wordsw., on aitots, but
rather the contrary: placed thus behind
the verb, it becomes insignificant in com-
parison with the fact announced, and with
the subject of the sentence. The word
amopbéyyerba: has been supposed here to
imply that they uttered short ejaculatory
sentences of praise: so Chrys.,’ arop@éy-
hata yop Hv Ta wap avtayv Acydueva:
(Ee., Bloomf., and Wordsw. But in
neither of the two other places in St. Luke
(see reff.) will it bear this meaning, nor in
any of the six where it occurs in the LXX:
though in two of those (Mic. and Zech.)
it has the peculiar sense of speaking
oracularly, and in Ezek. xiii. 19 it re-
presents 332, mentior. Our word to
utter, to speak out, seems exactly to
render it. It is never desirable to press
a specific sense, where the more general
one seems to have become the accepted
meaning of a word. And this is especially
so here, where, had any peculiar sense
been intended, the verb would surely have
held a more prominent position. Their
utterance was none of their own, but the
simple gift and inspiration of the Holy
Spirit: see above. 5—13.] Errecr
ON THE MULTITUDE. 5.] De Wette
maintains that these karoicobytes cannot
have been persons sojourning for the sake
of the feast, but residents : but see above
on ver.1. I see no objection, with Meyer,
to including both residents and sojourners
in the term, which only specifies their
then residence. evAaBeis] Not in
reference to their having come up to the
Voz. II.
feast, nor to their dwelling from religious
motives at Jerusalem (7d katotkety ebAa-
Belas hv onuetov, amd rocoitwy ebvav
matploas apéevTas Kad oiklay Kal ovyye-
veis, exe? oiketv, Chrys.), but stated as im-
parting a character and interest to what fol-
lows. They were not merely vain and cu-
rious listeners, but men of piety and weight.
Gro tavTos €0v..... | Not perhaps
used so much hyperbolically, as with refer-
ence to the significance of the whole event.
As they were samples each of their different
people, so collectively they represented all
the nations of the world, who should hear
afterwards in their own tongues the wonder-
ful works of God. 6.| Whatever tis
gwv7s TavtTns may mean, one thing is
clear,—that it cannot mean, ‘this rumour’
(‘when this was noised abroad, E. V.: so
also Erasm., Calv., Beza, Grotius, &c.),
which would be unexampled (the two pas-
sages cited for this sense from the LXX
are no examples; Gen. xlv. 16; Jer. xxvii.
[l.] 46). We have then to choose between
two things to which gwv7 might refer:
—(1) the #xos of ver. 2, to which it
seems bound by the past part. yevouévns
(compare ver. 2, éyéveto .. . Hos), which
would hardly be used of a speaking which
was still going on when the multitude as-
sembled: compare also John iii. 8 ;—and
(2) the speaking with tongues of ver. 4.
To this reference, besides the objection just
stated, there is also another, that the voices
of a number of men, especially when diverse
as in this case, would not be indicated by
gwrh, but by gwvat: compare Luke’s own
usage, even when the voices cried out the
same thing, Luke xxiii. 23, of 5€ éréxeiwTo
wvais peyadats aitovuevor abtdy oTavpw-
Ojvat, kal Katloxvoy at dwval a’tay. And
when he uses the sing., he explains it, as
in ch. xix. 34, dav) eyeveto mia ex mavTwv.
So that we may safely decide for the
former reference. The noise of the rush-
ing mighty wind was heard over all the
neighbourhood, probably over all Jerusa-
Cc
18 MIPAZEIS AMOSTOAQN. Il.
\ A 2 , , <J ‘ , ‘ @
e=Mitt. igravro 6: Kat eDavuaZov AEyovrec Ovye Sid0uv amavtec
“xiii. 16. , ‘ Pe ee : ms a eS
Luke xiii 16. oF ot eroty ot AaAouvrec TadtAaio; *® kat mac mete
4th, xx. 22, 7 ~ ho ’ hee = in Pes ,
a. hadg. iv. akovopev €KaoTOC T™) Loa : dradexty MWY EV I ever On-
iP.
. ~ ee - \ t
mee nev, 9 TdoQor wat Mndor cat EXapirat, kat ot * Kar-
-~ ‘
oxouvtec thv Meoororapiay, “Jovdaiav re kat Kazza-
7. ree aft efor. Se ins mavtes (from ver 12), with ACEIN' rel 36 vulg syrr coptt
Thdrt; awavres N* 27. 29.69: om BD aefh1lmo H* eth Chr Aug;. rec aft
Aeyovres ins mpos adAndous (explanatory gloss ; and hence became a var read also in
some inferior mss in ver 12: not, as Mey., genuine here, and thence insd in ver 12),
with DEI rel syrr: om ABCN p vulg coptt 2th Thdrt. rec ovk, with AC rel:
ovx DEN p: txt B (the « became absorbed by the follg 1, thence ovx, corrd into ovr
reff. ‘
i constr., ch. i.
19 reff.
as in txx-A Judg iv. 14; xv. 2, see Field’s prolegg. p. xxi, note 1).
with E rel: txt A B(see table) CDIN 36.
bef ovro: p: qui log. Gal. sunt vulg copt.
rec 7ravTes,
a AaA. bef eroww C! lect-12 syr: exow
8. tnv diadextov D'-gr vulg(not am but [Lachm] fuld) Syr Aug,(once Tt. sd:av 3.)
Jer: txt D?. nu. bef dad. E.
9. om kat eAquiTa NR.
vulg(not am! fuld): ins D%,
lem. 7d wAqG0s] including the scoffers
of ver. 13, as well as the pious strangers :
but these latter only are here regarded in
the cvvexv6y and in the jx. efs Exacros.
On these latter words see above on ver.
4. Each one heard Aadol’vtwy a’tév,—
i. e. either various disciples speaking
various tongues, each in some one only:
or the same persons speaking now one
now another tongue. ‘The former is more
probable, although the latter seemsto agree
with some expressions in 1 Cor. xiv,, e. g.
ver. 18 (in the rec. and perhaps even in
the present text). ovvexv0n | Observe
ref. Genesis. 7.| They were not, lite-
rally, a/l Galileans; but certainly the
greater part were so, and all the Apostles
and leading persons, who would probably
be the prominent speakers. 8—11.]
This question is broken, in construction, by
the enumeration of vv. 9, 10, and then ver.
11 takes up the construction again from
ver. 8. As regards the catalogue itself,
—of course it cannot have been thus de-
livered as part of a speech by any hearer
on the occasion, but is inserted into a
speech expressing the general sense of
what was said, and put, according to the
meses - all narrative, into the mouths of
all. The words ry l8lq Siad. hp. év a
éyevvOnpey are very ieee a the
nature of the miracle. The hearers could
not have thus spoken, had they been spiri-
tually uplifted into the comprehension
of some ecstatic language spoken by the
disciples. They were not spiritually acted
on at all, but spoke the matter of fact:
they were surprised at each recognizing, so
far from his country, and in the mouths of
Galileans, his own native tongue. 9.
I1dpGor | The catalogue proceeds from the
N.E. to the W. and $8. See Mede, Book i.
eyernOnuey AC? or 3 BE! p 1. 13 Thi-fin.
om 3rd xa: D'-gr: ins D?.
om ve D!(and lat)
Dise. xx., who notices that it follows the
order of the three great dispersions of the
Jews, the Chaldean, Assyrian, and Egyptian.
So also Wordsw. ‘Habet (Parthia) ab
ortu Arios, a meridie Carmaniam et Aria-
nos, ab occasu Protitas Medos, a septen-
trione Hyrcanos,—undique desertis cincta,’
Plin. vi. 29. See also Strabo, xi. 9, and
Winer, RWB. M7Sor) Media, W. of
Parthia and Hyrcania, 8. of the Caspian
sea, E. of Armenia, N. of Persia.
*EAapirat] in pure Greek ’EAvuato, in-
habitants of Elam or Elymais, a Semitic
people (Gen. x. 22). Elam is mentioned
in connexion with Babylon, Gen. xiv. 1;
with Media, Isa. xxi. 2; Jer. xxv. (xxxii. in
LXX) 25; with, or as part of, Assyria,
Ezek. xxxii. 24; Isa. xxii.6; as a province of
Persia, Ezraiy.9; as the province in which
Susan was situated, Dan. viii. 2 (but then
Susiana must be taken in the wide sense,
*EAuuatot mposexets Faoav Sovclois, Strabo,
xi. 13; xvi. 1). According to Josephus,
Antt. i. 6. 4, the Elameeans were the pro-
genitors of the Persians. We find scattered
hordes under this name far to the north,
and even on the Orontes near the Caspian
(Strabo, xi. 13; xv. 3; xvi. 1). Pliny’s
description, the most applicable to the
times of our text, is, ‘Infra Euleum
(Susianen ab Elymaide disterminat amnis
Juleus, paulo supra) Elymais est, in
ora juncta Persidi, a flumine Oronti ad
Characem cexl m. pass. Oppida ejus Seleu-
cia et Sosirate, apposita monti Casyro,’
vi. 27. Megorotapiay| the well-
known district between the Euphrates
and Tigris, so called merely as distin-
guishing its geographical position (Strabo,
xvi. 1): it never formed a state. The
name does not appear to be older than the
Macedonian conquests. The word is used
ABCDE
INabe
dfghk
lmop
13
8—12.
THY
TanpuXlay, Atyurroy kal Ta
, , \
doxiav, Ildvrov Kat
kata Kvonyny, Kal ol
TE Kal ' mpocnAvrot, il Konre c
AaXovrvrwy wtih Talc NuETeoaic yAwooac ra ™
oe
TOU Oeov ; 12 ' Lisrayto
aAAoe mo0c aAAov AféyorTec Ti av
10. om te D vulg.
D syr-marg Aug,.
Thl.—r: tovto 6cAc A 36(sic) 113.
by the LXX and E. V. in Gen. xxiv. 10 to
express 0°77) Dox, Aram of the two rivers.
Similarly the Peschito renders it here, and
ch. vii. 2. See Winer, RWB. *Tou-
Satav| I can see no difficulty in Judea
being here mentioned. The catalogue does
not proceed by languages, but by territorial
division ; and Juda lies immediately S. of
its path from Mesopotamia to Cappadocia.
It is not “Iovdato: by birth and domicile,
but of katotkovytes thy “lovdaiay who
are spoken of: the &vdpes evAaBeis settled
in Judea. And even if born Jews were
meant, doubtless they also would find a
place among those who heard in their mo-
ther-tongue the wonderful works of God.
Karrasoxiav] At this time (since
v.c.770)a Roman province (see Tacit. Ann.
ii. 42), embracing Cappadocia proper and
Armenia minor. Iiévrov | The former
kingdom of Mithridates, lying along the
S. coast of the Euxine (whence its name)
from the river Halys to Colchis and Ar-
menia, and separated by mountains from
Cappadocia on the 8. It was at this time
divided into petty principalities under Ro-
man protection, but subsequently (Suet.
Ner. 18) became a province under Nero.
hv *Actav| i.e. here Asia pro-
pria, or rather the W. division of it, as
described by Pliny, v. 27, as bounded on
the E. by Phrygia and Lycaonia, on the
W. by the Agean, on the S. by the
Egyptian sea, on the N. by Paphlagonia.
Winer, RWEB., cites from Solinus, 43:
‘Sequitur Asia, sed non eam Asiam loquor
que in tertio orbis divortio terminos omnes
habet, - verum eam que a Telmesso
Lycie incipit. Eam igitur Asiam ab
Oriente Lycia includit et Phrygia, ab
occid. Aigea littora, a meridie mare
Agyptium, Paphlagonia a septentrione.
Ephesus in ea urbs clarissima est.’ See
ch. xvi. 6, where the same appears to be
intended. 10. Ppvylav] 7 pmeyadn
TIPAZEIS AMOSTOAQN.
Asia,
aft avy. ins re D-gr.
12. rec d:nmopour, with CDEI rel 36: txt ABN.
ins kat bef Aey. D.
direct form of speech after rXeyovtes) ABCD I(appy) p 36 Chr:
19
10 Dpvytay TE Kal keh. xvii. 21
only
pon THC AiBing Tip ees
xiii. 43 only.
‘ emiOnuovrrec ‘Pwpatot, “Tovdatot Exodxine,
; na B . “ on abe 49
kat “Apaiec, axovopev only
19.
peyaXea n mine here
ns omy. Dan.
ii. 3 Symm.
Tavrec Kal imopouvro Se ee
ch. v. 24.
°@éXor Touro Eval; 2.17 only.
L.P t
o= ch. xvil. 20 only. Herod. i. 78 al.
ll. apaBor D!, arabi D-lat: txt Dt.
aft aAAov ins emt Tw yeyovoTt
for av @cAo1, OeAet (corn to suit the
Gedo. N: txt E rel
Ppvyla of Strabo, xii. 8. Jos. Antt. xvi.
2.2. It was at this time part of the Roman
province of Asia. TlappvAtiav] A
small district, extending along the coast
from Olbia (Strabo, xiv. 4), or Phaselis
(Plin. v. 27), to Ptolemais (Strabo, 1. ¢.).
It was a separate tributary district (xwpls
bmrAwy opodocyeira, Jos. B. J. ii. 16. 4):
we find it classed with Galatia and ruled by
the same person, Tac. Hist. ii. 9.
Atyurrov| Having enumerated the prin-
cipal districts of Asia Minor, the catalogue
passes (see above on the arrangement, ver.
9) to Egypt, a well-known habitation of
Jews. Two-fifths of the population of
Alexandria consisted of them, see Philo,
in Flace. 8, vol. ii. p. 525, and they had an
Ethnarch of their own, Jos. Antt. xiv. 7.
2 xix OF 2s 7a p. T. AtBUns T. Kk.
Kvupyvnv| By this expression is probably
meant Pentapolis, where Josephus (Antt.
xiv. 7. 2), quoting from Strabo, testifies
to the existence of very many Jews,—
amounting in Cyrene to a fourth part
of the whole population. The Cyrenian
Jews were so numerous in Jerusalem,
that they had a special synagogue (see
ch. vi. 9). Several were Christian con-
verts : see ch. xi. 20; xiii. 1. ot ém-
Sypodvres “Pwpator] ‘The Roman Jews
dwelling (or then being) in Jerusalem,’ see
ref. The comma after ‘Pwuato: is better
retained (against Wordsw.). *Iovd.
7. «. mposyA.] This refers more naturally
to the whole of the past catalogue, than
merely to the Roman Jews. The te kal
shews that it does not take up a new
designation, but expresses the classes or
divisions of those which have gone before.
See a similar construction in John ii. 15,
where td te mpéBata x. Tovs Bédas is
epexegetic of mavras preceding.
11. Kpfres wx. “ApaBes] These words
would seem as if they should precede the
last. peyadeta] nit, ref. Ps., see also
C2
20
p here only t.
een all. ‘ Ae
32 only t.
here only. HMEOTWUEVOL ELOLV.
Job xxxii.19 t »
only. y+
hereonlyt. ,, i <p : A
8 Mace. v. 10.
ch. xi. 18 ref Avépec Tovdatot Kat ot
t Lake xi. 27.
14 8
~ € -”
TEC, TOUVTO UW
IIPAZEIS AMOSTOAQN.
aT
13 ErEpot oe ® Stay AevaZovrec éeyov ort 4 yAcbKove * pe-
orabeic 8&0 [lérooc ouy ToIC EvoEKa
ETI) EV THY ‘ pwvny avrov «kat amepOeyEaro avroic
“ katotkovvrec LepovoaAnu amav-
“ yworor tot, Kat “evwricacbe Ta
ch. xiv. 11.
xxii. 22 L. 4 ae oa: 2 a z
La rine pnuara fou. 15 6b yap wo upec y v7oAapPavere OUTOL
u ver.4ret, a x
with. , ae ‘ ¢ , - eRe 2 16
"ior" eOvovow" Esti yap wpa Teitn THC nusoac aX\Xa
wh. xiii. 38 7 ‘
7 eive2s. Ps: v. lal: = Luke vii. 43 (x. 30. ch. i. 9. 3 John §) only.
eer xliv. pale vig pee ee Matt. calf: 49. achn ii. 10. Lea, xi. 21. 1 Thess. v.7. Rev. xvii. 2, 6 only.
1 Kings xxv. 36. trans., Deut. xxxii. 42.
18. rec xAeva¢., with EI' rel: txt ABCD°5I?8 ach k p13. 36. 40.—diexAcvaCov
Aeyovtes D'(and lat).
14. ins tote bef ora. de D!-gr.
ABDI® p 40 Thl-fin.
D lect-12 Syr Aug.
mpotepov E.
aft yA. ins ovro: D: also, variously placed, vulg coptt eth.
rec om 6, with CE 13. 36 rel Thl-sif: ins
for evdexa, dexa D'(and lat!: txt D®), and add amogToAots
aft ernp. ins tpwros D'(and lat): aft 7. @w. avTov ins
aft amwep@. ins Aeywy C Aug.
for ame. aut., evmev D.
mavres ABC(D)N p: txt (see proleg) EI? rel 836 vulg Thl.—avves bef o: kar. sep. D.
Ds;
nuew D': txt
om kat bef evwr. D,
evwticate D': -cabe D'(sic).
15. ovens wpas rns nu. 7 D!-gr vulg E-lat Aug Gaud: txt D-corr!.
ref. Luke. 13. €repor) Probably native
Jews, who did not understand the foreign
languages. Meyer supposes,—persons pre-
viously hostile to Jesus and his disciples,
and thus judging as in Luke vii. 34 they
judged of Himself. yAevKous | 7», see
ref. Job. Sweet wine, not necessarily
new wine (nor is the “ spiritual sense of the
passage ” any reason why a meaning should
be given to the word which it need not
bear. That sense in fact remains without
the meaning in question): perhaps made
of a remarkably sweet small grape, which
is understood by the Jewish expositors to
be meant by Ww or mw, Gen. xlix. 11;
Isa. v. 2; Jer. ii. 21,—and still found in
Syria and Arabia (Winer, RWB.). Suidas
interprets it, 7d dwoordAayua Tis oTrapu-
Ajjs mplv warnO7.
14—36.] Te spercn or Peter. “Luke
gives us here the first sample of the preach-
ing of the Gospel by the Apostles, with
which the foundation of Christian preach-
ing, as well as of the Church itself, appears
to be closely connected. We discover
already, in this first sermon, all the pecu-
liarities of apostolic preaching. It contains
no reflections nor deductions concerning the
doctrine of Christ,—no proposition of new
and unknown doctrines, but simply and en-
tirely consists of the proclamation of histo-
rical facts. The Apostles appear here as
the witnesses of that which they had seen :
the Resurrection 6f Jesus forming the cen-
tral point of their testimony. It is true,
that in the after-development of the Church
it was impossible to confine preaching to
this historical announcement only : it gra-
dually became invested with the additional
office of building up believers in knowledge.
But nevertheless,thesimple testimony tothe
great works of God, as Peter here delivers
it, should never be wanting in preaching to
those whose heartsare not yet penetrated by
the Word of Truth.” Olshausen, in loc.
The discourse divides itself into two parts :
1. (vv. 14—21) ‘ This which you hear is
not the effect of drunkenness, but is the
promised outpouring of the Spirit on all
Slesh, —2. (vv. 22—36) ‘which Spirit has
been shed forth by Jesus, whom you cru-
cified, but whom God hath exalted to be
Lord and Christ 14. otv Tots
évdexa | Peter and the eleven come forward
from the great body of believers. And he
distinguishes (by the obro: in ver. 15) not
himself from the eleven, but himself and
the eleven from the rest. De Wette con-
cludes from this, that the Apostles had not
themselves spoken with tongues, as being
an inferior gift (1 Cor. xiv. 18 ff.); perhaps
too rashly, for this view hardly accords with
G@tavtes, which is the subject of the whole
of ver. 4. avBSpes “lovd.| the Jews,
properly so called; native dwellers in Jerus.
ot Kat. ‘lep. G., the sojourners
(ver. 5) from other parts. évatioacde is
a word unknown to good Greek, and belong-
ing apparently to the Alexandrine dialect.
Stier quotes ‘inaurire’ from Lactantius
(R. der Ap. p. 32, not.) 15.] otrou,
see above. Spa tpiry | the first hour
of prayer : before which no pious Jew might
eat or drink : “Non licet homini gustare
quidquam, antequam oraverit orationem
suam.” Berachoth. f. 28. 2; Lightf., Wetst.
But perhaps we need not look further
than the ordinary intentof such a defence—
ABCDE
Inabe
dfghk
lmop
i3
138—20. TIPAZ EIS AMOSTOAQN. 21
P Oe oage ‘ 2 , ‘ - , v7 ‘
wil 71. TouTO EoTW TO * eonmévoy Sia TOU TpopnTov 17” Rorae *chgXiil 40
’ - , , aay , e , d? ~ > « bver. 21 reff.
EXa2bc ey taic © eoyatatc * goatc, Aéyer o Geo EKYEW ° ATO JozLii.28
geehk 4 - xe ee ° sd : $> 4 xX ae e 2 Tim. i, 1
mo ; ames V. 3.
for ‘rev PEN ETS jou om omagay gi Kal mOOpNTENS at oat
= ~ = ver. 33.
GOVOLY OL VLOL UULwWY Kat al Quyarépec Unwy, Kat ou © vEa= ch. x. 45.
: Lag Ariap 7 ae aa. : _ . SH Ditsstii6s
VigkKOL Uw 'Opaceic OWoVTal, Kal OL Tm pea[3uTEoot Upov , Zech. xii. 10.
i , }? , k ' Li rie
évuTviowe J évurvasOnoovrar. !8* Kai * ye émt trove an
f Matt.xxiv.22.
John xvii. 2.
SovAovc pov Kat emt tac SovAac pov Ev Talc Nméepaug
Rom. iii. 2u.
’ , d»? i aie? ‘ ~ , , \ , 1 Cor. i. +
Ekelvaic © eKYEW “ATO TOU TYEUMATOG MOV, Kal TOEOpNTEV- pe ae
Neal , , » ~ > ~ ” \ 8 al.
sovatv. '9 Kal! Seow ™ TépaTa Ev TW OVpAVW "avw Kal egy a
a ere we a. eA 7 5 Pia Nei pymt se bis.) ix. 17.
onnéia ETL THC ynC °KaTw, alua Kal TUp Ka aTploa only. “Zech.
is ee , ’ , \ _ x. Oe
Ka7TVOU. (0) nAtoc q fleTaoTPagPHoETal ELC GOKOTOC Kat 7 Ai here ool
1
r bee ’ z s \ s ZO - (oe t U “ xxviil 6 15,
oeAnvn etc ala, molv 7 EAUELY ~“NuEpaY KUOLOU THY; Jude 8 only.
Jad. vii. 13.
kK ch. xvii. 27 [Luke xix. 42] only. (1 Cor. iv. 8.) Joel l.c. F. 1 = Matt. xxiv. 24. l Mk. v. Fr.)
3 Kings xiii. 3, 5. m ch. vii. 36 reff. n John xi. 41, Deut. iv. 39. o Matt.
xxvii. 51) Mk. Mark xiv. 66. John viii. 23. Deut. iv. 3. p James iv. 14 only. Lev. xvi. 13.
q Gal. i.7. Jamesiv.9 only. Deut. xxii. 5. r Matt. xxiv. 20] Mk. Rev. vi. 12al. Isa. xiii. 10.
Isa. vii. 15. t 1 Thess. v. 2.
Isa. ii. 12.
s Matt.i.18. Mark xiv. 30. ch. vii. 2. 2 Pet. iii. 1U (1 Cor. i. 8. v. 6.
2 Cor.i.14, 2 Thess. ii. 2) only.
16,17. rec aft pod. ins wwnd* kat, with ABCEIRN rel 36 vulg E-lat and, bef zpo®¢.,
syrsah eth Gaud (corrns: Ist, the name of the prophet supplied; and 2ndly, the
kat inserted to suit the Lxx): wd, omg ka, Syr coptt: om D Iren-int(iii. 12, p. 193)
Rebapt Hil Aug. for ev 7. eoX. NM, meTa Tavta (corrn to Lxx) B sah eth-pl
Cyr-jer: wera tavta ev tT. €. nu. C 103 arm Cyr-jer Thl-fin. for o Qcos, kuptos
DE vulg syr Thl-sif(appy) Iren-int Rebapt Hil. macas capkas D!-or: txt D-corr!.
for vuwy (1st and 2nd), avrwy D Rebapt Hil Jer (corrn to suit macas capkas ?):
om 2nd uu. C. om 8rd vp. D Rebapt Jer. om 4th vu. (C! ?) DE.
om a bef @uy. (C! ?) D. opace: D}. rec evumvia (so rxx-B), with E
rel 36 vulg D-lat E-lat Chr Sevrn: om D!-gr: txt (so rxx-A) ABCD? fk p 18 Thl.
18. for ye, eyw D'(and lat: txt D‘). transpose tas SovAas and tous dovAous N.
om ev T. nu. ex. and (as xx) kat tpopytevo. D Rebapt Jer.
19. om (as Lxx) avw A m 37! Syr sah (of these Syr omits karw: so also rxx).
om aima to Karvov D.
20. petrastpedhera: D!-gr: -tpapiota: D'®: txt D?(and lat).
rec ins tnv bef nuepay (conformn to rxx and
ACDEX p 18: ins Brel 36 Chr.
the improbability of intoxication at that
hour of the morning. See Eccl. x. 16; Isa.
v. 11; 1 Thess. v. 7. 16.| This pro-
phecy is from the LXX, with very slight
variations. Where the copies differ, it
agrees with the Alexandrine. The varia-
tions, &e., are noticed below. TOUTO
éotwy, ‘this zs,’ i. e. ‘this is the fact, at
which those words pointed.’ See a some-
what similar expression, Luke xxiv. 44.
17.] év tats éox. Hp. is an exposition of the
sera tadta of the LXX and Hebrew, re-
ferring it to the days of the Messiah, as
Isa. ii. 2; Micah iv. 1, al. See also 2 Tim.
ii. dese Heb. A. 2. Aéyer 6 Beds does
not occur in the verse of Joel, but at the
beginning of the whole passage, ver. 12, and
is supplied by Peter here. exxXed |
Alex.: kat éxx., Vat. It is a later form of
the future ; see Winer, edn. 6, § 15.
amb tod zv.| In the Heb. simply “ My
Spirit,’—n1ynex. The two clauses,
«, of veay. and k. of mpeoB., are transposed
om #) (as Lxx)
in the LXX. 18. kat ye] Alex.:
kat, Wat. Aft. SovAas om pou Vat.
The Hebrew does not express it either
time, but has, as in E. V., ‘the servants
and handmaids? kal mpopntev-
covow is not in LXX nor Heb.
19.] al Sécw Tépata ev ovpavg, Vat.:
txt Alex. &vw, onueia, and katw
are not in LXX nor Heb. aipa
k. tip ....| Not, ‘bloodshed and wast-
ing by fire, as commonly interpreted :
—not devastations, but prodigies, are
foretold :—bloody and fiery appearances:
—pillars of smoke, Heb. 20.] See
Matt. xxiv. 29. mp. Kup.) Not the
first coming of Christ,—which interpre-
tation would run counter to the whole
tenor of the Apostle’s application of the
prophecy :—but clearly, His second com-
ing ; regarded in prophetic language as
following close upon the outpouring of the
Spirit, because it is the next great event in
the divine arrangements. The Apos-
MPAZEIS AIOZTOAQN. Il.
22
u , ae 7m 2 «wat “e mac Oc tav
u = John vii. peyaXdny Kat emipavn. Kal total, Tac o¢
87. xix. 3). "
de 6. , , ,. ’ y "4 py?
Wer. vi. *tmikaAtonrat TO Ovopa Kuptov owlnaerat. avépec
al. iv. 5. a ‘ ie
vhereonly. "[gpanAXtrat, akovoare Tove Adyouc tovrove. Insovy
a 60 Me 4 - ” 2? ‘ = oil % id ,
y wnt. eer, TOV Na@woator, aveoa * ano tov Oeov amocecerymevov
17. ch. fii. 23. : 4 : : pane
Jove. gto guac °Suvanecw Kal “tioaciw Kal onuetotc ° otc
tg Uma L ‘
are Luke i.
: ? ~ ‘ e? , - ‘ > ‘
xh ic 1ao1. €woinaey OC avrov o Acoc ev péow vawov, Kabwe avrot
xxii. 16.
4. 2 h. xiii. 9. — Matt. x. 22 al. fr. 2 = Matt. xi. 19. ch. x. 53.
mon vit 18. hee, ix. in ‘ ach, xxv. 7. % Cor.iv.¥. 2 Thess. ii.4d only, Esth.ii. 9 F. 1 Mace. x. 34,
Xen. Hell. iv. 4 8, b — Luke ix 13. ch. xxiv. 17 al. c= ch. viii. 13 reff. d attr., ch,
i. L reff, e Luke ii. 46. ch. i. 15 al. Ps. cxxxiv. 9.
om kat emp. DR.
grammi corrn), with ACEX® rei 36: om BDR!. ;
rec os av (zxx), with
21. om ver &!: ins in very small letters N-corr!.
ACD -corr' rel Chr: txt BE 36. ins tov bef kup. D'.
22. iaSpanditat (so ch. iii. 12 al) &. vaCopaoy (so ch. iii. 6 al) D'R*. amoded.
bef aro 7. 6. (corrn to avoid ambiguity of avdp. aro 7. 6.) BCD-corrX m p vulg arm
Ath Epiph, Chr Iren-int Fulg: txt AD'E rel 36 D-lat Thl.—dedoximacpevor D'(appy) =
txt D?: probatum D-lat: designatum E-lat: approbatum vulg Iren-int Ambr Fulg.
—qui a Deo videri factus est apud vos Syr. for uu., nuas D' c k 100. 127 lect-5
D-lat (of these 100. 127 have que below): txt D?. for ots, o7a D': txt D?.
om o bef Geos C. o 0. bef 5¢ avrov E d 1 vulg(not am demid) Thi. rec aft
ka0ws ins Kat (kaws xa: being a very common expr), with C% 13 rel syr Chr: om
ABC'DER m p 36. 40 Syr sah eth Ath Iren-int Victorin Fulg.
maytes E; vuets 117 vulg sah arm.
tles probably expected this coming very
soon (see note on Rom. xiii. 11) ; but this
did not at all affect the accuracy of their
expressions respecting it. Their days wit-
nessed the Pentecostal effusion, which was
the beginning of the signs of the end : then
follows the period, KNOWN TO THE FATHER
onty, of waiting—the Church for her
Lord,—the Lord Himself till all things
shall have been put under His feet,—and
then the signs shall be renewed, and the
day of the Lord shall come. Meantime,
and in the midst of these signs, the cove-
nant of the spiritual dispensation is, ver.
21—‘ Whosoever shall call on the name of
the Lord, shall be saved.’ The gates of
God's mercy are thrown open in Christ to
all people :—no barrier is placed,—no union
with any external association or succession
required: the promise is to individuals,
AS individuals: mas 85 tav: which indi-
vidual universality, though here by the
nature of the circumstances spoken within
the limits of the outward Israel, is after-
wards as expressly asserted of Jew and
Gentile, Rom. i. 17, where see note.
22.) GvBp. "lop. binds all the hearers in
one term, and that one reminds them of
their covenant relation with God: com-
pare was olkxos "lopaha, ver. 36. Tov
Nafwpaiov) Not emphatically used by
way of contrast to what follows, as Beza,
Wetst., &c.: but only as the ordinary ap-
pellation of Jesus by the Jews, see John
xviii. 5, 7; ch. xxii. 8; xxvi. 9. and,
not for dé, here or any where else (see
Winer, edn. 6, § 47, b) : but signifying the
-*
for avTo., vmers
source whence, not merely the agency by
which, the deed has place. See reff., and
especially James i. 13. arodederype-
vov| ‘demonstratum,’ more than ‘ap-
proved’ (E. V.) :—shewn to be that which
He claimed to be. amode5. must be taken
with ard 7. @eod: not, as some have
divided the words, &vdp. amd 7. Ooi,
705. «.7.A.: Gal. i. 1 is no justification or
this, for there ard refers to aréaroAos,—
and certainly Peter would never have
barely thus named our Lord ‘a man from
God.’ The whole connexion of the passage
would besides be broken by this rendering :
that connexion being, that the Man Jesus
of Nazareth was by God demonstrated, by
God wrought in among you, by God’s
counsel delivered to death, by God raised
up (which raising up is argued on till ver.
32, then taken up again), by God (ver. 36),
finally, made Lord and Christ. This was
the process of argument then with the Jews,
—proceeding on the identity of a man
whom they had seen and known,—and
then mounting up from His works and His
death and His resurrection, to His glorifi-
cation,—all THE PURPOSE AND DOING OF
Gop. Butif His divine origin, or even His
divine mission, be stated at the outset, we
break this climacterical sequence, and lose
the power of the argument. The dmode-
Bevryuévoy (elvai) amd Ceod of Dr. Bloom-
field is of course worse still. ols (&)
éroingey 8 ait. 6 0.] not, as De Wette,
a low view of the miracles wrought
Jesus, nor inconsistent with John ii. 11;
but in strict accordance with the progress
ABCD
Exabe
dfghk
lmop
13
21—25.
olsare 7?
NIPAZEIZ AMOZSTOAQN.
23
~ ER Oo , g = V8 ? fch ss
rourov TH ‘wotopévy © Bovdy Kat ° rooyvacet fh, xi 2
Lake vii.
~ - iv k ‘ > =
rou Oeov *éxdorov *dta XEWOE avonwy ™ moocmngarrec B30. ch. iv. 28.
Eph. i. 11
> At ’
" aveiAate, 24
~ rh , 8 06 > = 8 ‘ t - As
Tov VavaTou, KavoTt OUK YHV OUVaTOV Koateiabat auTOv
25 Aavusid yao Aéyee ”
e, O58 ’ ~
UT auTou.
a ¢ ‘ 4) Of Ud x, aK ph.i. 11.
dv 0 Oedc¢ ° avéotynoev ™ Avoac tac “ woiwag , Heb. vi-37.
et. i. 2
only t. Judith
ix. 6. xi. 19
only. see ch.
xxvi. 5.
i here only ft.
Bel & Dr. 22
ec avrov * [Tpoopmpunv
‘ U we 2? , x 5 \ , y..2 ~
TOY KUpLOV — EVwWTLOY LOU ta Tavroc, OTe» Ek destwr JOU Thecd. —
k= ch. xi. 30 reff.
n=ch. v. 35 reff.
39, 40, 44, 54 only,
El. H. An. xii. 6,
i. 7. xix. Y, (ver. 45.) ch. (iv. 35.) xvii. 3) only. L.
u = Eph. v.32. Heb. vii. 14. 1 Pet. i. 11 only.
w = Lukei. 19. ch. iv. 10 al. : ;
y Matt. xx. 21, 23. Luke i. 1]. ver. 34. ch. vii. 65, 56. Heb. i.
is 2)
Psa. xv. 8.
2. Rom, xi. 10. Isa. xlix. 16.
13. 1 Kings xxiii. 19.
I = 1 Cor. ix. 21 8ce only. Wisd. xvii 2. (Luke xxii. 37.)
o = trans., of Christ, ver. 32. ch. xiii. 32, 34. xvii. 31 only.
= Mark vii. 35. q
r= here (Matt. xxiv. 8 | Mk. 1 Thess. v. 3) only. Ps. xvii. 5.
Herod. vi. 85.
m here only f.
of others, John vi.
tay wd. NUgat degTpous,
s = Luke
t—here only. Josh. xviii.1. Ken. Mem.
v = here (ch. xxi. 29) only.
x Matt. xviii. 10. ch. x.
Job xxxix. 2.
Gen. xxiv. fl
28. rec aft exd. ins AaBuvres (corrn to fill up the constr), with DEN® rel 36 syr
Chr Cosm Thl: om ABC'N! p 40 vulg Syr coptt 2th arm Ath Iren-int Victorin Fulg.
rec xetpwy (corrn), with C3E rel 36 vulg coptt Chr Iren-int: txt ABC'DR p
13 Ath Cyr Thl-sif.
24. aft Avoas ins & avtov HE.
[avetAare, so ABCDEN d p 36 Ath Thl. |
for @avarov, adov (corrn from vv. 27, 31: see
also Ps xvii. 5) D vulg E-lat Syr copt Polye Epiph, Ps-Ath Iren-int Fulg Cassiod.
25. ins wev bef yap E 36.
of our Lord through humiliation to glory,
and with His own words in that very
Gospel (v. 19), which is devoted to the
great subject, the manifestation, by the
Father, of the glory of the Son. This
side of the subject is here especially dwelt
onin argument with these Jews, to exhibit
(see above) the whole course of Jesus of
Nazareth, as the ordinance and doing of
THE Gop oF ISRAEL. 23.] Bovdy
and mpoyvwars are not the same: the
former designates the counsel of God—
His Eternal Plan, by which He hasarranged
(cf. a&piouérn) all things; the latter, the
omniscience, by which every part of this
plan is foreseen and unforgotten by Him.
éxdotov | by whom, is not said, but
was supplied by the hearers. 77 a&piou. Ke.
are not to be joined to €«dorov as agents—
the dative is that of accordance and ap-
pointment, not of agency :—see Winer,
edn. 6, § 31. 6, b, and ch. xv. 1; 2 Pet.
i. 21. 8. xetpds avoperv] viz. of the
Roman soldiers, see reff. am posTry)-
Eavtes| The harshness and unworthiness
of the deed are strongly set forth by a
word expressing the mechanical act merely,
having nailed up, as in contrast with the
former clause, from "Incoty to bua.
Peter lays the charge on the multitude,
because they abetted their rulers,—see ch.
iii. 17, where this is fully expressed: not
for the far-fetched reason given by Ols-
hausen, that ‘all mankind werein fact guilty
of the death of Jesus:’ in which ease, as
Meyer well observes (and the note in Olsh.’s
last edn. ii. p. 666, does not answer this),
Peter must have said ‘ we,’ not ‘ you.’
24.] There is some difficulty in explaining
[mpoopwunv AB!CDER (not 36). ]
aft Kupiov
the expression ®Sivas in the connexion in
which it is here found. The difficulty lies,
not in the connexion of Avew with wdivas,
which is amply justified, see reff., but in
the interpretation of divas here. For
&Sivas av. must mean the pains of death,
i.e. the pains which precede and end in
death ; a meaning here inapplicable. (The
explanation of Chrys., Theophyl., e., 6
Odvatos dive katéxov aitdv, k. Ta Sewe
éracxe, will not be generally maintained
at the present day. Stier does maintain
it, Reden der Apostel, vol. i. p. 43 ff., but
to me not convincingly: and, characteris-
tically, Wordsw. also.) The fact may be,
that Peter used the Hebrew word "2m, ref.
Psa. ‘nets, or bands, i. e. the nets in which
death held the Lord captive ; and that, in
rendering the words into Greek, the LXX
rendering of the word in that place and
Ps. exiv. 3, viz. dives, has been adopted.
(But see Prolegg. to Vol. I. ch. ii. § ii. pp.
28, 29.) It has been attempted in vain by
Olshausen and others to shew that wdives
sometimes in Hellenistic Greek signifies
bands. No one instance cited by Schleus-
ner (Lex. V. T.) of that meaning is to
the point. See Simonis Lex., San.
ovK 7v Suv. depends for its proof on the
yap which follows. 25.| cis aitov,
not ‘of Him,’ but in allusion to Him.
The 16th Psalm was not by the Rabbis
applied to the Messiah: but Peter here
proves to them that, if it is to be true in its
highest and proper meaning of any one,
it must be of Him. We are met at every
turn by the shallow objections of the
Rationalists, who seem incapable of com-
prehending the principle on which the say-
24
s=ch.xvil. {..) ¢, aie .
13. 2 Thess. toTiv iva hy cadwla
ii. 2 seeHeb, ¢
xil, 26, 27.
Ps. xvi. 5.
ach. vil. 41
reff.
beh. xvi. 34,
Matt. v. 12,
Loke x. 21.
1 Pet. i. 6 al.
Ps. ii. 11.
¢ here only.
see ch. xxi.
d Matt. xiii. 82 goy,
Ps.
2 ’ '
rode, avopec aceA pot,
MPAZEIS AMOZTOAQN.
, d < , «
oak pov © KaTaoknvwoet
II.
26 Sia ~rovro * nuppavO pov
- 7 \
1) Kapola Kat * nyaAAtacarto yAwooa prov, ° Ere O& Kal H
, , ' o > f?
im’ * eXmtds, * Ore ovK ‘ eyKara-
j x
Aetbege Thy ® Wuyny pov "ac ‘adny ovoe * dwastc TOY
‘Gavov cov ™ ew " dtapbopar.
28 © éyv@pisac por ° odove
Cwnc, “rAnowonc pe evpoosvrng * wera TOV TpOCwTOU
OF ca. , - vu Sou 2s ‘
eLov ElLTTEIV Mera Tappynotac
xiv. 1. bad 7 ee ‘ ae , ’ o ‘ow? a
oten iv. 18 woo vpac TEOL TOV TaTrolaoyou Aaveid, OTL Kal &TE
reff.
f2 Cor. iv. 0 reff.
vill. 40 reff.
vii. 26, Ps, Ixxxv. 2. f
m ver, 31. ch. xiii. 34, &c. only. Job xxxiii 28. 3
v. 6. q = ch. xiii. 52 reff. rch. xiv. 17
t Matt. xii.4. 2
Lev. xxvi. 13, see Jobn vii 13. Eph. vi. 1%. ‘
w Matt. ii. 19 al. goxpp only, exc. ch. vii.15. Heb. xi, 22.
i Matt. xi. v3. Rev. i. (Sal
ins wou DR: om evwmov Syr.
26. | nuppavén, so ABCDER m p 40 Clem. ]
ixx), with ACDEN? rel 36; txt BX! Clem.
27. rec adov, with E rel Orig: txt ABCD b c f (k ?) 0
28. yvwpioas D!-gr: lat D?.
(Field is wrong).
ings of David respecting himself arereferred
to Christ. To say, with De Wette, that
Peter’s proof lies not in any historical but
only in an ideal meaning of the Psalm, is
entirely beside the subject. To interpret
the sayings of David (or indeed those of
any one else) ‘historically,’ i. e. solely as
referring to the occasion which gave rise to
them, and having no wider reference, would
be to establish a canon of interpretation
wholly counter to the common sense of
mankind. Every one, placed in any given
position, when speaking of himself as in
that position, speaks what will refer to
others similarly situated, and most point-
edly to any one who shall in any especial
and pre-eminent way stand in that position.
jot shat even this common rule to David’s
sayings, the applicability of them to Christ
will be legitimized :—but how much more,
when we take into account the whole cir-
cumstances of David's theocratic position,
as the prophetic representative and type of
Christ! Whether the Messiah was present
or not to the mind of the Psalmist, is of
very little import: in some cases He plainly
was; in others, as here, David’s words,
spoken of himself and his circumstances,
could only be in their highest and literal
sense true of the great Son of David who
was tocome. David often spoke concerning
himself: but THE SPIRIT WHO SPOKE IN
Davin, als roy xpiordv. The citation is
verbatim from the LXX (except in the
order of pov % Kap.: see var. readd.):
the Vatican and Alexandrine copies agree
throughout, except in ny (Vat.) and
g — Rev. vi. 9. xx. donly. Wisd. iii. 1. Jos. Antt. vi. 14. 2.
Hos. xisi. 14.
m = Luke ii. 26. ch. xiii. 35 (from 1. c.) &c.
Cor. xii. 4 only. Esth. iv. 2. w. aor, ch, xxi. 37 reff.
h constr., ch.
= ver. 4reff. | — Heb.
Heb. xi. 5. see Ps. lxxaviii. 48.
p = Matt. xxi. 32. Prov.
s constr., here only. 1. c.
ach. iv. 20, 31. xxviii. 41 only.
Heb. vii. donly, 1 Chron. xxvii. 22.
o | Cor. xii. 3 reff.
only. Esth. ix. 18, 19.
v ch. vii. 8, 9.
1 Chron. xix, 28,
rec 7 kapd. bef wou (corrn from
ep DX.
p 40 Clem Thi.
evppoovynv A'(appy) 96(sic Scholz), so A in xx
d5ov (Alex.), and edppootvns (Vat.) and
-vnv (Alex.), between which our MSS.
also vary. twa ph carevOa] Heb.
‘I shall not be moved.’ 26. 4 yAdooa
pov} Heb. “22, ‘my glory :’ so in Ps.
eviii. 1, where our prayer-book version
renders “I will give praise with the best
member that I have.” Cf. also Ps. lvii.8.
27. SiapGopdv| Heb. nme’, ‘cor-
ruption, from nm, corrupit,—or ‘the
pit, from mr, subsidere. De Wette main-
tains the last to be the only right render-
ing: but the Lexicons give both, as above,
and Meyer and Stier defend the other.
28. | éyvepioas x.7.A.: Heb. ‘Thou
wilt make known.’ mANpeoets K.T.A. :
Heb. ‘ Fulness of joys (is) with thy pre-
sence.’ These two last clauses refer to
the Resurrection and the Ascension respec-
tively. 29. avBpes a8eAdpol) g. d., <I
am your brother, an Israelite, and therefore
would not speak with disrespect of David.’
He prepares the way for the apologetic
sentence which follows. étov) supply,
not €rrw, but eoriy, I may, &e. The
title ‘Patriarch’ is only here applied to
David, as the progenitor of the kingly
race:—Abraham and the sons of Jacob
are so called in the N. T. reff. In the
LXX, the word is used of chief men, and
heads of families, with the exception of
2 Chron. xxiii, 20, where it represents
“captains of hundreds.” ort} not,
because; but that,—contains the subject of
ciety, and is that for which the apology is
made. We learn from 1 Kings ii.10, and
26—33. TIPAZEIZ AMOSTOAQN. 25
, x ome Ae. -\8 ~ ? -»?
Aeurnoey Kal Emap; Kat TO > pevnua avrov wry date
* ey mpiv
a tT cn é ag TavT 30 Oo nT s zsh age
. ovv *v WV KQL z= Lukeiv
‘XP n aay; ne pognTns TapXwy Kal gs,
adic 6 oTt ge * @pogev aur ri beoc kK Kaptrou THC oe
bi =) Sh. g a = Luke viii.
* oapuoc avrov ‘Kalioat émt tov Opovov avurou, TPO- 41. ch. vii.
SQ.% ’ , \ ~ h? , ~o = eo oa al.t see
Ps. liv. 19.
lowy éXaAnoev TEOL ™¢ ayacqene. TOU eee OTl gt 22 Ee
b see James v.
Uy 53 i
oureE ‘eycareActpOn ™ elc * adou oure n ads avTou ' cidey ? YS.
Gen.
i , 2 - } xxvi. 3.
StadDopav. © rovrov tov “Incovy | avéornoev oO Dedc, © constr., here
7 , = = \ ; only. ‘tsa.
= m
OU TaVvTEc Nec Eomev ™ paoTupEC. 33 7) deka ouv Tov a Psa. cxxxi.
. = Luke i,
f trans., dati, xix. 28.
g Gal. iii. one = Ps, cxxxix. 3. Wisd.
i ver. k here only. Isa.
42. Gen. xxx. 2.
1 Cor. vi. 4. Eph. i. 20 only.
xix. 1. see Gen. xxxvii. 18.
xiv. 19 al. 1 = ver, 24 reff.
e = Heb. vii. 6,10 only. Gen, xxxv. 1}.
1 Kings 4 2
h ch. i, 22 reff.
m ch, i. 8 reff.
29. ro uynmov D. for ev, tap D vulg E-lat.
30. cidws D!': txt D‘. for ocpvos, kapdias D!: precordia D-lat: txt D7’.
rec aft ocd. avtou ins To kata capka avacTyce Tov xpiotov (explanatory gloss, taken
into the text from margin), with (D'E) rel Eus (Chr) Thdrt Thl—but om to D!, om ro
k. gap. E 4, 27. 29: avacrnoa DIE 13: aft tov xp. ins xa D-gr E 69. 96. 105: om
ABCD2X p H* vulg Syr coptt «2th arm Cyr Iren-int Victorin. rec Tou @povou,
with E rel Chr: txt ABCDN p Orig Eus Thl-sif (rxx-B has -vov, zxx-A -vov: Meyer
thinks -vov a gramml alteration to suit better the transitive kabioa: but qu ?).
31. mpocitdws D® 1. 60. 69. 100. 104. 127. 163: mpoeiSwv (= mpord.) ACE c e 13.—
om mpo.d. cA. r. tT. D (and lat). om t7s B(Btly). rec for ovre and oute, ov and
ovde (corrn from ver 27), with E-gr(ovr) rel syrr coptt Thdor-mops Thl: ov« and oute
13: txt ABCDX p 36 vulg E-lat Eus Nyss Chr Cyr Iren-int Victorin Fulg Bede-gr.
rec kareAcipOn, with rel: txt ABCDERX d f h 13.36 Eus Thaum Nyss Chr Thdrt Thdor-
mops Thl. rec adds yuxn avtou (from ver 27), with C3E rel syr(aft a5.) Chr
(bef eyxar.) Thdor-mops(aft a6.) Fulg Philast : om ABC'DX p vulg Syr coptt seth Did-
int Iren-int Victorin.
ovy D!(omg tov) E D-lat Ambr.
Neh. iii. 16, that David was buried at Jeru-
salem, in the city of David, i. e. the strong-
hold of Zion, 2 Sam. v. 7. Josephus,
Antt. vii. 15.3, gives an account of the high
priest Hyrcanus, when besieged by Antio-
chus Eusebes,—andafterwards King Herod,
opening the tomb and taking treasure from
it. See also xiii. 8. 4; xvi. 7.1; B. J.1.
2. 5. Dio Cassius (Ixix. 14) mentions,
among the prodigies which preceded Ha-
drian’s war, that the tomb of Solomon
(the same with that of David, see Jos. Antt.
xvi. 7. 1) fell down. Jerome mentions
(Epist. xlvi. [xvii.] ad Marcellam, p. 209)
that the tomb of David was visited in his
time (the end of the fourth century).
30.] mpodytys, in the stricter sense, a
Soreteller of future events by the inspira-
tion of the Holy Spirit. elds] See
2 Sam. vii. 12. The words are not cited
from the LXX, but rendered from the He-
brew. On the principle of interpretation of
this prophecy, see above on ver. 25.
31.] The word mpoidév distinctly asserts
the prophetic consciousness of David in the
composition of this Psalm. But of what
sort that prophetic consciousness was, may
be gathered from this same Apostle, 1 Pet.
adnv BX b (k?) o p 36 Eus Thaum Nyss Thl,.
32. aft rovtoy ins ovy D'(and lat) E Ambr Victorin.—om toy D!-gr: txt D’.
eomev bef nueis N: apr. bef ¢ ecpev D vulg.
ins
i. 10—12: that it was not a distinct know-
ledge of the events which they foretold,
but only a conscious reference in their
minds to the great promises of the cove-
nant, in the expression of which they were
guided by the Holy Spirit of prophecy to
say things pregnant with meaning not pa-
tent to themselves but to us. 32. |
From ver. 25 has been employed in sub-
stantiating the Resurrection as the act of
God announced by prophecy in old time:
now the historical fact of its accomplish-
ment is affirmed, and the vouchers for it
produced. ov} either masc., see ch.
i.8; xili. 31,—or neut. The former seems
most probable as including the latter.
‘We are His witnesses,’ would imply, ‘We
testify to this His work,’ which work im-
plied the Resurrection. aravres, first
and most properly the Twelve: but, se-
condarily, the whole body of believers, all
of whom, at this time, had probably seen
the Lord since His Resurrection ; see 1 Cor.
xv. 6. 83.] Peter now comes to the
Ascension— the exaltation of Jesus to be,
in the fullest sense, Lord and Christ.
Tq Sefia] by the right hand, not ‘/o
the right hand.’ The great end of this
26
12.
xiii. 17.
2 Cor, xi. 7.
1 Pet. v. Gal.
Sir, xv. 6.
o = ch. i. 4 reff.
p John ¥. 54
&ec. ch. iii.
xvii. xx.
24. xxvi. 10.
— 7
Rev. il. 27.
Num. xvii. 2, COU
q vv. 17,18
ff.
reff.
r Jobn iii, 13.
Rom. x. 6 (from Dent. xxx.12). Rev. xi, 12.
43. ch. vii. 49, Heb. i. 13. x. 18. James ii. 3 only.
xiv. 41. ch. xvi, 23) onty.
8, 10 (from Jer. xxxviii. [xxxi.) 31).
33. for rn Te, kat THY D.
nt: txt ABCEN c p 13 Chr, spiritus sancti vss(appy).
D'(and lat): txt D°: aft rovro ins to dwpov E vss Iren-int Cypr Ambr.
MNPAZEIS AMOZTOAQN.
~ ‘ ,
watt. sail. Qeou "wbwleic thv te ° og
if ~ yy ~~
ayiov ’AaBwv ? rapa tov watpoc 4 ekéyeev Touro O vYmEtC
41 ¢ ,
[at] PAemere Kal aKovere.
| , s <7 , ,
5. TOG “Ovpavodc, AEYEL ce avtoc Etrev xtipiog ty Kupiy
nov Kaouv ‘ex behav pov
‘iromocov TwY TodwY cov.
, ~ T39 ’ ‘ e \ , >. *%
ywwoxttw mac “otxog IopanX ort Kat Kiptov avurov
sver. 2hreff. Psa.cix, 1.
Isa. Ixvi. 1.
Wisd. xviii, 6. see Cen, xx xiv. 25.
II.
emayyeAiay Tov TvEevpatog TOU
‘
4 ov yao Aaveid * avéBn ste
35 fwc av OM rove &x Ipotbe
ha? aspadwe ovy
t Matt. v.85. Luke xx.
a — here (Mark
Ps. xcviii. 4.
Heb. viii.
v = Matt. x. 6. ch. vii. 42.
rec T. ay. mveuu., with D rel Thdrt Cosm Thl Iren-
for TovTo o umets, ume oO
rec ins
vuv bef vues, with CE rel syr Cosm Thl: om ABC!DN 1 p vulg Syr coptt arm Cyr
Did Ambr Philast.
BD 13.
34. for Aeye: Se, eipneev yap D; dixit autem vulg(not am fuld Xe).
ins o bef xupios B'(sic, see table) X'.
Aeye: D am lat-mss-in-Bede.
35. om avy D': ins D*.
36. ins o bef ox. CD ec.
speech is to shew forth (see above) the
Gop oF Isrart as the doer of all these
things. However well the sense ‘fo’
might seem to agree with the é« defay
of ver. 34, we must not set aside a very
suitable sense, nor violate syntax (for
the construction is entirely unexampled in
Hellenistic as well as prose classical Greek)
in order to suit an apparent adaptation.
The reference is carried on by the word
detid, though it be not in exactly the same
position in the two cases. And the avéBn
els rods odp. of ver. 34 prepares the way
for the é« deta following without any
harshness, On the poetic dative after
verbs of approach, see Musgr., Phonisse,
310 (303, Matth.), and Hermann, Antig.
234. See also ch. v. 31, and Winer (who
defends the construction), edn. 6, § 31. 5.
Dr. Wordsw. denies that the deta @¢e0d
is ever specified in the N. T. as the instru-
ment by which He works. But he has
omitted to state that this and the simi-
larly ambiguous place, ch. v. 31, are the
only real instances of the expression being
used, all the rest being local, é« Setiav
or éy de&ia: so that his dictum goes
for nothing. And in the LXX the use
of God’s right hand as the instrument
is very frequent: ef. Exod. xv. 6, 12;
Ps. xvii. 36; lix. 5 (where the dat. is used
as here), and about 20 other places ; Isa.
xlviii. 13; Ixiii. 12, &e. After this, the
objection, when applied to a speech so full
of O. T. spirit and diction as this, would,
even if valid as regards the N. 'T., be irre-
levant. dwayyediav| Christ is said
to have received from the Father the pro-
rec om Ist kat (as unnecessary), with ACENX rel Thdrt: ins
for ermev,
elz om Ist «at, with (none of our mss) Syr coptt
mise above cited from Joel, which is spoken
of His days. This, and not of course the
declarations made by Himself to the same
effect, is here referred to, though doubt-
less those were in Peter’s mind. The very
word, etéxeev, refers to éxxe@ above, ver. 17.
Tovro, ‘this influence,’ this merely ;
leaving to his hearers the inference, that
this, which they saw and heard, must be
none other than the effusion of the Spirit.
BAérere need not imply, as Dr. Bur-
ton thinks, that “there was some visible
appearance, which the people saw as well
as the apostles :”—very much of the effect
of the descent of the Spirit would be
visible,—the enthusiasm and gestures of
the speakers for instance; not, however,
the tongues of flame,—for then none could
have spoken as in ver. 13. 34.) This
exaltation of Christ is also proved from
prophecy—and from the same passage with
which Jesus Himself had silenced His ene-
mies. See notes, Matt. xxii. 41 ff. Sé
is not ‘for,’ which would destroy the whole
force of the sentence: the Apostle says, For
David himself is not ascended into the
heavens,—as he would be if the former
prophecy applied to him: But he himself
says, removing all doubt on the subject,
&e. The rendering 5¢, for, makes it
appear as if the avéBn eis 7. odp. were a
mistaken inference from Psalm ex. 1,
whereas that passage is adduced to preclude
its being made from the other. 36.)
THE CONCLUSION FROM ALL THAT HAS
BEEN SAID. mas olkos "lop. = ras
6 olk. "lop., olxos being a familiar noun
used anarthrously: see Eph, ii. 21, note,
ABCD
ENabec
dfghk
lmop
13
weeOTt
kac d
J4—38. NIPAZEIS AMOSTOAQN. 27
\ 4 ce 4) 4 w? , -~ 4 ? ~ a“ 2
Kal yolorov Oo VEoe ETOLNOEY, TOUVTOY TOV Incovy ov hordict ester
€ - , 7 . —
UpELC EGTAVNWOATE, Bal Gea.
" ’ , \ x , ‘ , * , xiv. 9.
37 Akovouavrec oe * Karevuynoay THY Kapolay, etaov x here only.
! id Gen. xxxiv.
7. UPaseviits
” > 16. (-1vuEis,
, pe 3s \ ‘ ’ ‘ Rom, xi. 8
Tomouperv, avopec adeAXpar; 8 [lérooc¢ oe TO0G avToUc y Matt, i >
ch, iti, 19.
\ >
te moog tov Iléroov Kat tovce orove amoordXove Ti
, \ , wv e - , \ TF
»Meravonoare, kat * BarrioOyrw Ekaotog Vuwy * et Tw vill, 37 al.
z coustr., here only.
Eustath-ap-Thdrt Nyss,: ins ABCDEN rel vulg syr «th-pl Epiph, Nyss, Iren-int.
rec kat xpiotov bef avrov, with E rel syrr Ath, Epiph,: «ka: xpirrov o Oeos
bef avroy c m 4, 100 Tert : avroy bef kupiov coptt (all transpositions for perspicuity) :
om avroy D!(and lat): txt ABCD?X 36 vulg arm Eustath Ath, Bas Nyss, Chr Iren-
int.
ins D?.
87. om Se E-gr Aug.
Kkatnvuynoay E p.
txt ABCN p Chr. (13 def.)
73. 103 Aug,.—kat ties e& avtwy evray D.
erat. bef o Oeos (corrn) BX p vulg syrr copt «2th Ath, Leont Tert Amb: om
o @. lect-12: txt ACDE rel am fuld Epiph Iren-int. (13 def.)
om toy D!:
TOTE TavTes Ot TuvEeABovTES K. akovgayTes D syr-marg.
rec Tn kapdia (see Ps eviii. 16), with DE rel vulg Thi:
for evroy Te, kat ert. HE: ex. Se p: ettovtes D281 18.
om Aourous D 104. rec Toingopey,
with D rel Cyr-jer Thdrt: txt ABCEX a hk p Bas Epiph Chr. (13 def.)—ins ovy bef
mot. (see Lw ili. 10) D Iren-int Aug,.
at end, add emderéare (Tischdf, but v70b-,
Scholz, Lachm ; and Sceriv in D) nu DE tol syr-marg Aug, Promiss.
38. rec ins epy bef mpos avrous, with E rel; @now bef cat Barr. ACN p vulg Cyr-
jer: pnow bef werav. D: for merp. de, exe Se metpos ah 38. 67. 118 lect-12 Syr wth
arm (all these varr shew that originally the verb was not expressed): om B 65. 127.
163 demid. (13 def.)
and Winer, edn. 6, § 19, who however
does not give ofkos in his list: the whole
house of Israel—for all hitherto said has
gone upon proofs and sayings belonging
to Israel, and to all Israel. 6 Beds
étrotnoev, as before, is the ground-tone
of the discourse. KUptoy, from ver.
34. Xptorov, in the full and glorious
sense in which that term was prophetically
_known. ‘The same is expressed ch. vy. 31
by apxnyoyv Kk. cwripa tywoer. The
final clause sets in thestrongest and plainest
light the fact to which the discourse testi-
fies—ending with dv tpeis éotravpwcate,
—the remembrance most likely to carry
compunction to their hearts. ‘In clausula
orationis iterum illis exprobrat quod Eum
crucifixerint, ut majori conscientiz dolore
tacti ad remedium aspirent.’ Calvin in loc.
‘ Aculeus in fine.’ Bengel. 37—41. |
EFFECT OF THE DISCOURSE. 87. KkaT-
evdy.| katavicow is exactly ‘compungo.’
The compunction arose from the thought
that they had rejected and crucified Him
who was now so powerful, and under whose
feet they, as enemies, would be crushed.
*Concionis fructum Lueas refert, ut sciamus
non modo in linguarum varietate exsertam
fuisse Spiritus Sancti virtutem,sed ineorum
etiam cordibus qui audiebant.’ Calvin.
Tomowpev, the deliberative subjunc-
tive,—cf. Winer, edn. 6, § 41, a. 4, -What
must we do? 38.] petavoyjoare,
for em, ev BCD Epiph: txt AEN rel Bas Chr Cyr Thdrt
not, as in Matt. iii. 2; iv. 17, weravoetre.
The aorist denotes speed, a definite, sudden
act: the present, a habit, more gradual, as
that first moral and legal change would
necessarily be. |The word imports change
of mind: here, change from thinking
Jesus an impostor, and scorning Him as
one crucified, to being baptized in His
name, and looking to Him for remission
of sins, and the gift of the Spirit. The
miserable absurdity of rendering pertav.,
or ‘peenitentiam agite,’? by ‘do penance,’
or understanding it as referring to a
course of external rites, is well exposed by
this passage—in which the internal change
of heart and purpose is insisted on, to be
testified by admission into the number of
Christ’s followers. See Calvin’s note.
Bantic8y7w | Here, on the day of Pente-
cost, we have the first mention and ad-
ministration of CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Be-
fore, there had been the baptism of repent-
ance for the remission of sins, by John,
Luke iii. 3; but now we have the import-
ant addition ém) 7@ dvdu. "Incod ypiorod,.
—on the Name—i.e. on the confession of
that which the Name implies, and ino the
benefits and blessings which the Name im-
plies. The Apostles and first believers
were not thus baptized, because, ch.i. 5, they
had received the BAPTISM BY THE Hoty
GuHost, the thing signified, which super-
seded that by water, the outward and visi-
28
a Matt. xxvi.
28. Loke iii.
3 Mk
b —ch.
Pg mi.i7. » e
Jobo iv. 0.
ech. i. 4ref. coTiy 1
d here only.
2 Kings vii.
10.
ech. xxii. 21
reff.
f—ch, xiii. 2
reff.
g — Luke xi
53. ch. xtil,
31. xxiv. 17.
xxv. 4.
xxvii. 20,
xxviii. 23.
Luke only, exc. Heb. vii. 23. Nam. ix. 19.
Rom, v.09. Ezek. xxxvi. 20.
ii. 18 (Luke iii. 5) only, Deut. xxxii. 5.
2 Macc. iii. 9 al. (-dexros, 1 Tim. ii. 3. v. 4 only.)
2. 1 Mace. ii, 43.
Thi.
l - ,
akoAlae TauTne.
Hil Lucif Ambr Aug Vig. (Syr copt Iren-int om xpiorov.)
MIPAZEIZ AMOZTOAQN.
; ‘ a 4 ~ tf , ,
iii, 20. Leabe Tiyv WOEaV TOU aytov T vEevuaToc.
k = Matt. xxiv. 34 al. Pe
m Lake viii. 40. ch. xviii. 27. xxi.17. xxiv. 3. xxviii. 30 t.
II.
ovonatt ‘Inaov xototov * etc * apeow S apapri, kat Anp-
suiv yap
\ - - ale
“exayyeAla Kal ToIC TEKVOIG UMwY, Kal TAD TOIC
, n , e ‘
“gic “° paxpav, Oaove av " roockaXéonrat Kupwco 0 Oedc¢
cle 40 i , x , g d Ul h 8 , \
Nua. répotc te Adyoug * wAEloaw ° CteMagTvoaTO Kat
, , N d , is’ > -% aN’ - =
mapekaAde avrovg Aéywv | LoOnre awo rig * yeveac tHe
41 © ‘ cd m? , ‘ * ’
Oi nev ovv ™ arodeEanevor tov Aoyov
, - ’ ’ A i / , = ec fs
avrov ¢DamticOnoayv, Kat “ roocereOnoay [ev] Ty nNusoa
i = Matt. i. 21.
1 = Phil. ii. 15. 1 Pet.
h ch, viii. 25 reff.
Pex 7.
n ver. 47. ch. v.14. xi, 24. Num. xviii.
ins Tov xupiov bef ma. xp. DE syrr sah arm Cyr-jer Bas (Epiph) Thdrt Cypr
Twv auapt. vnwv A B(sic ;
see table) 8 p vulg coptt ath Vig Fulg Aug; but for uu., nuey C: txt DE 13 rel syrr
Cyr-jer Bas Chr Iren-int Cypr Lucif Ambr Aug,.
39. nuw and nuewy D Aug).
sah.
40. for re, 5¢ D-gr k: ome.
Chr Thi.
vulg Lucif.
for ogous, ous (mistake in copying ?) AC 104
rec dieuaptupero, with 13 rel: txt ABCDEN ah p
rec om avrous, with E rel Chr, Thl 36-comm : ins ABCDN p 36-txt
taut. bef rns ckoAtas D lect-1 vulg Lucif.
41. for amodet., micrevoavtes D (syr-marg Aug ins ka tigtevoaytes bef eBarric-
Oncayv).
rec ins agpevws bef arodet. (explanatory gloss on amodet. from margin:
or from ch xxi. 17), with E rel syrr Chr Th] Aug,: om ABCDX p vulg coptt 2th Clem
Chr, (appy) Aug).
rec om ev, with E rel (coptt ?) Chr: ins (possibly as a corrn to
avoid the apparent connexion of Tn nu. ex. with mposereOnoav) ABCDN p vulg eth.
ble sign. The resulé of the baptism
to which he here exhorts them, preceded
by repentance and accompanied by faith in
the forgiveness of sins in Christ, would be,
the receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit.
39.) rots Tékvots Up., viz. as included
in the prophecy cited ver. 17, your little
ones: not, as in ch. xiii. 32, ‘ your descend-
ants,’ which would be understood by any Jew
to be necessarily implied. TACLY TOUS
els paxpav, the Gentiles; see Eph. ii. 13.
There is no difficulty whatever in this inter-
pretation. The Apostles always expected
the conversion of the Gentiles, as did every
pious Jew who believed in the Scriptures.
It was their conversion as Gentiles, which
was yet to be revealed to Peter. It is sur-
rising to see such Commentators as Dr.
Jurton and Meyer finding adiffienlty where
all is so plain. The very expression, dcous
av mposxaddonra 5b Beds ju, shews in
what sense Peter understood rots els waxp.;
not a//, but as many as the Lord our God
amposxad., shall summon to approach to
Him,—bring near,—which, in his present
understanding of the words, must import—
by becoming one of the chosen people, and
conforming to their legal observances.
40.) The words cited appear to be
the concluding and inclusive summary of
Peter’s many exhortations, not only their
general sense : just as if ver. 36 had been
given as the representative of his whole
speech above. o#Oyte is improperly
rendered in E. V. ‘ save yourselves :’ it is
not (see Stier, R. A. i. 62) cd(ere Eautovs,
as in Luke xxiii. 35, 37, 39: be saved,
Lafjet euch retten, is the true sense.
oxohtas—see reff. Peter alludes to ref.
Deut. 41.] This first baptism of re-
generation is important on many accounts
in the history of the Christian Church. It
presents us with two remarkable features :
(1) It was conferred, on the profession
of repentance, and faith in Jesus as the
Christ. There was no instruction in doc-
trine as yet. The infancy of the Church in
this respect corresponded to the infancy of
the individual mind ; the simplicity of faith
came first,—the ripeness of knowledge fol-
lowed. Neander well observes (Leit. u.
Pflanz. p. 34) that among such a multitude,
admitted by a confession which allowed of
so wide an interpretation, were probably
many persons who brought into the chureh
the seeds of that Judaizing form of Chris-
tianity which afterwards proved so hostile
to the true faith ; while others, more deeply
touched by the Holy Spirit, followed hum-
bly the unfolding of that teaching by which
He perfected the apostolic age in the doe-
trine of Christ. (2) Almost without doubt,
this first baptism must have been admi-
nistered, as that of the first Gentile con-
39—43.
exeivy ° puyai wee ToLCX Atal.
- ~ ie ’
QOUVTEC TY : owayy TwY aTooTOAWY Kal TH * Kowwwvia, TY
~ \ - -
* kXaoe Tov apTou Kal Talc TpocEevyalc.
r Matt. vii. 28. ch. v. 28. xiii. 12. Rom. vi. 17 al.
t Luke xxiv. 55 onlyt.
exewn bef tn nuepa D.
42. for noav Se, kar noav D Syr.
amoot. add ev tepovoaAnp D.
ABCD'R! p.
NIPAZEIS AIMOZTOAQN.
42 ps
Ps, lix. tit. only.
u = but w. em, ch. v. 5 reff.
ws Ri.
ins ev bef rn 815. A 98 vulg D-lat Syr.
rec ins kat bef Tn kAacet, with D?EX* 13 rel: om
29
ye
joav oe ° mpocKapTE- °x.Si.37.
~ 1 Pet. 1ii. 20.
age xlvi. 15
al.
a \
43 eylveTo Ge Heowss «vet
q ch. i. 14 reff.
s = Gal. ii. 9. Lev. vi. 2.
aft
43. rec eyevero (corrn as more usual), with E rel sah Chr: txt AX vulg syrr copt,
verts was (see ch. x. 47, and note), by
affusion or sprinkling, not by immersion.
The immersion of 3000 persons, in a city
so sparingly furnished with water as Jeru-
salem, is equally inconceivable with a pro-
cession beyond the walls to the Kedron, or
to Siloam, for that purpose.
42—47.] DESCRIPTION OF THE LIFE
AND HABITS OF THE FIRST BELIEVERS.
This description anticipates ; embracing a
period extending beyond the next chapter.
This is plain from ver. 43 : for the miracle
related in the next chapter was evidently
the first which attracted any public atten-
tion: vy. 44, 45, again, are taken up anew
at the end of chap. iv., where we have a
very similar description, evidently applying
to the same period. 42.| tq Sidaxq
Tov atrooT., compare Matt. xxviii. 20.
Ti koweviga | community : the living toge-
ther as one family, and having things in
common. It is no objection to this mean-
ing, that the fact is repeated below, in ver.
45: for so is the xAdots Tod &prov in ver.
46, and the mposk. tats mposevx. The
Vulg. interpretation of 77 kowwvig (kal) 7H
KAdoe: T. &pT. by ‘communicatione frac-
tionis panis,’ per Hendiadyn, is curious
enough. If suggested by 1 Cor. x. 16, it
should have been ‘ communicatione et frac-
tione panis.’ The adoption of the right
reading renders this interpretation un-
tenable. The supplying t@y amoor. after
xowwvia, as in EK. V., is better than the
last, but still I conceive bears no meaning
defensible in construction. Very different
is the xowwvia T. ay. tvevpatos of 2 Cor.
xiii. 13, because there the Holy Ghost is
imparted, is that of which all partake, are
Kowwvol: whereas the kow. T@v amooT.
must signify fellowship with the Apostles,
or fellowship with that Society of which
the Apostles were the chief; neither of
which meanings I conceive «ow. will bear.
The special sense in which kowavia
occurs, Rom. xv. 26, could not be here
meant, or the word would have been qua-
lified in some way, TH Kow. (7H) eis Tovs
arwxovs, or the like. 7T KAdoet T.
&prov}] This has been very variously ex-
plained. Chrysostom (in Act. Homil. vii.
p- 57) says, Tov &prov pot Sone? Aێywr, kal
Thy vnotelav éevtaida onuatve, kal toy
okAnpoy Blov* tpopis yap, 08 Tpupijs met-
eAduBavov. And similarly @cumenius,
and of the moderns Bengel: ‘ fractione
panis, id est, victu frugali, communi inter
ipsos.’ But on ver. 46 he recognizes a
covert allusion to the Eucharist.
The interpretation of 7 KA. T. &pt. as the
celebration of the Lord’s supper has been,
both in ancient and modern times, the pre-
valent one. Chrysostom himself, in his 27th
Hom. on 1 Cor., p. 422, interprets it, or at
all events 7H Kowwvrla and it together, of
the Holy Communion. And the Romanist
interpreters have gone so far as to ground
an argument on the passage for the admi-
nistration in one kind only. But,—refer-
ring for a fuller discussion of the whole
matter to the notes on 1 Cor. x. xi.,— barely
to render 4 kAdous Tod &ptov the breaking of
bread in the Eucharist, as now understood,
would be to violate historical truth. The
Holy Communion was at first, and for some
time, till abuses put an end to the practice,
inseparably connected with the aydmat, or
love-feasts, of the Christians, and wnknown
as a separate ordinance. To these aydrat,
accompanied as they were at this time by
the celebration of the Lord’s supper, the
KAdots TOD &prov refers,—from the custom
of the master of the feast breaking bread
in asking a blessing; see ch. xxvii. 35, where
the Eucharist is out of the question.
No stress must be laid, for any doctrinal
purpose, upon the article before &prou : the
construction here requires it, and below,
ver. 46, where not required by the con-
struction, it is omitted. I need hardly
add that the sense inferred by Kypke and
Heinrichs from Isa. lviii. 7, 5i¢@pumre me:-
vavtt Tov EpTov cov,—that of giving bread
to the poor, is in the highest degree im-
probable here, and inconsistent with the
Christian use of 7 KAdots Tod &pTov else-
where. Tais mposevx.| The appointed
times of prayer: see ver. 46. But it
need not altogether exclude prayer among
themselves as well, provided we do not
30 HPAZEIS ANOSTOAQN. II. 44—47.
/ ‘ bead x 4
wee raoy doyn poPoc, mwoAAa Tre " répara Kat onpsia ota
xiii. 1.
Gen, xe. 14. TwV mrs Fir LA eyivero. | “4 mavrec e: ol marevovrec
we vib
eeu fieay » emt ro auto Kal * slxov amavra * Kowa, 49 Kat ta
3B
yen y5 ren» Krhpara Kal Tac “ Swliptate emimpaakov Kal * GrepépiZoy
a= Pet.
go Guta Taow ‘xadért ay tte ® yoeiay © ciyer, 48.4 call! Tépav
Tit. i, 4.
‘ beh. v.1. Matt. xix. 22)Mk. only. P i. (xxix. 16,
c pene talon % + Newt mas i x dch. . 3a reff ‘ es rater 7. joke xis 94 ‘em
Ps, xxi. 18,
Mark ii, 25. ch. iv, 35.
vii. 27 al. Num. iv. 16.
1 Cor. xii. 24. 1 John fii. 17.
eyewero BCD. for te, 5¢ BN p copt:
ins ov uixpa E 25.
AC Syr copt wth.—eyevero ce:
ACER valg Syr copt | Thil-fin :
em mavtas (see ch vy. 5 al): om BD rel.
44. ins xa bef wavres de ACN p.
Hr Orig Thl-fin.
nuepay bef rac D.
assume any set times or forms of Christian
worship, which certainly did not exist as
yet. See notes on Rom. xiv. 5; Gal. iv.
10. 43.) waoy Wrxy, designating
generally the mullitude,—those who were
not joined to the infant church. This is
evident by the mdvres 3& of morevovtes
when the church is again the subject, ver.
44. oBos, dread, reverential astonish-
ment, at the effect produced by the out-
pouring of the Spirit. On the latter part
of the verse see general remarks at the be-
ginning of this section. 44.) Ifitsur-
prise us that so large a number should be
continually assembled together (for such
is certainly the sense, not ‘ fraterno amore
conjunctos,’ as Calvin)—we must remember
that a large portion of the three thousand
were persons who had come up to Jeru-
salem for the feast, and would by this time
have returned to their homes. elxov
G@wavra kod) they had all things (in)
common, i. e. no individual property, but
one common stock: see ch. iv. 32. That
this was lilerally the case with the infant
church at Jerusalem, is too plainly asserted
in these passages to admit of a doubt.
Some have supposed the expressions to in-
dicate merely a partial community of goods:
‘non omnia vendiderunt, sed partem bono-
rum, qum sine magno incommodo carere
poterant,’ Wetstein ; contrary to the ex-
— assertion of ch. iv. 32. In order,
1owever, rightly to understand this com-
munily, we may remark: (1) J¢ is only
Sound in the Church at Jerusalem. No
trace of its existence is discoverable any
—— else: on the contrary, St. Paul
8 of the rich and the poor, see 1 Tim.
vt, 1 Cor. xvi, 2: also St. James, ii. 1—6;
yap sah:
aft 51a ins twv xeipwy E 40 syr eth.
eywovro El] 25. 64.—aft aroor. add ev tepovoadnu
of these ACN vulg copt further add goBos te ny peyas
for Se, re D.
om noay and ka B 57 Orig Salvy.
45. kK. ovot eTNUuaTa e1xov n vTaptes D.—om Ta p.
for xa8ott, Tos D!-gr: Kadws 13: txt D®.
f—ch, iv. 35 only. Exod. i. 12, 17. and: iv. 118 fin. see ver. 24 reff.
ga
h Matt. xxvi. 55. ch. iii. 2. xvi. 5. feb.
om D!-gr m: ins D8. aft on.
ey. bef Sta 7. aroor.
morevoaytes (cor7n) BRT
mavTa LD.
euepiCov A, ins Kad
iv. 13. And from the practice having
at first prevailed at Jerusalem, we may
perhaps explain the great and constant
poverty of that church, Rom. xv. 25, 26;
1 Cor. xvi. 1—3: 2 Cor. viii. ix.: also ch.
xi. 80; xxiv. 17. The non-establish-
ment of this community elsewhere may
have arisen from the inconveniences which
were found to attend it in Jerusalem : see
ch. vi. 1. (2) This community of goods
was not, even in Jerusalem, enforced by
rule, as is evident from ch. v. 4, but,
originating in free-will, became perhaps
an understood custom, still however in the
power of any individual not to comply
with. (3) It was not (as Grotius and Hein-
richs thought) borrowed from the Essenes
(see Jos. B. J. ii. 8. 3), with whom the
Apostles, who certainly must have sane-
tioned this community, do not appear his-
torically to have had any connexion. But
(4) it ismuch more probable that it arose
from a continuation, and application to the
now increased number of disciples, of the
community in which our Lord and His
Apostles had lived (see John xii. 6; xiii. 29)
before. (The substance of this note is de-
rived from Meyer, in loc.) The practice
probably did not long continue even at
Jerusalem: see Rom. xv. 26, note.
45.) «rypara, landed property, ch. v.1—
see reff.: brdptes, any other possession ;
moveables, as distinguished from land.
aird, their price ; see a similar ery
tion Matt. xxvi. 9; and Winer, edn. 6,
§ 22. 3. 4. KaQdrt ay . .}] The & with
imperf. indie. in this connexion implies ‘ ac-
cidisse aliquid non certo quodam tempore,
sed quotiescunque occasio ita ferret,’ Herm.
ad Viger., p.818, See ch. iv. 35; Mark vi.
ABCD
Exabe
fghkl
. mops
EL 1.
TE ' mpockaprépouvres ' * GuoOupaddy é &v TW icow,
™ were auavoy © Tpopne év ° ayad-
re Kat’ oikov aorov,
Ataoe Kal
\w r s s ‘ °
Kat Exovrec " xaow * moog OXov
2 , ‘ u /
moocetiPet tovg “awlomévouc
TIPAZEIS AIOZTOAQN.
° apeAornte Kapolac,
Vv , € /
ka0 ypéoay
31
ich. i.14 (reff.).
k Matt. xiv. 19,
ch. xx. 7, 11.
xxvii. 35. 1
Cor. x. 16.
xi. 24,
Jer. xvi. 7.
lch. v. 42.
é Kuptoc Rom. xvi. 5.
Aces, ai 1g,
Ol. iv. 1
TO Philem. 2.
os, ,
K kN@vréc
47 * aivouvrec tov Geov
‘ ,
rov Aaov. 0
Ww 2A
ETL
ae see ch. viii. 3,
auTo. xx. 20.
; tr., ch
l t \ \? , x? qo) ’ Ce ‘ m(xxiv. 35."
III. Ilérpoc de Kal Iwavune avéatvov EC TO leooVv xxvii 33, 34.
2 ii. 6.
Heb. vi. 7. xii. 10 only +. Wisd. xviii. 9. n ch. ix. 19 reff. o Luke i. 14,44. Heb.
iY rom Ps. xliv. 7). Jude 24 only. LXX, Psalms only. P here only t¢. qch. iii.
&, 9. Luke ii. 13. Luke only, exc. Rom. xv. ll. Rev. xix. 5. Ps. cl. r = Luke ii. 62. ch.
vii. 10, Prov. iii. 4. s = Rom. y. | reff. t ver. "4. ul Cor, xy. 2 refi.
v ver. 46. w= ch.i.15 reff, x Luke xviii. 10. John vii. 14. Isa. ii. 3.
46. for ka® nuepay, mavres D!:
auto kAwyTes Te aptrov D: om ay D-corr.
47. for Aaov, koouov D.
Kad nu. wayres Te D®,
ev Tw tepw bef ouod. C: om ouod. D 3. 103.
Tposexaptepovy D.
KGL KAT OLKOUS av ETL TO
rec aft xa0 nuepay ins Tn exkAnowa (explanatory gloss :
see note), with E 13 rel syrr Chr Thdrt Thl, aft em ro avro D (D k 19. 40 Syr prefix
ev): om ABCX vulg copt eth arm Cyr.
Cuap. III. 1. ree d¢ bef rerpos, with E rel 36 syr Chr Thl :—em to avto is omd at
end of ch. ii. and insd aft aveBavov in Syr:
lii. ev Se ras nuepats TavTais meTpos Kal:
56; xi. 24; Soph. Philoct. 290 ff. 5 agree
Lys. 510 ff. 46.) Kad” 7p. év
7T® tepo—see Luke xxiv. 53. The words
need not mean, though they may mean,
that they were assembled in Solomon’s
porch, as in ch. v. 12—but most probably,
that they regularly kept the hours of
prayer, ch. iii. 1. Kat olkov | domi,
* privatim’ (Beng.), as contrasted with év
7@ iep@. So also Wolf, Scal., Heinr.,
Olsh., Meyer, De Wette :—not, domain,
‘from house to house,’ as Erasm., Salma-
sius, Kuinoel, al. :—the words may bear
that meaning (see Luke viii. 1), but we
have no trace of such a practice, of hold-
ing the a@ydra: successively at different
houses. The kAdois tT. &prov took
place at their house of meeting, wher-
ever that was: cf. ch. xii. 12; and see ver.
42 note. per. tpod. | they partake
of food:—see reff. ;—viz. in these agape
or breakings of bread. adeho-
THT) In good Greek, &péAera: the adj.
apedrs (see Palm and Rost) originally im-
plying “free from stones or rocks” (4,
geAAevs, stony or rocky land), and thus
simple, even, pure. 47.| aivovvtes
+. 0. does not seem only to refer to giving
thanks at their partaking of food, but to
their general manner of conversation, in-
cluding the recurrence of special ejacula-
tions and songs of praise by the intluence
of the Spirit. Tovs awlopevous]
those who were in the way of salvation:
compare ow$yrTe, ver. 40: those who were
being saved. Nothing is implied by this
D ends ch. ii. with exxAnora, but begins ch.
txt ABCD m? p vulg coptt eth arm Cyr
word, to answer one way or the other the
question, whether all these were finally
saved. It is only asserted, that they were
in the way of salvation when they were
added to the Christian assembly. Doubt-
less, some of them might have been of the
class alluded to Heb. x. 26—29: at least
there is nothing in this word to preclude
it. Correct criticism, as well as ex-
ternal evidence, réquires that the words
év TH exKkAnale or TH exxAnola should be
rejected, as having been an explanatory
gloss, (‘est hae Chrysostomi, ut videtur,
glossa, per Syrum et alios propagata ;’
Bengel,) and én 7d adté brought back to
its pluce and the meaning which it bears
in this passage (see ver. 44), viz. together,
in the sense of making up one sum, one
body assembled in one place. Meyer attri-
butes the separation of ém 7d a’ré from
Tiérpos to an ecclesiastical portion having
begun év tats juépats tavras TI. x. "Iw.
as D. De Wette asks, why should those
words have been inserted at the beginning
of a portion? Perhaps in accordance with
a not uncommon practice of opening an
ecclesiastical lection with such a phrase.
Or possibly, I might suggest, as a mis-
taken interpretation of ém 7d adré,
which was not understood. Then when
éx. 7. ad. becume joined to Mérpos, TH
éxkA. would naturally be supplied after
mposerlOet.
Cuap. ILI. 1—10.] Heatine or A LAME
MAN BY PETER AT THE GATE OF THE TEM-
PLE. 1.) avéBawov, were going up.
32
TIPAZEIZ AMOSTOAQN.
III.
= k xy. EE ‘ ¢ - - ‘ Meat 2 m4
earires Yert THY wpav TNE Mpocevyne THv EvaTny. 2 ms Tic
S.ch.iv.5. 5 ¥ Ny z? ’ ‘ > PO ere wi ,
Esth. v. 8 F. -
x chided avno xwr0o¢ * &k KotNiag pntedg avToU UTapy wy ‘Ba-
a = ch. ii. 30
, “ det /
reff. oradero, ov eriMovy
b = ch, xxi. 35 ¢
reff.).
¢ ch. ii. 46 reff.
d ver. 10, Matt.
xxiii, 27, F \
Rom. x. 15 Tléroov Kal
only, 3Kings | s 3
i. 6
, f , , ~
econstr., 1cor.' HOWTa ' EXennoovyny Aaferv.
x. 18 reff.
f— Luke xi. 41. xii. 43. ch. ix. 36 al.
see ch, xvi. 39 reff. k ch, i. 10 reff.
Euthal(appy).
T. &V., EVATN TH TMposevxn D!:
- , ‘ e AS
Tapa Twy “ElcTopEVOmévwy eIC TO LEpd”
,
Iwavynv pédXovrac
Luke only, exc. Matt. vi. 2,Xe. Tobit xii. 9. $
h ch, xxi, 18, 26. Heb. ix. 6 only, Exod. xxviii. 23, 31 (29, 85). 1 Kings xvi. 6. 2 Macc. iii. 14 only.
aft tepov ins To deiAccvov D: ad vesperum D-lat.
Thy evaTny THs mposevxns D5(and lat) arm.
c Q’ Si re ‘ ‘ Ov
Ka nNMEOAV To0C Tiyv upav TOU
- - , ~ f? /
is. 1-18 “EDO THY Aeyouévny * @oatav, “rou are eAennoouvnv
? ,
a“ ’ ‘
3 Oe Wor
h , , , ‘A € ‘
eiclévat eC TO LEOOY
k > is \ k?
4 * Areviouc 8& Ilérpoc * etc
g Mark i. 21 al.
i constr.,
for Tns mpos.
rec
evvatny, With p rel: veatny B(Bch): txt A B(Mai) CDEN a b? g h1 m.
2. ins ‘Sov bef tis D' d Syr.
€istrop. avtwy D!,
8. for os iSwy, ovros atevioas Tors opParuos avtov Kat iswv D.
aft np. ins avtous D coptt.
ut darent Syr sah eth: ins ABCEN b o p 13 copt.
for 1st ers, mpos &.
D!-gr: txt D3.
4. euBdrelas de ow. D.
Thy evatny] See ch. x. 3,30. = thy
Gpav THs mp. generic ;—rhyv év., specific.
There were three hours of prayer ; those
of the morning and evening sacrifice, i. e.
the third and ninth hours, and noon. See
Lightfoot and Wetst. in loc. 2.) Baor.,
was being carried. They took him at
the hours of prayer, and carried him back
between times. Thy Ovpav +. X.
@paiav| The arrangement of the gates of
the Temple is, from the notices which we
now possess, very undéertain. Three en-
trances have been fixed on for the @vpa
a@pala: (1) The gate mentioned Jos. B. J.
v. 5.3: ra@v 5& mvddy ai wiv evvéa ypuad
kal apyipw kexaduuuevar ravtaxdbev Hoar,
dpolws Te mapacrddes Kal ra dwépOupa. pula
5 7 whey rod ved KopivOlov xadxoi,
mwoAd TH Tims Tas KaTapytpous Kal Tas
mepixpicous imepdyouca. This gate was
also called Nicanor’s gate (see the Rab-
binical citations in Wetstein),—and lay
on the eastern side of the Temple, towards
the valley of Kedron. Jos. mentions it
again, as 7 dvaroAikh mwbAn Tod evdorépou,
xaAKH oboa, and gives a remarkable ac-
count of its size and weight: adding,
that when, before the siege, it was dis-
covered supernaturally opened in the
night, rodro rots idimrais KdAALoTOV eddnKeEL
Tépas* avoita: yap Tov Bedv avrois Thy
Tov &yabeav mvAnv. But some find a
difficulty in this. The lame man, they
say, would not be likely to have been
admitted so far into the Temple (but
see Wetst. as above, where it appears
that lepers used to stand at Nicanor’s
gate): and besides, he would have taken
om umapxwv D Syr arm Lucif: constitutus E-lat.
for Oup., muAny (see ver 10: ef Eng Version) E b o Bas-sel.
Tap avTwy
for erstevat, envat
om AaBew D rel Ht Thi Lucif:
aft AaB. ins ap’ avtwy E.
ouv iwavyny K. emev D!,
up his station naturally at an outer gate,
where he might ask alms of a/d who entered.
These conditions suit better (2) the gate
Susan ; as does also the circumstance men-
tioned ver. 11, that the people ran toge-
ther to Solomon’s porch ; for this gate was
on the east side of the court of the Gentiles,
and close to Solomon’s poreh. Only the
name @pala cannot be derived from the
town Susan (from which the gate was
named, having a picture of the town over
it), that word signifying ‘a lily ;’ the town
being named, it is true, da thy dpaidtyra
tov témov (Athen. xii. 1, p. 573): but the
derivation being too far-fetched to be at all
probable. Another suitable circumstance
was, that by this gate the market was held
for sheep and cattle and other offerings,
and therefore a greater crowd would be at-
tracted. (3) Others again (Lightf. favours
this) attempt to derive dpala from 75n,
‘ tempus,’ and refer the epithet to two gates
opening towards the city on the western
side. But it is very unlikely that Luke
should have used gp. in so unusual a mean-
ing :—not to say (see Lightf. Deser. Templi)
that the meaning of myn itself is very
doubtful. So that the matter must remain
in uncertainty. 3.] WpwTa.. ...
AaBeiv,—so Soph. Aj. 836, alrhooua d€
o’ od waxpdy ‘yépas AaBeiv, and Aristoph.
Plut. 240, airav AaBeiv rt mixpdy &pyupldiov.
éAenp., as in ref. Matt. The
Jewish forms of asking alms are given in
Vajicra Rabb. f. 20. 3. 4 (cited by Meyer),
—‘ Merere in me: ‘In me benefae tibi,’
and the like. 4. BrApov els Hpas |}
Calvin’s note is important: ‘Non ita lo-
ABCD
EXabe
fghk]l
mop l3
d xac
efad-
AVI.
.BCDE
abed
ghkl
10p13
2—8.
TIPAZEIS AMOSTOAQN.
33
oe ‘ a 8 , > 1 , ) et 6.8 e \
avrov cuy Tw Iwavvy eimev ' BréQov ‘cic tac. % 6 OE 1 tat, xxi,
~ ~ ~ \ -~ ~
" Emelyev avToc “moocdokwy Ti Tap avuTwy ° NaPetv.
6.7 oe , > , \ , ? p f.s7
etmev 0& [lérpoc “Apyvoiov Kat yovaiov ovy Purapye
a U -~ > -
pou’ 0 Of Exw, TOTO cor didwmt. OVO
~ - , ad \ ? 7 \
xoeisrov tov Nalwpaiov [éyepat kat | TEOUTATEL, Kal
.
q c
, > A - ~- »” , ,
mTiacac auToy THe dekiac XElpog NyElpEv auToOV" " jaoa-
| Mk.
Luke ix. 62.
Juhn xiii. 22.
Sir. xl. 29.
m = 1 Tim. iv.
16. Luke
xiv. 7 (ch.
xix. 22.
Phil. ii. 6)
only. L. P.
Job xxx. 26
vat. Sir.
XXxi.
(xxxiv.) 2.
? ~
ev tw ovouatt Inoov
~ 3: 5s? , a , > ~ \ Sou ,
xXenpya € eoteoewOnoay at Bacec auTtov Kal Ta opuoa, n constr., ch.
XXViii. 6
Xi. .
\ a* , 7 \ 2 \ ov. ‘
8 Kat * eGaAXAouevoc €OTH Kal TEPLETATEL, Kal eccnrA0ev Ouv bd nea
‘
~ >
°
auTolc ێlC
ch. iv. 37. xxviii.7, 2Pet.i.8. Sir. xx. 16.
Luke only, exc. Matt. xxi. 19, 20.
Ps. xxxii. 6. Ixxiy. 3. met., ch. xvi. 5 only, 1 Kings ii. 1.
reff. P
r Luke i. 64 al9. ch. v. 10 ald,
u here only t. v here only. Joel ii. 5.
ateveicov es D.
5. for ewerxev, areveroas D-gr.
E.—avtov C.
Se ~ \ iow e , \
TO woov mEoiTaTwy Kal ~ aXXAouEVOC Kat
absol., Matt.
Xxiv. 50 al.
o— ch. ii. 33
q = here only. (ch. xii. 4 reff.)
Nam. vi. 9 al. s = ver. 16 only.
there only. Exod. xxvi. 19, &c.
w John iv. 14, ch. xiv. 10 only, Isa. xxxy. 6.
AaB. bef map avr. DE vulg Lucif.—aaf8. bef ri
6. merp. de erm. AC vulg coptt: txt B D(o werp.) EX syrr eth Chr Thl Lucif.
ovk CR,
rec ins eyepat kat (adda from such passages as Luke v. 23, vi. 8 al?),
with C rel 36; eyepe kat AE m p Thl,: avacra Epiph: om BDN sah. (The authori-
lies being divided, eyeipe and -pat being no real variation, I have left it as doubtful.)
7. ree om 2nd avtoy, with DE rel Chr, Thl-txt: ins ABCX p 36 vulg Syr coptt eth
arm us Bas Chr Thdrt Bas-sel Cypr Lucif.
rec at Baoeis bef avtov, with E rel: txt ABCDN p.
erased) &.
8. aft repre. ins xaipwv E; xatpouevos D.
Kat Tapaxp. exraby Kat cor. D.
ka ora opudpa (sic: but 5
mepim. bef €. To ep. k 18.
om Kat bef aivwy (see note) A sah Lucif: ins BCEN rel Iren-int.—om epi. x. aAA. Kk
D eth.
quitur Petrus quin de consilio Dei certus
sit: et certe his verbis singulare aliquod et
insolitum beneficium sperare jubet. Queri
tamen potest, an facultatem habuerint
edendi miracula quoties liberet. Respon-
deo, sic ministros fuisse divine virtutis, ut
nihilsuoarbitrio vel proprio motu tentarint,
sed Dominus per ipsos egerit quum ita ex-
pedire noverat. Hine factum est ut unum
sanarint,non autem promiscue omnes. Er-
go, quemadmodum in aliis rebus ducem et
directorem habebant Dei Spiritum, ita etiam
in hac parte. Ideo priusquam claudum
surgere jubeat Petrus, conjecit in eum et
defixit oculos. Talis intuitus non carebat
peculiari Spiritus motu. Hine fit ut tam
secure de miraculo pronuntiet. Porro, ex-
citare hoc verbo claudum voluit ad recipien-
dam Dei gratiam: ille tamen nihil quam
eleemosynam exspectat.’ 5. érretyey |
not Tovs dp@aduods (as Bos and Kuinoel),
which is implied: —but (see reff.) tov
vooy, fixed his attention on them.
6.] ‘Non dubium est, quin etiam iis qui
non erant de communitate fidelium, datz
fuerint eleemosyne : sed Petrus tum vel
nil habebat secum, in via ad templum,
vel non tantum dare poterat quantum ad
sublevandum pauperem opus esset. Vide
abstinentiam Apostoli in tanta administra-
tione, ef. ii. 45, coll. iv. 85.’ Bengel. But
Von. Ei.
perhaps it is more simple to conclude that
Peter spoke here of his own station and
means in life—‘ I am no rich man, nor have
I silver or gold to give thee.’ év TO
évop. | There is no ellipsis (as Heinr. and
Kuinoel) of Aéyw oot, which weakens the
force of the sentence: the name of Jesus is
that in which, by the power of which, the
“rise up and walk” is to be accomplished.
7. mudoas.... Hyerpev| oftw Kal
56 xpiotds emroinoe’ modAdKis Adyw €Oe-
pdmevoe, moAAaKis eEpyw, moAAdKis Kat
THY XEipa Tponyayer, Omov joa aabe-
véotepa Kata Thy mlotw Iva wh Sdn ard
TavTouatou yeveoOa. Chrys. in Act. Hom.
viii. p. 63. See Mark ix. 27. Baceis
are the soles of the feet,—ogvupa, the
ankles. Luke, the physician, had made
himself acquainted with the peculiar kind
of weakness, and described it accordingly,
8.] é§aXX. describes his first joyous
liberation from his weakness: as soon as
_he felt himself strengthened, he leapt up,
for joy. No suppositions need be made,
such as meipd(wy Yows éavtdy (Chrys.): or
that it was from ignorance how to walk
(Bloomf.). His joy is quite sufficient to
explain the gesture, and it is better to
leave the narrative in its simplicity. If
kal before aivay is omitted (see digest),
the present participle has its ratiocinative
34
x ch. ib. 47 reff.
y constr., | Cor,
xiv. 37 reff.
g =~ 2 Cor. viii.
19 reff. see
Matt. xix. 8.
a vv. 2, 3.
bch. v.
Matt. xxiv.
244. John v.
2
“atvov Tov Ocoy. 9
rouvta kat
, , g ae, | sae
=. EKOTAGEWC t7l TW
¢ ver. 2. t
d = Luke iv.
28. v. 28. ch.
¢ Lake iv. 36.
v. Yonly.
Cant. iii. 8
( pa Mark mpoc Tov
= - : Mork v. 42,
xvi.8. Luke
v. 26 (ch. x
10 ceft.) Gal x
Deut, xxviil.
pevrog ” Exc OauBor.
reTOUMKOoW
28. & Rom. vi, 21 reff.
iv.12. 2 Pet. ii. 22 only. Gen. xiii. 4.
S3only. Judith vi. 16. met.,
xiii. 3.
n =ch, v.8 reff. o Lake iv, 22.
xiv. #. xxiii. l only. Job vii. 8 F. (Esdr. vi.
(1 Tim. ii. 2 al) & 2 Pet.{i. Bal.) Isa. xi.
ch, vii. 19. Xv. 20, xxvii. lal. Josh. xxii. 26.
MIPAZEIS AMOZTOAQN.
“ atvouvra tov Oedv"
Ort ovToC HY 0” mpoc THY
~ « ~
© woala TvAn TOU tepouU'
; h , >
oun Pe snKkore avTw.
\ ? -~ ‘ U ee s
roc 6 avrov roy [lerpov Kat lwavvny,
a e X ‘ ‘ , ‘ b , ‘\ oe | - - i , > » a
.0 \adg TedG avTove ’ ETL TH sTOa TH KaAoULEVy Zoro
2 8év 8 o Me
vow 6e o Tlerpoc¢
’ ~ /
adv “Avovec lopanXirat, Tl
nv
roury, 1 may a ? drevitere ws ia tee n 9 evorBela
* rou TeouTarely aurov 3
h Mark x. 32.
i= Jud. xvi. 26 vat. see Matt. ix. 25 al.
1 Pet.iv.4only. Ps xlix. 18.
m here only t. objectively, Dan. vii. 7 Theod. (-Petobas, Mark ix. 5.) plur., ch. v.16.
Xx. Dal. Isa. li, 15.
28} only. with eis, ch. i. 10 reff.
2. Wisd x. 12.
8 Kiogs xiii. 16 vat.
Ill.
\ 95 = e ‘ .
Kal £L0EV Tac O A\aoc aurov 7EeoiTa-
10 y emeylvwoKov dé autor
, , b , ‘ -
“eXennosvyny KaOnuevog ° ext Ty
4 exAnoInoay * BauBove Kal
a Lis IR:
\
Kal
Kparouy-
k BS vod
suvécoauey Tac
o , rg
amekoivato
, , ‘
° avpaders ° Ext
0 Oed¢ “ABoadu
1 Cor. x-J1. 1 Pet.
k = Mark vi.
I Joho v. 2. x. 23 ch.v.l2only. Ezek.
Luke xxiv. 14. ch. xx. 19. xxi. 35.
p w. dat., Luke iv. 20. xxii. 66. ch. x. 4.
q bere only, exc. past. enp.
t= Mark i. 17. vii. 47 al s constr.,
Winer, edn. 6, § 44. 4.
9. rec avrov bef was o A., with E rel Chr Lucif: txt ABCD p sigs (sah).
for Oeov, kupiov C,
10. rec (for Se) re, with D E-gr rel syrr eth Thl Lucif: txt ABCR p vulg E-lat copt
Bas-sel. om avtov &!:
written above the line by X-corr!.
for ovtos, avTos
(corrn as more usual) ACN g p 36 vulg eth Bas-sel Lucif: txt BDE rel Chr Thl.
KabeCouevos D.
for ouuB., yeyernuevw D.
THV wpaiav muAnv NX! (NX? correcting ty wpaa but not wvAny).
11. for ver, exmopevouevov Se Tov metpov Kat twavou ouveteTopeveTo KpaTwy avTous* OL
de Pau Bnbevres eatnoav ev Ty oF. n (TH D') kk. co. €xO. VD.
for Se, re A Syr.
rec for avtov, Tov tabevtos xwAou (beginning of an ecclesiastical lection), with rel Thl:
txt ABCDEX e
ABN m p Chr.
p vulg Syr sah eth arm.
c p 36 syrr copt «th arm.
12. aroxpifeis de o werp. exmev mp. avtous TD).
for lst #, et (itacism) &.
€vgd. TovTO TeToInKoTwY TouTO (Tov D-corr) mepim. avt. D.
ABCDR k o p 18 Chr.
Cass.
force, alleging the cause of the walking
and leaping: and would best be rendered
in English, in his praising of God.
11—26.| Tue piscouRsE OF PETER
THEREUPON. 11. kparotyros | holding,
physically : not spoken of mental adhesion,
but of actual holding by the hand or arm,
that he might not be separated from them
inthecrowd, but might testify to all, who his
benefactors were. oT0G TH K. Lodon. |
See John x. 23, note. 12. arexpi-
varo, viz. to their expressions of astonish-
ment implied in &&@auBor. See Matt. xi.
25. dmexplvaro never signifies ‘made an
address,’ as Bloomf.; but always ‘an-
swered ? cf. ch. v. 8, note. This second
discourse of Peter may be thus divided :
This is no work of ours, but of God, for
the glorifying of Jesus, vv. 12, 13:—whom
ye denied and killed, but God hath raised
up, vv. 13—15 :—through whose name this
man is made whole, ver. 16:—ye did it in
ignorance, but God thereby fulfilled His
counsel, vv. 17, 18. Zxvhortation to re-
om tov bef mwerp. c.—ins Tov bef twav.
rec mpos avtous bef was o Aaos, with E rel Syr copt: txt ABCN
rec om o, with E rel Thi: ins
ws nuwy Ty ia Suv. n
touvtoy E vulg Iren-int
pent, that ye may be forgiven, and saved
by this Jesus Christ at His coming, vv.
19—21: whose times have been the subject
of prophecy from the first, ver. 21. Cita-
tions to prove this, vv. 22—24: its imme-
diate application to the hearers, as Jews,
vv. 25, 26. There the discourse seems to
be broken off, as ch. iv. 1 relates.
él tovTw} not, at this (event): but at
this man, compare avrdy below, which
would not be used at the first mention of
one then present. Their error was not
the wonder itself, —though even that would
shew ignorance and weakness of faith, for
it was truly no wonderful thing that had
happened, viewed by a believer in Jesus,—
but their wondering at the Apostles, as if
they had done it by their own power.
‘Ergo,’ says Calvin, ‘hoc est perperam
obstupescere, quum in hominibus mentes
nostre subsistunt.’ Suvdper, power,
—such as magical craft, or any other
supposed means of working miracles: ev-
oeBelq, meritorious 7 with God, so
ABCDE
Rabed
fghkl
mopl3s
9—16.
kat ‘Ioaak Kat Taxo3, 0 Ode
’ 3 ‘ u ~~ > - , -~ “a € =
Edogacev rov “qatioa avrov Inoovyv, ov UMELC
IIPAZEIS AIOSTOAQN.
35
t ch. v. SO reff.
u = ver, 26
reff.
V 4éy solita-
rinm. Rom.
~ t , to
TWwWY TATEPWY NUWYV,
v \
fev
w cOWK NR URE ae A if] Pepe! 2 7 vii. 12 reff.
Tape WKAaATE, Kal novycao € avuTor Kata TPOCWTOV Be fis
, z , > , a? 7 ¢ = \ ii. 18
TliAarov, *Kowavrog éxkeivou * aroX\vev. 14 Susie 88 . Vk ter.
uo 7 Us eins x? , aus 2 xXKi1,
TOV aylov Kal SiKkatov novnoasbe, Kal nrncacb: eg:
e» f , web Rees . y In? \ Po) eee
aveoa govea * xaorafnvat UILLY, 15 roy Oe aoxnyov y = 2 Cor. x,
as ~ > - » A c ‘ i om i ~ 7 z eG 1
tne Cwne amexreware’ ov o Oede NYELOEV EK VEKOWY, OV 2 comtt., ch.
ra ~ j , , , 16 \ | Le | 54 ’ @ ach. xxvi.
NMELC MAOTUOEC EOMEV. Kal eT Ll ™ TWlOTEL TOV Z2 reff.
b = John vi. 69.
1 Jobn ii. 20. c abs., ch. vii. 52 reff. dconstr., Luke xxiii. 23. ch. xiii. 28. 3 Kings Six. 4.
e Luke xxiv. 19. Judg. vi. 8.
Heb. ii. 10. xii. 2 only. 1 Macc. ix. 61. x. 47.
k = Luke v.65. Phil. iii.¥al. Job xxix. 22.
13. ins @eos bef iraak and bef sax. AD
Chr Thl-fin (corrn to suit rxx Exod iii.
sah Thdot-ancyr Thl-sif.
by &° [12th cent ]).
Thl Iren-int Jer.
amnpyvnoacba D.
Iren-int Jer: ins DE rel syr sah Chr.
f ch. vii. 52 reff.
for Twy, Tw &.
aft ino. ins xp. D wth-pl.
(erased because no correspondg 5« follows),
g =1 Cor. ii. 12 reth.
11 Cor. xv. 12 reff.
lconstr., Rom. iii. 22 reff.
beh. v. 31.
jch. i. 8 reff.
vulg copt «th Iren-int, ins o @eos CR
6, and Matt xxii. 32): om BE rel syrr
for mada, maTepa &} (corrected
ques D. rec om pev
with D m: ins ABCERX rel 36 vulg Chr
aft waped. add es kpiow D syr-marg Iren-int ; es kpirnpiov E.
om autor (as needless) ABCX p 36 vulg copt arm Did
TEtMATOV TOU KPELVaYTOS EkKELVOU aTrOAVELVY
avtoy 6edovtos D; cum judicasset ille dismittere eum voluit D-lat (a eurious instance
of combination of readings) ; Tov, OeAovTos, and voluit are marked for erasure.
kpivovtos C 13. amoANvery &.
14. Sixatov eBapuvate kat nrnoate D: so for npyno., aggravastis Iren-int.
ins (yy cat bef xapio@nva vu. E Aug.
padAoy bef nrnoacbe E.
15. vuers D': txt Dt.
as to have obtained this from Him oz
our own account. The distinction is im-
portant :—‘ holiness,’ of the E. V., is not
expressive of edoe8., which bears in it the
idea of operative, cultive piety, rather than
of inherent character. 13. 6 6.’ABp.
k.7.A.| *‘Appellatio frequens in Actis, pre
ceteris libris N. T., et illi periodo tempo-
rum conveniens.’ Bengel. 6pa m@s abtdy
(roy @edv) cisw0e? cuvex@s eis Tos mpo-
yovous' twa wh 36k Kady te eisdyev
ddyua: Kal exe? (ch. ii.) Tod matpidpxou
AaBld euvnudvevoc, kal éevtav0a tay ep)
Tov “ABpadu ... (Chrys.). eSotacey |
not, as E. V., ‘hath glorified,’ implying, by
thus honouring His Name : it is the his-
toric aor., glorified, viz. by His exaltation
through death —see John xii. 23; xvii. 10.
maida] not ‘Son,’ but Servant:
servant, however, in that distinct and
Messianic sense which the same expression
bears in Isa. xl.—)xvi. in the LXX. vids
is the word always used to designate Jesus
as the Son of God. The above meaning
is adopted by all the best modern Com-
mentators, Pisc., Bengel, Olsh., Meyer,
De W., Stier, some of whom refer to a
paper of Nitzsch’s in the Stud. u. Krit.
for 1828, Heft 2, p. 331 ff. Olsh. says,
‘ After N.’s remarks on the subject, no.one
hereafter can suppose this expression equi-
valent to vids r. 0.’ “In the next age,”
says Dr. Wordsw., “the term tats @eov
ins
was applied to Christ as a Son. See Poly-
carp, Mart. § 14, p. 1040 (Migne) ; and 8.
Hippolyt. Philosoph. x. 33 (in Migne’s
Origen, tom. vi. p. 540), and contra
Noétum, § 5, 7, 11, pp. 809 ff. (Migne),
and the note of Fabricius, ii. p. 10.”
kara wpdswtrov I.as E.V., ‘in the presence
of P.,’ or better perhaps, to the face of
Pilate. The expression is no Hebraism.
Polybius often uses it. Kara mpdéswmoy
Aeyoudvwy Tay Adywr, xxv. 5. 2: kK. Tp.
anayvtTayv Tots moAeulois, xvii. 3. 3, Ke. See
Schweigh., Lexicon Polybianum.
Kpivavros éx. amok. see Luke xxiii. 20;
John xix. 4, 12. 14. Gy.ov x. Sixatoy |*
not only in the higher and divine sense
present to Peter’s mind, but also by Pilate’s
own verdict, and the testimony of the Jews’
consciences. ‘The sentence is full of anti-
theses: dyiov «. Six. contrasts with the
moral impurity of &vdpa povéa,—apxny.
7. (wis, with the destruction of life im-
plied in govéa,—while amextelvare again
stands in remarkable opposition to apx. 7.
( This last title given to our Lord
implies (as Vulg.) ‘Auctorem vite :’ see
reff.; so apxnydv x. Kabnyeudva tis bAns
émiBoAjs “Apator, Polyb. ii. 40. 2: dep
(scil. want of occupation in mercenary
soldiers) oxeddv, ws eimeiv, apxnydy kK.
povov atriov ylveta ordoews, i. 66. 10 al.
It is possible, that the words apx. T. G
may contain an allusion to the great miracle
D2
36
m ver. 7 reff.
<1 lie Ae bd ced = a 0) - \ v5
n 1 Pet. i. 21. ovopeaTtoc auTOv TOUTOV OV EWOELTE Kal OlOaTE
o = here only.
Xpovos
padnow
didwar,
mT ti Suppl.
IIPAZEIS AIOZTOAQN.
, om” bd Laken ye / € "8, ? -
WoEtV TO OVOLA auTou Kal H 7WloTi¢C t auTou
¢ Neer oh ede
exoakare, WCTEO Kat Ol aOYOvTEee UMWV
III.
‘ -~ > U 7 e ‘ ”
T kat vuv, adeApol, vida Ort ‘Kata * ayvotay
18 6 82 Oeoe a
Tt ess.v-23. a OOKAaTN YYElLAEV da " sroparoc TaYTWY TwY Toopntwy
€ ~
p here only. UMW.
Isa. i. 6G vat.» ,
F (not A)
only (-pos,
James i. 4).
y = Matt.
xxvii. 24, Rom. iii. 18 (reff.).
t ch. vii. 52 only t. uch. 1. 16 reff.
16. om em: BN! p: ev 119 vulg D-lat E-lat coptt «eth Iren-int.
ins D5, aft oidare ins ot: D'-gr.
17. ins avdpes bef adeApor DE.
r= Matt. xix.3. Rom.x.2. Phil. ii. 3. iv. 11.
emioTaueba oTt vmers ev D.
s ch. xvii. 80 reff.
om ov D!-gr:
aft empat.
add movnpoy D!, ro movnpov D’ 34 syr-marg Iren-int Ambrst.
which was the immediate cause of the en-
mity of their rulers to Jesus. But of course
Peter had a higher view in the title than
merely this. 16.] éwi tr. wlorer . . .—
The E. V. is right; through, or better,
on account of faith in His name. The
meaning, for the sake of (i.e. of awakening,
in you, and in the lame man himself) faith
in his name (Rosenm., Heinrichs, Olsh.,
Stier), though grammatically justified,
seems against the connexion with the udp-
Tupés éouev just before. It is evident to
my mind that the riotis ted dv. abr. is the
faith of these udprupes. His name (the
efficient cause), by means of, or on account
of (our) faith in His Name (the medium
operandi), &e. éotep. and €3ok.
again are historic aorists,—confirmed and
gave; better than ‘hath confirmed’ and
‘hath given, Kk. wlotis 7 BU adrod
—and that faith which is wrought by
Him—not ‘faith iz Him;’ which is an
inadmissible rendering. Peter’s own words
(ref. 1 Pet.) are remarkably parallel with,
and the best interpreters of, this expres-
sion: buds Tovs 8V avTov miaToOds cis Beov,
Tov éyelpavta aitoy ex vexp@v Kal ddtav
aiT@ Sdvta, dste Thy miotw bSudy Kal eA-
midaelvareis Oedy. Someof theCommen-
tators are anxious to bring in the faith of
the lame man himself in this yerse. Cer-
tainly it is according to analogy to sup-
pose that he had such faith, from and after
the words of Peter :—but, as certainly,
there is no allusion to it in this verse, and
the thread of Peter’s discourse would be
broken by any such. It is the firm belief
in His name on the part of us His wit-
nesses, of which he is here speaking, as the
medium whereby His name (= the Power
of the great dignity to which He has been
exalted, the épxnyla rijs Cw7s) had in-this
ease worked. 17.| vov, introducing a
new consideration : see 2 Thess. ii. 6. Here
it softens the severer charge of ver. 14:
sometimes it intensifies, as ch. xxii. 16;
1 John ii. 28: especially with i8ov¥, ch.
xiii. 11; xx. 22. No meaning such as
‘now that the real Messiahship of Him
whom ye have slain is come to light’
(Meyer) is admissible. adeddof, still
softening his tone, and reminding them of
their oneness of blood and covenant with
the speaker. kata ayvotay| There
need be no difficulty in the application of
the &yvoia to even the rulers of the Jews.
It admits of all degrees—from the un-
learned, who were implicitly led by others,
and hated Him because others did,—up to
the most learned of the seribes, who knew
and rightly interpreted the Messianic pro-
phecies, but from moral blindness, or per-
verted expectations, did not recognize
them in our Lord. Even Caiaphas himn-
self, of whom apparently this could least
be said, may be brought under it in some
measure: even he could hardly have de-
livered over Jesus to Pilate with the fudl
consciousness that He was the Messiah, and
that he himself was accomplishing pro-
phecy by so doing. Some degree of tyvoue
there must have been in them all.
The interpretation (Wolf) ‘ ye did, as your
rulers (did), is of course inadmissible,
being contrary to the usage of the words:
mpdosew &Ssmep cal can never mean to
imitate, but éxpdtare must refer to a defi-
nite act (understood), and &s7ep cal must
take up another subject of émpdéare.
18.] mwavtwv, see Luke xxiv. 27 and note.
There is no hyperbole (Kuinoel) nor
adaptation (Meyer) to Jewish exegetical
views. ‘Omnes prophet in universum
non prophetarunt nisi de diebus Messize ’
(Sanhedr. 99. 1), was not merely a Jewish
view, but the real truth. The prophets
are here regarded as one body, actuated
by one Spirit ; and the sum of God’s pur-
pose, shewn by their testimony, is, that
His Curist should suffer. Notice
" egtepé- ABCDE
© 28w- fghkl
’ = ‘ P e , , q > / ,
KEV auTW TyvV o\oKAnptay TAUTHV aTévavTtl TAVTWY
17. —20.
Vv a ‘ A ? ~ we? , 7]
mabey Tov yotoroy auToU etANOwaev OUTWE.
* sie 70 * eCarapOnvat
, A \ y ,
vornoare ouv Kal » emorpspare
(eae \ € , Wd n 4 b Xv "eS
UULwWY Tac apiaoTiac, OT WC av eAQworv Kalpol ava-
Wutewe
27 (from Isa. vi. 10). Mark iv.12. Luke xxii. 32.
Ps. 1. 9.
ii. 14. Rev. iii. 7. vii. 17. xxi. 4 only.
Luke xix. 44, Heb. ix.10,. Ps. xviii. 13.
i. 16).
18. for a, o D-gr: qui bodl demid hal Vig.
with rel: txt BCDEN p vulg syrr arm Chr Iren-int.—aft
suit avtov mpod. ver 21),
TIPAZEIS AIOZTOAQN.
d ? ‘ 7 oe /
avo TpPOCwWTOV TOU KUPLOU,
37
x v abs., ch. i. 3
MéeTa- refi.
w ch, i. 16.
xiii. 27.
Matt. i. 22
al. fr.
2 Chron.
eat ry — ae: <
x ch. ii. 38 reff.
Kal ATOOTEAY y Matt. xiii. 15
& ch. xxviii.
a Col.
19
20
zch. vii.19. Rom.i. 11, 20al.
Isa, xiii. 25. 2 Macc. xii. 42. b and constr.,
chere only. Exod. viii. 15 only (-Wuxetv, 2 Tim.
d= here only. see2 Thess. i. 9. Rev. xx. 11. Ps. xcvi. 5.
rec autov bef wadew (alteration to
mpop. ins avrou, retaining avrov of txt, A(prob) ¢ 66? zth-pl Vig——om mal. T. Xp.
(homeotel avtov to avtov?) A.
19. for ets, mpos BN.
aft avayvé. add vuw E tol lat-mss-in-Bede,
om tov Ek m 36.
Chr-comm Iren-int Tert.
the inf. aor. wa@eiv, as in ch. i. 3, of a
definite single act. 19.] ovv, que
cum ita sint. eis 70 éfaX.] The faith
implied in émorpé~are has for its aim, is
necessarily (by God’s covenant, see John
iii. 15, 18) accompanied by, the wiping out
of sin. Omws Gv €A0. «.7.A.| This
passage has been variously rendered and
explained. To deal first with the render-
ing :—8mws av cannot mean ‘when, as in
KE. V.—érws never occurs in that sense in
the N. T., nor indeed with an indie. at all;
—and if it did, the addition of &y, and the
use of a subjunctive, would preclude it here.
It can have but one sense,—in order that.
This being so, what are katpol avarpigews ?
From the omission of the article, some have
insisted (e. g. Stier, R. d. Apost. i. 89) on
rendering it ‘ times, seasons, of avap.’ But
this cannot be maintained. «aipéds and
kaipot are occasionally anarthrous when
they manifestly must have the article in
English. Cf. especially Luke xxi. 24, kaspol
é6vav, where none would think of render-
ing, ‘seasons of (the) Gentiles.’ See for
kaipds Matt. viii. 29; Mark xi. 13; 1 Pet.
i. 5. And, since philologically we have to
choose between ‘seasons’ and ‘ the seasons,’
Z\@wow must I think determine in favour
of the latter. For by that word we must
understand a definite av7vival, one and the
same for all, not a mere ocewrrence, as the
other sense of kaipof would render neces-
sary. This is also implied by the aorist,
used, in a conditional sentence, of a single
fact, whereas a recurrence or enduring of a
stateisexpressed bythe present. Inorder
that the times of avaputis may come.
What is avay.? Clearly, from the above
rendering, some refreshment, future, and
which their conversion was to bring about.
But hardly, from what has been said, re-
freshment in their own hearts, arising
from their conversion: besides the above
objections, the following words, ard mpos-
ras au. bef yuwy D.
ercAOwow D-gr Tert.
and aft «A@. Bede-gr Syr syr-w-ast copt
émov tod Kupiov, are not likely to have
been used in that case. No other meaning,
it seems to me, will suit the words, but
that of the times of refreshment, the great
season of joy and rest, which it was under-
stood the coming of the Messiah in His
glory was to bring with it. That this
should be connected by the Apostle with
the conversion of the Jewish people, was
not only according to the plain inference
from prophecy, but doubtless was one of
those things concerning the kingdom of
God which he had been taught by his risen
Master. The same connexion holds even
now. If it be objected to this, that thus we
have the conversion of the Jews regarded as
bringing about the great times of refresh-
ment, and those times consequently as de-
layed by their non-conversion (‘neque enim
est Mutate vos in melius, ut Deus mittat
Christum : non esse potest : hoe non pen-
det a nostra petavolg.’? Morus in Stier
R. A. i. 91), I answer, that, however true
this may be in fact, the other is fully borne
out by the manner of speaking in Scripture:
the same objection might lie against the
efficacy of prayer. See Gen. xix. 22;
xxxii. 26; Mark vi.5; 2 Thess. ii.3; 2 Pet.
iii. 12. ard mposoT. T. Kup.| From
the presence of God (the Father), who
has reserved these xa:pot in His own power,
When they arrive, it is by His decree,
which goes forth from His presence. Cf.
eeAdev Sdyua mapa Kaio. Avy., Luke
mee dle 20.] amootetAy (see above),
literajly,—not figuratively, by the Spirit:
—even if the word send be nowhere else
applied to the second coming of the Lord,
there is no reason why it should not be
here : the whole ground and standing-point
of these two orations of Peter are peculiar,
and the very mention of the ‘ times of re-
freshment’ proceeding forth from the pre-
sence of the Father would naturally lead
to the position here assigned to the Son, as
38
ech. xxii. 14.
TIPAZEIS AIOSTOAQN. Lil.
‘ e y ec 4 | ~ 91 a“ f 5 ~
xxvii | TOV - TPOKEYELNLOMEVOY UuLY yoLoTOV InoouY, ov EL
only. Exod. , ‘ \ go ” li , ee ,
i 8. Josh. € OfW
iv. 13, tsb. OupGVOV MEV dcEacbat ayot Ypovwy — aToKaTaoTacEwce
Mace. iii. 7.
viii, ¥ only.
i Fe , G ‘ ‘ , - Tet ’
mavrwy, “wy | éadnosv 0 Ocdc ™ bra OTOMATOS THY " aylwy
f= ch. iv. 12
reff. g = Luke ix 53. xvi. 4, 9. h and constr., ch. xvii. 30. Matt.ii.7. Enkei. 57.
i here only t. see note. k attr., ch. i. 1 reff 1 = Luke xxiv. 25. ch. xxviii 25. 2 Pet. i. 21.
Ps. lai. 11. wm ch. i. 16 reff. n Lukei.70. 2 Pet. iii. 3.
20. rec mpoxernpvymevoy (either a mistake, or a gloss agreeable to the sense of vv. 18,
21), with (none of our mss) Orig, gui predicatus est vulg, prius annunciatum copt-wilk :
txt ABCDER® rel 36 vss Chr Euthal Chron: preparatum Iren-int: destinatum and
predesignatum Vert: predestinatum D-lat E-lat syrr sah: mporexpiomevoy eth. ;
rec ina. bef xp. (corrn to more usual appelln, the connexion of xp. not being perceived,
see note), with AC mm p rel vss Chr Chron Cosm Iren-int: txt BD-gr EX ae g hl syr
sah Thl.
21. xporov D!; txt D-corr!. rec for Twy ay., Tavtwy ay., With (none of
our mss) Cosm: mavtwy twy ay. E13 rel Chr, Chron Thl (corrn to suit ver 24,
and twv omd in rec by mistake, owing to -twv preceding) : txt ABCDN (c?) 0 p Ht Orig
one sent by the Father. See below, on ver.
26. Besides which, the aor. will not allow of
the figurative interpretation, confining, as
it does, the ‘ sending’ to one definite event.
mpokexetpiopevov | before appointed,
as apparently in the first ref.: or perhaps
mpo- merely gives the idea of forth, before
the rest, as in the two others, and perhaps
even in the first also. duty, to you,—as
your Messiah. According to the right read-
ing, xptot. “Invotv, xpicTdy may be con-
nected with tov mpoxex. iu., Him who
was predestined your Messiah, namely,
Jesus. 21. dv Set odp. p. SéEacGar |
These words admit of a double rendering :
(1) ‘ Whom the heaven must receive.’ (2)
‘ Who must possess (capessere) the heaven?
Of these the former is in my view decidedly
preferable, both as best suiting the sense,
and as being the natural rendering, whereas
the other is forced. Only two or three in-
stances of 5éxouat used in this sense are
produced, and in these it gets the meaning
by signifying ‘ to take to one’s self,’ as pro-
perty or inheritance : which would surely
never be said of odpaydy, thus barely ex-
pressed. Besides, the emphatic position
of ovpavev, with pév attached to it, is
almost decisive against this rendering. I
apprehend that this particle in a sentence of
the present form is always found appended
to the subject, never to the object ; and
that, if ofp. had been the object, the form
of the sentence would necessarily have been
dy mev Sef K.7.A. The reason given by
Bengel for rejecting the right rendering,
‘ Calo capi, i. e. cohiberi, concludi, vio-
lenta est interpretatio, quasi celum Christo
majus sit; et inimica celsitudini Christi
super omnes ccelos,’ is best answered by
himself, ‘Non tamen nullo sensu dici po-
tuit, calum suscipit Christum: admitlit
scil. ut thronus Regem legitimum ;’ only I
would rather understand it locally, and re-
cognize a parallel expression with that in
ch. i., also local, vepéAn iméAaBey aitév.
And so far from seeing init any derogation
from the Majesty of Christ, it seems tome
admirably to set it forth: it behoves the
heaven (which is. his, obeying his will) to
receive Him till the time appointed. The
omission of the article cannot be adduced
either way here: for odpavds ‘ the heaven,’
is frequently anarthrous, as #Avos and other
similar nouns : see (besides very numerous
instances of obp. after a preposition, which
are hardly to the point) 2 Pet. iii. 12, and
Tav mpos Eatepoy KéAcvOoyv ovpavod, Hur.
Orest. 1003. Zevs éeorw aidhp, Zebs d€
yin, Zebs & ovpavds, Asch. Frag. i. 96.
The tragedians never prefix the article to
ovpavés, y7j (meaning ‘ the earth’), aidap,
or #Atos, except when qualified by an
adjective, as @ thy aimby ovdp. dippndatar,
Soph. Aj. 832, and even then very seldom.
Middleton has but very slightly noticed
this, ch. iii. 1, § 5, note. axet| Not
during, as the advocates of the present
spiritual sense of the passage wish to
render it, but until; see below.
Xpovev arokatact. mdvtwv K«.7.A.] The
key both to the construction and mean-
ing here, is our Lord’s saying, Matt.
xvii. 11, “HAlas wey &pxerat kal dto-
Kataotyce. mavta. From this we see
that amoxat. mavtwy stands alone, as the
amoxar. of all things: and that dv does
not belong to mavtwy. Next, what is aaro-
katdotacis? We must be guided by the
usage of the kindred verb daoxablornut
(or -dvw). Certainly, to restore is its usual
import,and most strikingly so,accompanied
however with the notion of a glorious and
complete restoration, in ch.i.6. To render
our word fulfilment, and apply it to tava
ay eAdA. «.7.A., is against all precedent.
And, in the sense of resteration, I cannot
see how it can be applied to the work of
the Spirit, as proceeding, during this the
interim-state, in the hearts of men. This
ABCDE
Rabed
fghkl
mopl3
21—24.
re eet mf) OPEC ri ~
aw aiwwvoc avTov) Tpopytwr.
TIPAZEIS AMOSTOAQN.
a) = \ 3 ca
22 Mwvong pev elev ort
39
o = Lukei. 70
ch. xv. 18.
Ps. xviii. 52.
Toogntny Up P avaornaet KUOLOC 0 Qedc VL éK TwY p = Matt. xxii.
PR % re é ne ‘ ht. : 5 2 ; ned se vii.
adeA pov UELwy Iwe Eué’ auTov akovocole "Kata TavTa Deve. xviil.
dca av AaAnoy ToC vac 238 %ora. dé, ‘waca “yu qetaeieaehe
t ; 3 ‘ U 29 al.
tc 78 NveE , ~ , > 7 v°¢ ,
TLC EaV MN AKOVO.) TOU Toopnrov EKELVOU eGoAcOpevOn- 22.
> ~ ~
cerat EK TOU Aaou.
‘ \ ~ ve 7] > , \
SapovndA Kat twv *cabetne door eXaAnoay Kal
iii. 17. a = ch. ii. 43 reff.
w Matt.x.18. John vi. 51. viil. 16, 17 al.
y ch. xiii. 5 reff.
Chr, Iren-int Tert.—aft wy. ins rw B?-marg(sic: see table) EN*ck 18
r= ch. xvii.
Col. iii.
\ , w ot € ~ wes 20), 22. Heb.
24 kat mavrec ” Of OF TOOPHTAaL aro | iv. 15.
y 2 eat
KAT Y™ t Matt. vii. 24.
x. 32. Col
vhere only. Deut. vii.10 al. Jos. Antt viii. 11.1.
x Luke i. 3. viii. 1. ch. xi. 4. xviii. 23 only t. L.
rec avTov
mpop. bef am aiwvos, with rel 86: om a7. awy. D 19 arm Cosm Iren-int Tert : 13 has it
thus, wy. avrov tev am at. mpod.: alii aliter (prob the expr was found difficult, as Mey
suggests, because strictly am’ aiwvos there
the marg and found its place variously
cation in the Acts) ABCEN (k) p Chron.
22. rec aft pev ins yap (to connect the prophecy of Moses,
were no prophets.
when reinserted) : txt (a very usual collo-
Hence it was ejected to
ins twv bef rpop. D!.—om avrov k.
as an example, with ver
21), with rel Syr Chr: om ABCDEN b! o p 36 vulg syr coptt eth Chr, Iren-int.
rec ins mpos Tovs matepas bef emer,
with rel Thl: aft e:mey DE sah eth arm Chr,
Tren-int : om ABC p vulg Syr copt.—(D def sah xth Iren-int add nuwy aft the
above insn; E 24. 43 add vuwr.)
sah eth Justin Thl: om B 60 Syr copt Chr,: txt ADN® p rel vulg Chr, Iren.
2nd veer, nuov D-gr a 5. 14. 57. 95 lect-12 Thl-sif.
23. rec avy, with BDE rel: txt ACN bedefg lm op Thl.
ABCD. ]
24. om de D.
D-lat Iven-int Chr Chron.
for 1st vuwy, nuwy CEN' at bcefh lo 138 syr
for
txt D?.
[efoA€8p., SO
euou Di-gr:
for ocot, 0: C2D2X vulg coptt: o D!: txt AB C\(appy) C°E rel
edadnoey D!: expopntevoay C® wth arm.
rec
mpoxatnyyedav (gloss), with C? rel Cosm: txt AB Cl(appy) DEN cde fg k1m p 36
vulg syrr coptt eth arm Chr Thl Iren-int.
would be contrary to all Scripture analogy.
I understand it then of the glorious restora-
tion of all things, the madvyyevecta, which
as Peter here says, is the theme of all the
prophets from the beginning. No objec-
tion can be raised to this from the meaning
of xpévor: see ch. vii. 17, and Peter’s own
language, 1 Pet. i. 20, éw éoxdrov Tay
xpévev. Ifthe distinction be true between
xpdvor and xoupol, as denoting a longer
and a shorter period respectively, which I
much doubt,—it does not affect this pas-
sage: for, either way, the xpévor amoxar.
will imply the time or period of the amo-
kat., not the moment only when it begins
or is completed, as kaipds (not kaspol) amo-
kat. might. De Wette is hardly right
in saying that the unexpressed de to an-
swer to uéy is contained in the sense of
amoxatdoracis: it is rather contained in
the previous clause, cal dmoorteiAn, K.T-A.
In order to fill up the ellipsis, this clause
would have to be repeated after apooy-
tav—Tére St avtdy amooTeAct. Ov,
i.e. os, agreeing with xpédvous, or perhaps
mept Gv, i.e. xpdvev. It does not refer to
TavTwv,—see above. On the testimony
of the prophets, see ver. 18, note.
22.| This citation is a free but faithful
paraphrase of the text in Deut. See LXX.
That the words, as spoken by Moses,
seem to point to the whole line of pre-
phets sent by God, is not any objection
to their being applied to Christ, but rather
necessitates, and entirely harmonizes with,
that application. See the parable Matt.
xxi. 33—41. And none of the whole pro-
phetic body entirely answered to the as
eué, but Christ. The Jews therefore rightly
understood it (though not always consistent
in this, compare John i. 21 with vi. 14)
of the Messiah. 23. éEodeOp.] LXX
ey exdicnow e& avTod. This word, only
known to later Greek, is often found in
the LXX. See besides reff., Gen. xvii. 14;
Deut. ix. 3; Ps. xvii. 40; Ixxii. 27. In
most places where it occurs, the readings
vary between -oAo@p- and -oA€Op- 5 see var.
readd. 24.| See ver. 18, note.
The construction of the Vulg., defended by
Casaubon and adopted by Valcknaer and
Kuinoel, trav cabetis door €AGA., ‘et omnes
prophet a Samuel, et deinceps qui locuti
sunt,’ is not so good as the ordinary one in
E.V. Cf. dpiduevos ard Mavoews kal ard
ardvtev Tav mpop., Luke xxiv. 27. Still
less admissible is the rendering given in
Dr. Burton’s note, asperhaps the literal one,
40
Z = Matt. vili.
12. Lake
xx, 34, 36.
2 Thess. ii. 3. moognt ov Kal Te
Ezek. xxx.6. f
Ts'o Kings ToUC martpac
a= eat 72. g
Rom. xi. 27.
Ps. xxiv. 14.
b Heb. viii. 18
& x. 16, from
Jer. xxxviii.
(xxxi.) 33.
Gen, xv. 18.
eattr., ch. i, 1 reff.
Exod. xxiv. 8, Jer. xi. 10.
(from Ps. xciv. 9) only.
only, from Gen, xii.
1 = ver. 13. ch. iv. 27, 30.
n — ch. iv. 80 reff.
ynce. 7 dat
> /
améoretAcyv avuTov
d as above (b).
Nom. xxxii. 8, 14.
(vat. NF
Matt. xii. 18 only. Isa. xlix.
TIPAZEIZ ANOSTOAQN.
yeilay rac muepac ravrac.
* Sadhcne © ,
oy mpwroy avaotnoac 0
IIT. 25, 26.
25 <a EOTE Ol
*4 SiZ0ero 0 Oeoc
ge ves ~
VLOL TWwY
p06
"vuwv, Aeywv any ABpady Kai ev TW
oméouart oou " evevoynOisovrat macat al Tarpral THC
Gee Tov | ratoa avutou
" euAoyourta U vac "ey TW ° amroor pepe
Luke xxii. 29 bis.
tch. vii. 51, 52. xxviii. 25.
Heb. ix. 16, 17 only. e = Heb. x. 16.
Matt. xxiii. 2. Jobn vi. 49, 58. Heb. iii. 9
g Rom. ix, 7 reff. Cen. xxii. 18. h Gal. iii. 8
i Luke ii. 4. (Eph. iii. 15 only. Num. i. 18, k = ver, 22 reff.
m = Gal. iii. 9. Eph. i.3 al. Gen. xii. 3 F.
o = Luke xxiii. 14. atin. iv.4. Job xxxiii. 17.
25. rec om a: (as unnecessary, or perhaps in the way, as according to the common
notion an art with the predicate distributes it), with D rel Chrog Chron:
for ns, nv D' copt: txt D?.
rec nuwy (corrn, as o: wat. nuwy is the more usual ; see ver 13, ch vii.
ABCERN b? ce k p.
Iren-int.
ins
o @. bef 5:e6. BD coptt
12, 15), with CDN! rel vulg syrr copt sah-ms eth Iren-int: txt ABEX* k m! p sah-
woide arm Chrajiqg Chron Thl Iren-int-ms.
E-lat: ins ABCDENX rel.
163 Chr Thl, Ce.
rec om ev, with (none of our mss)
emevaoynd. C: evdoyné. A'(appy) e 3. 15. 27. 100. 127.
26. rec 0 bcos bef avacr. (rearrangement for perspicuity), with ADE rel vulg syr
coptt Chr Iren-int: txt BCX Syr eth.
gloss.
rel Cosm:
efaneote:Aey D Chron.
«And (to the same effect spoke) all the pro-
phets from S. downwards, as many as spoke
and predicted these days.’ To what effect ?
And would not the sentence thus amount
to little more than saying, ‘As many pro-
phets as predicted these days, predicted
these days?’ Peter’s aim is to shew the
unanimity of all the prophets in speaking
of these times. Samuel is named,
more as being the first great prophet
after Moses, than as bearing any part in
this testimony. The prophetic period of
which David was the chief prophet, began
in Samuel (Stier). TaS Hp. Tavr. |
These days now present, not the times
of restoration, as De Wette and others
understand : which would require éekelvas.
* These days’ are, in fact, connected with
the times of restoration, as belonging to the
same dispensation and leading on to them ;
and thus the Apostle identifies the then time
with this preparation for (émws by 2&8.)
and expectation of (&xp1) those glories:
but to make ras ju. radr. identical with
the katpol avay. and the xpdv. droxar., is
to make him contradict himself. 25. ]
He applies this to them, as being inheritors
of the promises. They were descendants,
according to the flesh,and fellow-partakers,
according to the spirit. For a full com-
ment on this promise made to Abraham, see
Gal. iii. 16. This is cited freely from
the LXX, which for of warpial has ra
Ov. 26.) mparov, first; implying
rec aft 7. maid. avr. ins inoouy (marginal
All such additions, if at all the subject of variations, are spurious), with A
om BCDER® p Syr coptt «th arm Chr Chron Thi,
om autov D Chr, Thi, Iven-int.
lren-int.
evAoyouvras D-gr
the offer to the Gentiles (but as yet, in
Peter’s mind, only by embracing Judaism)
afterwards : see ch. xill. 46; Rom. i. 16.
It is strange how Olshausen can suppose
that the Spiritin Peter overleapt the bounds
of his subsequent prejudice with regard to
the admission of the Gentiles :—he never
had any such prejudice, but only against
their admission uncircumcised, and as Gen-
tiles. It is still stranger how a scholar
like Dr. Burton can propose the ungramma-
tical and unmeaning rendering, “ mp@rov is
perhaps used with reference to Christ’s first
coming, as opposed to his second.” This
would require 7d mpérov,—and would cer-
tainly imply in the mind of the speaker an
absolute exclusion of all but Jews till the
second coming. avaotyoas, not ‘from
the dead :’ but as in ver. 22. qatda,
His Servant: see note, ver. 13.
anéoretdev, indefinite, of the sending in
the flesh; sent, not ‘hath sent ;’ it does
not apply to the present time, but to God’s
procedure in raising up His Servant Jesus,
and His mission and ministry: and is dis-
tinct from the &roorelAn of ver. 20. This
is also shewn by the pres. part. evAoyoidvra,
ingeniously, but not quite accurately ren-
dered in E. V. ‘to bless you. He came
blessing you (his coming was an act of
blessing —it consisted in the ebAoyeiy : an
anarthrous present participle in such a
connexion carries necessarily a slightly ra-
tiocinative sense), in (as the conditional
ABCDE
Rabed
fghkl
mopl3
oe ELS
anv C.
ABDER 7»,
abcdf uP
ghk
mop
IV. 1—4.
4 ay ~ - c -
ekaoTov amo Twy ° TOVHOLWY ULWYV,
> ~ ‘ ‘ s q ’ , , - eTre ~ y
aQUTWV Tpoc TOV Aaov ETEOTNOAY GAUTOLC OL LEPELC Kal
€
TIPASZ EIS AMOSTOAQN.
~ e ~ wWee'e ~ 9
on oTpatnyoc rou * lEN0U Kal Ot Laddovcata, 7 * scarovov-
41
, \ ss
TV. ! Aadotyrwy 82 ? Matt xxii,
22. Luke xi.
39. Rom. i.
29. 1 Cor. vy.
8. Eph. vi.
12 only.
Isa. i. 16.
‘
wevor Ota TO OtOaoKEW avTove TOV Aaoy Kal " KatayyéXXEwy q= take ii.9.
wv? ~? ~ ‘ w? , ‘
év Tw Inoov THY AVaoTaGLY THY
, » x > ~ ‘ x oS NE sh; A EZ z?
éBa Ov auTOoOtc Tac Xeloac Kal eNevro <tc THON €t¢
w?
Zz ” = A a: , no
avolov, YyV yao toTrEepa 107).
xx. 1, xxiv.
4. ch. vi. 12
al. Luke
only, exc.
1 pe v.32,
Vai ~ > 2 Tim. iv. 2,
4 rodAol O& TWY aKoU= 63, Wisd.
ch. v. 24.
w easy \x
EK VEKPWVY Kal t=
, ‘A 4 ’ / A ’ , ’ QA ~ r
cavtwy tov Aoyoy Eiorevoav, Kat EyevNOn apiOuog TeV "Lake xxii.
8 = as above (r), Luke xxii. 4. ch. v. 26 (xvi. 20, &c.) only t. L. (Neh. ii. 16.)
Eccl. x. 9. 2 Macc. ii. 28 vat. F (not A) only.
reff.
xiv.46. Isa. xix. 16. see ch. xxi. 27.
Thucyd_ vii. 86.
only. Gen.i. 5, &e.
exaoTos 1)! (txt D?), wnus quisque vulg D-lat Iren-int : om Syr.
for vuwv, avrwy C! 13. 61'. 66? vulg D-lat copt Iren-int : avrov 5. 27. 29.
ex D.
w Luke xx. 35. 1 Pet. i.3 only. without éx, 1 Cor. xv. 12 reff.
z Matt. vi. 34 only. Jos. iii. 5.
§2 only.
tch. xvi. 18 only.
v=] Cor. xv. 22
x constr., Mark
y = ch. v.18 (1 Cor. vii. 19) onlyt. L. P. 1 Mace. v.18.
a Luke xxiv. 29. ch. xxviii. 23
u = ch. xiii. 6 reff.
for azo,
69. 100. 104. 127. 163: om B Chr, Thl-ms (corrections and omission to suit exacrov
which did not seem to tally with vywy): txt ADEX rel syrr eth Cosm Chron al.
Cuap. 1V.1. aft Aaoy ins ta pynuata tavta DE c Syr syr-marg Thl-sif Lucif.
ot tep. bef avtots 13: om avr. D vulg Lucif.
word : ef Iu xx. 1) BC eth.
yeltAAew Tov inoouy ev TH avactace: D.
E-lat sah eth Chr Thl, Lucif.
3. eme:Badovtes D-gr: om rat bef efevto D-corr-gr.
complete sense) ACK k 36 vss Chr Thl-fin ; avrors m: om BDNX p rel Thl, Lucif.
ou apxtepers (alteration to more usual
om kK. 0 otp. T. tepov D: transp (Syr).
2. ins kat bef diam. C\(appy): katam. D7: kaar. D!: om diaz. eth.
avay-
for rnhv ex, Tov DacdfghIlmo? Hr
aft e@evto ins avtous (to
[The
page in C ends e@evto avrovs ets tv, either adding tnv bef typnow, or omg es
Tnpnory. | etravpiov D 40.
4. om Tov Aovyor.
element of the blessing) turning every
one from your iniquities: thus conferring
on you the best of blessings. evAoy., in
allusion to evevAoy., ver. 25. ev TO in
this sense, see Luke viii. 5. The applica-
tion to the present time is made by in-
ference :—‘ as that was His object then,
so now :—but (see below) the discourse is
unfinished. The intransitive sense of
amoatpéperv, —* which blessing is to be
gained by (in) every one of you turning
Srom your iniquities, —given in the Vulg.,
‘ut convertat se unusquisque,’ and main-
tained by Theophyl., (Ee., Beza, Kuinoel,
Meyer, &e., on the strength of ver. 19, is
inadmmissible,—as amootpépw is not found
thus used in the N. T., and we have the
precedent of ref. Luke and Rom. xi. 26 for
the transitive sense. The argument from
ver. 19 tells just as well for 7f: ‘ Repent
and be converted,..... for this was the
object of Jesus being raised up, to confer
on you this very blessing, the turning away
each of you from your iniquities.’ This
discourse does not come to a final conclusion
as in ch. ii. 36, because it was interrupted
by the apprehension of the Apostles.
Crarv. IV. 1—4.] APPREHENSION AND
kat apiOu. Te eyev. avdp. D.
rec ins o bef ap:Ouos
IMPRISONMENT OF THE TWO APOSTLES.
1.] éméor., see reff. oi lepeis,
the officiating priests, as soon as they were
released from their duties. The otpar-
nyos T. tepod was the captain of the Le-
vitical guard of the temple, mentioned by
Jos. B. J. vi. 5. 3, Spaudvtes 5€ of Tod icpow
pvaakes fyyeiAav TE otpatnyo. We
hear in Jos. Antt. xx. 6. 2, of 6 orpatnyds
“Avavos: and in B. J. ii. 12. 6, he is said
to be son of the high priest Ananias. In
2 Mace. iii. 4, we hear of the mpoorarns Tov
icepov, who appears to have been the same
officer. See Winer, RWB., art. Temple,
end. aSSoux.] See note on Matt. iii. 7.
Perhaps they on this occasion had moved
the guard and the priests to notice the
matter: for Staov. seems only to refer to
them. Cf. also ch. v.17. 2.| év tr. "Ino.,
—not, as E. V., ‘through Jesus,’ but in
the person (or example) of Jesus, alleging
Him as an example of that which the Sad-
ducees denied : preaching by implication,
inasmuch as one resurrection would imply
that of all, the resurrection of the dead.
The ev in reff. carries this somewhat fur-
ther, but the usage is philologically the
same. ‘The resurrection through Jesus’
42
b constr., ch.
ix. 8, $2, 37.
xiv. 1. xxi.
1,5. Matt.
xviii, 13.
Lake iii. 21.
vi 1,6, I2al.
ce =ch. iii. 1
reff.
d here only.
Esth. v. 8 F.
e Matt. xxii.
34. vv, 2K,
27, 31. ch.
MIPAZEIS AMOSTOAQN.
, ~ a 7 /
avopwv [ae] Xrad_ec WEVTE.
~ ~ A | ae \ a
* avpiov * ouvay Onvat auT@V TOUS | apXOVTAag Kal TOUE
\ - , e ,
mpeourépouc Kal TOV Yypapparetc Ev leoovoahnn,
¢ \ - \ ? , \
"Avvac 0 apy tepeve kat Katapac cat Iwaveng kat
, - g Wer * ee oy, i? =
AréEavdo0e * Kai Oaot joav Ek * yévoue * apytepariKon,
s 3 :
7 cat * ornoavrec avrove * év [rw | pion | eruvilavovro > Ev
TY
5
\
6 Kat
xi. 26 al. f E Wigs ee eer : r ce
Neh vi 2 ™ rola” Suvaper n° Ev TOL ° OVOMATL ETONGATE TOUTO UMELCS
ff. ,
g Col. ii. 1. Herod, i, 57. vii. 185. h = ch. vii. 13. xiii. 26. Rev. xxii. 16. Jer. xlviii. (xli.) 1. ihere
onlyt. Jos. Antt. xv. 3.1. k Matt. xviil. 2 | Mk. (Joho viii. 3.) _lconstr., ch. x. 29. xxiii. 14.
m = Loke vi. 32, 34. ch. xxiii. 84. Rom. iii. 27 al. 2 Kings xv. 2. n = ch, iii. 12 al. o = Luke
x. 17. ver. 10. ch. xvi. 18 al.
(from supposed necessity of art), with AE p rel 36 Chr: om BDN.
rec wset, with
E rel Chr: ws B(sic, see table) D: om AN p vulg copt eth Hil.
5. aft avpioy ins nuepay D!.
avvas &e D. ;
om avtwy D 3. 95' Syr copt «th.
(supposed unnecessary), with E rel: ins ABN bc o p.
cuvnxOnoav ot apx. Kk. ot mpecB. K. yp. and
rec om 2nd and 38rd Tous
rec (for ev) ets (corrn to
suit cvvaxOijva, cf Matt vi. 26, xiii. 30; and esp xxvi. 3), with N rel: txt ABDE bh
k o p 36 sah Chr,.—om ev cep. Syr.
6. rec avvav Toy apxicpea kK. Kaiaday kK. wwavryny Kk. adetavdpoy, with E rel 36: txt
AB D(see last verse) 8 p.—om o bef apx. B(sic; see table).—for swavyns, wwvabas D.
7. om tw DE rel Chr Thl: ins ABN p 36 Cc.
a prima manu from eoterte) X.
does not appear on the present occasion to
have formed part of their preaching.
3.] éomépa, perhaps, from their adjourn-
ing the case till the next day, the second
evening, beginning with the twelfth hour :
see Matt. xiv. 15, and note. 4.| éyev-
748y—This form is unknown in good
Greek : but common in Hellenistic,—see
Col. iv. 11; 1 Thess. ii. 14; Winer, § 15.
It appears to have been originally a Doric
form: and is commonly, though this can-
not always be pressed, used where a pas-
sive sense is admissible, and an agent under-
stood: cf. e. g. Matt. vi. 10; viii. 13;
xxi. 42 ;—1 Thess. i. 5,6; ii. 5, and notes
there. Here, as there, the agent would
be God: see ch. ii. 47. Tav avdpev |
It does not appear whether we are to
take this strictly as masculine, or more
loosely as if it were av@pdérwy: Meyer
thinks the former: Olshausen, that as yet
only men attached themselves to the church
(but see ch. i. 14): De Wette objects to
the stricter view, that Luke does not so
reckon, ch. ii. 41 (see however Luke ix. 14,
and cf. || Mt.): but leaves it undecided.
The laxer use of avdpév occurs Luke xi.
31, and James i. 20. In ch. v. 14, men
and women both are mentioned as being
added to the Lord. Dr. Wordsw. sees
in the 5000 &vdpes a fulfilment of the pro-
pheey contained in the miracle of feeding
the 5000. But how will the circumstances
tally, seeing that these were but new con-
verts, babes in grace, not yet fed to the
full as were those others? And again, it
is not quite certain whether this number
tovto bef eroinoare (so corrected
was that of new converts on this occasion,
or of the whole Church: but most pro-
bably the latter.
5—12.] Tr APOSTLES EXAMINED
BEFORE THE SANHEDRIM. PETER’S
SPEECH. 5.] attav, of the Jews ;
a construction frequently used where
there can be little chance of mistaking
to whom or what the pronoun refers,
see John viii. 44, note; Rom. ii. 26;
Winer, edn. 6, § 22. 3. 3 b. In this
place, however, it has been mistaken:
for Meyer refers adt@v to the believers
just mentioned, inasmuch as they were
Jews: absurdly enough. apx.-
k. mpeoB. x. yp.] The Sanhedrim: see
Matt. ii. 4; xxvi. 59; ch. v. 21.
év “lepovoadrp| Why is this specified ?
The difficulty of accounting for it has led
in some MSS. to ev being altered to eis,
so as to imply that certain of them who
dwelt out of town (Lightf., &e.) were sum-
moned fo Jerusalem. 1 believe it merely
implies that the meeting was not held in
the temple, but in the city. 6.] On
Annas and Caiaphas, both called high
priests, Luke iii. 2,—see note there. Of
John and Alexander nothing is known.
Lightfoot supposes John to be identical
with the Jochanan ben Zacchai of the Tal-
mud, who however (De W.) was not of the
high-priestly, but only of the priestly race :
—and Pearson, Wolf, Krebs, and Mangey
suppose Alexander to have been the brother
of Philo Judzeus, mentioned by Jos. Antt.
xviii. 8.1. But this is very improbable ;
for he was Alabarch of the Jews at Alexan-
4 * hae aG
> eyévero Oe °° emt TH
ABDER
abcdf
ghkl
mop 13
+P XOv-
Tes p.
ABDEX
abcedf
ghkl
mol3
5—18.
8
paid], ®
* avOowmou aabevove, *
Tw
ouros * wapéornkey ae
0 AiBoc 0
yEvouevoc cic ‘Kepadny
Out S ‘ > ‘ ‘ , > > 7
v7TO TOY ovoeavov TO Sedomévor Ev avOowmorc, *
TIPAZEIS AMOSTOAQN.
TOTE [lérpoe P rrAnabcic mvebparoc ayiou eimev mpoc
autouc ° 2 Apuspines Tou Aaov Kat ©
EL MEIC ohuspov rae ae
ev tive ovToc ¥ céoworat,
oroy Eorw Tacty vuly Kal TavTi tw Aaw ‘Topan\ ort
ovdpare “Tngou eee TOU Natwpaiov, | ov vyisic
sgnavpmoase, Ov Oo o Oeog ° mryerpev eK
EVWTLOV bao “oyu.
‘ Loubern fic bp vay TwY
ywviac.
adrhw ovesevt y! owrnpia’ * oure yap T
43
ee ii. 4
q See 5.
"les r = Matt. xxi.
23. tee vii.
Vv 3. F °
EvEeoyesia BE sAG?
10 z s here only.
— Xxiv.
mca [Sbrspou [rou *
eri
yvo-
t nae XXiii.
14. ch. xii.
19 al3, 1 Cor.
ii. 14, 15 (bis)
al7. only. L.P.
a ,
év
b GG :
vEKQwY, *éy rovrw 1 Kings xx
11 COEF 759 B= Rom. vi.
OUTOC EOTLY 2i reff.
eh? r on VN ne z 2
only. Ps.
OLKOOOMWwY, O isxvii. 1).
12 \ > o » weonstr., Rom.
KQ@t OUK rere EV iii. 22. ix
12 reff.
" ETEOO” pbc ia xi.14
<3 voce xiv. 9
ep w reff.
” I Sin!
Ovopa EoTLY
CS a rt a he ‘xiii, 38
Set Towlhnvar nuac. | Ocwoovvrec 88 tHv Tov Térpov ,: Biss
, b 1 Cor. xv. 12
reff. c ver. 26 (from Ps. ii. 3). Mark xiv. 47 al. 1 Kings xvi. 21, 22. d= ch. ii. 25
rett e Matt. xit. i3 wl. (chiefly John) in gospp. Tit ii. 8 only. Isa. *xxxviii. 21. f Rom.
xiv. 3 reff g here only. 4 Kings xxii... Herod. ii. 121. Xen. Symp. iv. 4. h constr.,
ch. v. 36 reff. Psa. cxvii. 22. i Matt. xxi, 42] & 1 Pet. ii. 7 (from |. c.) only. k ch.
Xxvi. 26 reff. l absol., Sohn ie 22 (ch. xiii. 26). Rom. xi. 11. Rev. vii. 10. xii. 10. xis. 1.
Obad 17 F. m = Phil. 1i. 9 al. n= ch. ii. 4U al. och. ii. 5S reff. Job ii. 2.
p = Luke xxiv. 7. ch. iii. 21, xiv. 22.
Dan. ii. 28.
q =ch. xvi. 30, 31 al. fr.
8. om Tov wap. (as unnecessary aft tov AKaov ?) ABN vulg coptt wth Cyr Fulg: ins
DE rel 36 syrr Chr, Thl Iren-int Cypr Ambr.
37 vulg Syr wth Cypr.
9. aft avakpivom. ins ap vuwy DE Syr wth-pl Iren-int Cypr.
geowTat &.
10. for mav71, may Ni.
marg Cypr.
ll. nuwy D-gr.
E rel Chr: txt ABDN c 36 Orig Did.
12. om 7 cat. D.
bhko 18. 36 copt Did Thdrt Bas:
txt B rel.
datum est D-lat, q.d. sit Iren-int: txt D’.
uuas B.
dria, Jos. ibid. 7.| ev weig Suvdper—
not = ev m. efovala, ‘in what authority,’
—but in what (manner of) power; of
what kind was the enabling cause, the ele-
ment in which, as its condition, the deed
was wrought ?—év wol@ évopati—not ‘in
what name, —i. e. ‘by whose authority,’
but by (‘in,’ see above) what (manner of)
name, spoken as a word of power: see ch.
iii. 6,16; Jos. Antt. viii. 2. 5. TOUTO,
not the teaching (Olshaus., &c.),—nor
both the miracle and the teaching (Heinr.),
but the miracle: and that only. 8. |
wAyo9. mv. Gy., i. e. specially, for the oc-
casion. 9.] ei, if, with an implica-
tion of the fact being so: see ch. xi. 17.
év tivu, not ‘ by (in) whom,’ —this is
not yet brought forward: but wherein, in
what, as the conditional element. No per-
son had been mentioned in the question,
ver. 7,—nor does Peter afterwards say ev
at end ins axovoate E15. 18. 36.
ex Dm.
ins Tov xupiov bef mo. xp. E vulg-ed(not am fuld demid).
ins onuepov bef vyns E: aft vy. Bede-gr.
add kat ev aAAw ovder EB syr-
rec ocodouovvtwy (corrn to suit rxx and Matt xxi. 42), with
* oude (philological correction? so Meyer) ABN a
ov D:
AE achm 13 demid fuld Cyr: ec. ev. ov. D-gr Bas Iren-int Aug:
om vu7o Tov ovpavoy be g 1 mo H* Thi.
ovre E rel Chr. etepov bef ect
eT. ov. eg. &:
0 dcdonevov D', quod
om ev D 177. 163 vulg Iren-int Cypr.
*Incod xp., but ev TH dvdu. “I. xp. On
the otber hand, év tovv@, ver. 10, may
very well be masculine, as referring to
*Inoovs xp. Himself, included in the pre-
vious words 7@ oy. 7I. xp.:—it may also
be neuter, ‘in this Name :’ but the mase.
is preferable, on account of od70s following
so soon in ver. 11. 10.] év.... dv:
the copula is omitted to make the contrast
more striking. mapéeoTykev, Stands,
asin E. V. He was there present.
11.] See Matt. xxi. 42, note. In Jos.
Antt. iii. 1. 5, Moses, praying to God for
Israel, says, ev avT@ yep elvat THY owrn-
play avtov, Kal ovKk ev %AAW. GwTypta
is used here in the higher sense of salva-
tion, not with reference to the healing of
the lame man. See reff. The article im-
ples, ‘the salvation for which we all
look ; our salvation: éotiv 4 owr. is para-
phrased in the next clause by def cw@ijvat
44
r =ch. fl. 29.
xxviii. 31.
1 Tim. iii. 13.
Wisd., v. 1.
s=ch. x. 34.
xxv. 26.
Eph. iii. 18.
see John i. 5.
t here 4" ft.
ul Cor. xiv.
16, 23, 24.
2 Cor. xi. 6
only. Prov.
vi. 8 (only ?).
vconstr., | Cor,
xiv. 37 reff.
w — Luke vii.
2. xii. 4(ch.
xxv. 26).
Heb. vi. 14.
Prov. iii. 27.
x Luke xxi. 15
only. Esth.
viii. 8.
y Matt. xxvi.
6¥. ch. v. 27,
34, xxiii. 1
al. Jer. xv. 17.
xx. 32. Gen. xx. 9.
i. 19 reff.
26 only. g — John xxi. 23. ch. xx. 2.
xxvii. 42. [constr., ch. v. 28 reff.]
~
vers Oat"
13. om Kat tdiwr. D.
TIPAZEIS AMOZTOAQN.
/ a A “ »\ od ry ~ s -
okKov TE avTOUC OTL GUY TW INoOD rca
\ Ff >
oveev “ ELYov * avTEltTeELv.
z = here (ch. xvii. 18 reff.) only t. see Josh. xi. § complut.
b = here only. (ch. i. 19 refi.)
ech. xx. 9. xxiv. 4. 2 Tim. ii. 16. iii. 9 only.
a7.
\ , e ”
‘rappysiav Kat Iwavvov, cai * kataXaBopevor Ort avOow-
\ , ~ , ’ ,
To. ‘ayoapparol iow Kal “iiorat, atpalov, * exeyivw-
14 o6y Te av0pw-
4 ) - e ~- .. /
TOv BAérovtec Guv auTotc EOTWTaA TOV teJeoarreupévor,
7 \ > ‘ w -
15 KeAEvoaVTEc oe auTouc elw TOU
7 guvedplov ameOetv, * cvveaddov mpoc adXjiAoue Aé-
yovrec 16 Ti * zomowpev roc avOowmote Tourotc 3 Ort
ev yao : yvwoTov onpetov yeyovev °8l abroy, tasw roi
Karokovow ‘Iepovsadnu paveoov, Kat ov duvapeba ap-
7 arr’ twa ph ° emt wAsiov StavennOn 8 ste
rov Aaov, ft ametAy | ‘GmeaAdnowpueOa avroic pnkére Aadew
aconstr., Matt.
d coustr., ch.
fhereonly t. Deut. xxix.
ii Pet.is. 23 only. Cen.
c = ver. 80. ch. ii. 43 al.
Jer. ii, 12.
h ch. ix.! reth
for re, 5¢ D 36 E-lat copt.
14. rec de, with rel 36 copt Thl-sif: om D!: txt ABD°EX ¢ vulg syrr sah eth Chr
Thl-fin Lucif. avtwv D!-gr: txt D?*.
15. KeAevoavros N!: txt X-corr'(?).
ataxOnva D-gr.
ELXOV Toinoat n avTeimew D-gr.
om de D-gr e eth. for ameA eww,
rec gvveBadoy (corrn to more usual tense), with D ¢ 36 syr sah
zeth Thi fin: txt ABER rel vulg Syr copt Chr Thl-sif Lucif.
16. ree moinvouey, with D-gr rel E-lat vulg Chr Thl-fin Lucif Ambr: txt AB
E-gr 8 k m 13. 36 D-lat Thl-sif.
yeyovevar D!-gr.
pavepotepoy ectw D-gr.
rec apynsacba (the more common N. T. word), with E rel Chr Thl: txt ABDX
e Bas-sel.
17. om add D-gr.
pnuata tavta EF syr-marg Lucif.
for un, de A2.
tmAeov Tt D. aft Aaoy ins Ta
om ameiAn (prob mistake in copying ; perhaps
omd as unnecessary) ABDN vss Bas-sel Ee Lucif: ins E rel 86 syr Chr Thi.
emd>nooucda ovv avtas D'-gr: aw. D§: -cwueda, adding ergo, D-lat.—(-coueba b de
k? 0.) for unketi, un A 142.
nas. 12. otte yap... .] lit. for
neither is there another name under
heaven (which is) given (by God) among
men (not ‘40 men,’ Vulg., Beza, Kuinoel),
whereby we must be saved: i.e., as E. V.
Dr. Burton’s rendering, ‘ For neither is the
name which is given among men, whereby
we are to be saved, any other than this,’ is
ungrammatical.
13—18.] CoNSULTATION AND SENTENCE
OF THE SANHEDRIM. 13.| katadaBo-
pevor, having had previous knowledge;
not as BE. V. which would be the partic.
pres. ; see the past, ch. xxv. 25. i8ia-
tat,—the word of contrast to those pro-
fessionally acquainted with any matter:
here therefore, laies, men of no knowledge
on such a subject as this. éreylvwooyv,
—they recognized them; (so Od. 4. 215,
aitap éyav marpds meiphoouat ijperéporo,
al x’ ew exvyvoln x. ppdocetar dpOad-
poiow: Plat. Euthyd. 801 8, dpa pol
mote aitn (7 copla) mapayevhoera &sre
pot oixela yevéoOa; 'Exvyvolns by abrhy,
& Twxpares, tpn, oixelay yevouevny 3) their
astonishment setting them to think, and re-
minding them that they had seen these men
with Jesus :—not for a pluperfect, here or
any where else: nor is jcav;—that they
(once) were with Jesus. 14.] This, ac-
cording to De W., is the only place in Luke
where re couples two sentences. He there-
fore objects to the reading; and also as
destroying the contrast; but clearly the
former is no sound critical reason, nor is it
correct: see ch. i. 15 al. fr.:—and I cannot
see that any contrast is intended: the two
circumstances which the Sanhedrim found
it difficult to gainsay were, the boldness of
these illiterate men, conferred by their
companionship with Jesus, and the pre-
sence of the healed man standing with
them. 17. S:avepynOq| be scattered
or spread: lit., be distributed: so Plato,
Minos, 317 dD, ris émiothuwy Siavetuae em
yh 74 oréppara; and afterwards, tis 5¢
Thy tTpophy em Ta Tov avOpdrwv oduara
Siavetwar &pioros ; [atrevAy | dared. |
for idiom, see reff. The construction
of dre:Aéw with an infin., stated by Dr.
Bloomf. to be ‘so rare that even the best
lexx. scarcely adduce an example,’ is its
ABDEN
abedf
ghkl
mo13
14—24.
TIPAZEIS ATOSTOAQN.
45
| Rs | wT % v4 \ i a
ETL TW ovdpare rouTw | under avbparwy. 18 gatas “tein
xxiv. 47.
dayvrec autovc " mapiyyyetNay, 70 "“KafoXov py ° pBéy- | ch. v- 28, 40.
Ee 19 ; yee." Lake
yeoba pdt Ordaokew “emi TW OVOMaTL Tou ‘Tyoov. xiv. 24, ch.
XXxiv, 23.
Térooc Kal ‘Twavnc dironpievrec elTrov moos avrovc mee nee
= xod, XVI.
PEt Sikawy tori 4 évomoy cig feov vpor ‘axobery ina
nadXov 7 TOU Oeov, * Kpivare®
iSapev Kal nkoboapey pn spe
OUMEVOL
“améAvoay avrove, pndev *
” ov reneeys yao NuEic a. ret
n here only.
ol oe ¢ gel TéetA n- rer xii. 3,
~ 0 2 Pet. ii. 16,
"50 TWC 18only. Job
xiii. 7 al.
evpiocovrec *
*KoAaowvrat avrove, dia TOV Aadv, Ort wavrec EdoLaZoy P= Mt.
‘ a) S yi 2 8 = , 9)
TOV €OV ~ ET Tw yeyovort. 7
4 c ba 4a 2.8
TEDOEPAKOVTA O avbowmoc Ep
~ ~ b’s 930u
pure TNC lacEwc.
ol mpeafsvrepor et el7Tav. 24
45. 1 Cor. xi.13. Ps. lvii. 1.
19. (and constr.) xix. 48.
xi. 16. Rom. vi. 21 reff.
a constr., see Mark xv. 53. Luke i. 65.
xxiv. 23 reft. d ch. i. 14 reff.
ol Si 3 akovoavrec * ouobupadov
t here only t.
w Luke i. 62.
Xxvii. 49,
Luke xiv. 28,
mee. ~ A s ,
ee re WV meovev 31. Gen.
xlii. 16.
ov yeyove TO omustov "5 Lin.
* aod vbevrec oe mA Dov TOC TOUC
* (Stove Kal amnyyeXay 6 ooa TOC avrove ol apy.epeic Kal 20.
i. 3. v. 4,
1 John iii, 22.
3 Kings iii.
r= Matt. xvii.
5Bal. Isa.
xiii. 24.
s = Luke vii.
au=ch. xxvi. 32 reff. v = Luke vy.
ix. 46. x 2 Pet. ii. (4 v. r.) Qonly t. Wisd.
zconstr., Mark v.42. Lnke ii. 42al. Exod. vii. 7.
b ver. 30 and Luke xiii. 32 only. Prov. iii. 8. c= ch.
18. for kat Kad. avt., cuveataTiWeuevwy Se avTwy TH yroun pwyncayTes avtovs D
syr-marg Lucif; D goes on mapnyyetAavto kata To
en pe. rec aft mapnyy. ins
avTo.s (a common. filling up), with rel vss Th] Lucif: om AB D-gr EX k 36 vulg syr
arm Chr. om To X!.
19. amoxpeibers Se 7. x. t. D Syr wth.
e:ov, with rel Thl: txt ABDEX c k 13 vulg syrr coptt arm Chr.— e:ray B.
ins D>.
rec edouev, with B*(see table) E rel (-w- af):
up. dikatov paiveTa EB. om py D!:
20. duvoueba B(Mai expr).
odjauev B'-corr: txt AB!DX Chr-wlf.
21. for under, wn Dk vulg Syr coptt Lucif.
koAatwow B'(Mai).
om to E 18.
yap K.
22. ins nv bef o avé., retaining yy above, D-gr.
om tovto D-gr Iren-int Lucif.
transp mpeoB. and apx. KH.
eyeveto k: txt BD.
23. exeivot Se aod. EH.
ordinary construction: see Palm and
Rost sub voce, and ef. Il. a’. 161; »’. 148;
o’. 179, al. freq.: Od. A’. 313; Xen. Mem.
iii. 5. 4; Hell. v. 4. 7; Eur. Med. 287.
The use of the middle in the active sense
is confined to later Greek. 18.] én,
so as to make that Name the subject (basis)
of their discoursing.
19—22.| THE APOSTLES’ ANSWER AND
DISMISSAL. 21.| mposameth., having
threatened them in addition; — with
threats superadded to the inhibition of ver.
18. pydev, no means: not pndev
afriov, see John xiv. 30. The difficulty
with the Sanhedrim was, to find any means
of punishing them which should not stir
up the people; da rbv Aady belongs to
this clause, not to amréAvoay air.
22.| wr. teoo. for TA. 7) TeETo., AS some-
times in classical Greek ; so ae éAaooov
mevte kal etxoot, Thucyd. vi. 95. See
ins o bef iway. A. rec mp. aut. bef
TOUTO
aft evpiok. ins a:tiav D Syr copt.
poBoumevot Tov Aaov TayTes
rec eyeyovet, with AEX rel:
[euray, so ABDX. ]
Winer, edn. 6, § 37, 5. The constr. ép’
év yeydver (see as in reff. ) is accounted for
by the sense involved in it being the
access, So to speak, of the event £o the
person mentioned. In the note on Rey.
iv. 2, I have noticed that ka@jc@a eri is
commonly used when the fact is announced
for the first time, with an accus.: but
afterwards when the same fact is again
referred to, with a gen. or dat. ax)
on. THS ido.—the genitive of apposition ;
so Toy appaBava TOU TVEVMATOS, 2 Cor. v.
53; onuetov mepitouns, Rom. iv. 11, &c.
The circumstance of his being more than
forty years old both gave notoriety to his
person as having long resorted there, and
made the miracle more notable, his malady
being more confirmed.
23—31.] Prayer OF THE CHURCH
THEREUPON. 23.] Tots idious, the
other Apostles, and possibly some others
46
e = Luke xvil.
13. J Kings
xxx. 4.
f = Luke ii.
20. Kev. vi.
10. 2 Pet.
ii. 2. Juded
only
a ‘tim. vi. 1,
2al.) Isa. i.
24. iii. 1.
g ch. xiv, 15.
Rev. xiv. 7.
Exod. xx. 11.
(Gen. i. 1.
Isa. xlii. 5.)
h ch. i. 16 reff.
i = Luke i. 6¥. i
Tou ‘ XeLaToU ‘ avrov.
ova TVEVMATOC cyiow
, ‘ ed '
ELT WV bva ‘a
Isa. xliv. 26.
k } Cor. x. 20_
tefl, Pea. il. ev TH TOA TaUTy *
l here only. l.c
2 Macc. vil.
34 only.
m Mark xiii. 11.
o ver. 10 reff.
xxvii. | al.
w = ch iii. 26 reff.
only. L.P.f.
1 Tim iv. 15 only. Prov. viii. 7.
p ver. §
t Rev. xi. 15. xii 10.
24. aft axovoayres ins Kat emiyvoytes THY Tov Beov evepyeray D.
avtwy E syrr coptt eth: tv pwr. c.
am demid fuld copt Ath Did Ambr:
TIIPAZEIS ANOSTOAQN,
° jpav pony mpoc Tov _ kat cimay
® JaXacoay Kal wavTa 78 ev avroic,
Epp babay 20vn Kat Aaoi
" Keva 26 © mapeoT nav ' i Paatheie 7S yne Kal ol * dpxov-
emt roy ayiov
q = Matt. xxii. 81.
uch.
x Luke iy. 18, from Isa. Lxi. 1. ch. x. 38. 2 Cor. i. 21.
T¥.
/ a
f ree ov
[o Oeoc | 86 momoac Tov * ovpavoy kat my 5 nv Kal THY
25 0 Tov maT poc Nuwy
” gromatoc Aaveié ‘raiode sou
’ ,
g pace
TEC Pa Heong? W egt TO auto * KaTa TOU kuptov Kal* kata
27 P oun Oneav yao ” or * aXnfetac
“ qatoa cou ‘Ingovv, © ov
‘ Exptoac, Hawone re kat [ldvrioce TltAaroe cov 2Oveoty
n= 1 Cor. xv. 10 reff. Pofos Kevés, Xen, Anab. ii. 2 21.
s = Matt.
v = Matt xxvii. 27.
Heb. i. 9 (from Ps. xliv. 7)
Neh. vi. 2. rch. i. 15 reff.
x. 34 reff. Dent. xxii. 20.
THhv hwy.
[evrav, so ABDN. | om o @eos ABN
ins DE rel 36 eth Thl-fin Lucif.—kupre o eos,
omg ov, 13. 40. 96: ov e o Oeos 32. 42. 69 lect-1 syrr sah Thl-sif Iren-int.
(The
variations may be explained by the difficulty found in the position of o Ocos, some
treating it as voc, others as nom, and glossing accordy.)
25. rec o dia cropatos AaBid tov maidos cov (see below), with rel 40 (om rovacd
g¢ hk m 40) Chr, Thl-fin Hil:
matdos cov D: aliialiter, see Scholz:
os bia mvevatos aytov dia Tov aTou. AaAnoas Saved
txt ABEN 13.36. (Jt seems to me that every tes-
timony tends to confirm the more difficult and complicated readg of the text.
dismisses it as a congeries of various glosses.
Meyer
But glosses on what? Had the rec
been the original, no reason can beassigned why it should have been glossed on at all,—
nor, if it had been, why the glosses should have been inserted into the text in so unusual
an order of constr. See note.)
for ermwy, AaAngas D.
27. ree om ev TH ToAK TavTn (as unnecessary, see note), with rel Thl:
ins
ABDEN b ¢c de gko 13 vss Chr Cyr Cosm Iren-int Tert, Lucif Hil.—aft rode: ins cov
assembled with them. There is nothing in
ver. 31 to mark that only the Apostles were
present on this occasion. 24.| dyo08.
qipav dpev., not, as Meyer supposes, literally
all speaking together in a known formula
of prayer, but led by some one, and all
assenting; not tas gdwyds, but pwrhy:
see note on ch. ii. 6. av [6 Oeds | 6
mot.: Thou art God (or, if 6 @eds be
omitted, He) who hast made:—not Thou
O God who hast made :—in this latter
case, the first sentence would go on to the
end of ver. 26, and there abruptly end,
without any prayer being expressed:
whereas now it is an acknowledgment that
it was the same God, who was now doing
these things, that had beforetime pro-
phesied them of Christ. 25.] The
text of this verse (see var. readd.) is in a
very confused state. Ihave kept to that
of the oldest MSS., adopted also by Lach-
mann. Though harsh in construction,
their words are not senseless, as De Wette
styles them,—orduatos Aaveld... being in
apposition with wveruaros aylov. The rec.
has been an emendation and simplification
of the text, which bears, in this its original
form, the solemn and stately character, in
the accumulation of parallel clauses, of the
rest of the prayer; cf. ver. 27. tva to
«.T.A. | cited verbatim from the LXX.
The Messianic import of this Psalm has
been acknowledged even by those who
usually deny all such reference, e.g. De
Wette. Meyer endeavours to refer it to
some circumstances then present, but is
not bold enough to enter into any vindica-
tion of his view. dpvdcow is only
found in the middle in good Greek (see
Kypke, Observ. ii. p. 30 f. Meyer). ¢pv-
ary ped éoTt TO GAdSyLOTOV xiynuc, Athanas.
in Catena. 27.) The yap implies an
acknowledgment of the truth of God in the
fulfilment of the prophecy: Zhou art the
God who hast, &c., for these events have
happened accordingly. év Ty moder
tavtTy, which has been excluded from the
text on account of its apparent redundance,
answers to én) Sidy pos 7d ay.ov abrod,
Ps. ii. 6. See also Matt. xxiii. 837; Luke
ABDEN
abcdf
ghkl
mo 13
25—31.
kat ¥ Xaoie Topand, 28 tomcat doa 1 * velo cov Kal 1)
* Bovdn cov ” toowpioev yevéoBar.
do 5 x. \ Ment ‘ ed Vi Re s 2 fe
EMLOE ETL TAC ametAac auTWV, Kal d0c TOlC dovAocte oou
g Sp IRE ! [i ad i i A e \ i ,
héTa Tappynolac Taonc GAEL TOV oyov OOU
~ . k i f k? ’ 2 1 7 \ ed
TW TYyV KXeloa oouU EKTELVELV [ce] €tc laolv, Kal onmeta
Ni 2 ’ n ‘ NO 2s bs
Kal TEpaTa yiveoOat dua TOU OovouaTtog TAU
P gaooc cov Inoov.
MPAZEIS ANOSTOAQN.
47
¢ y p'ur., Rom.
xy. 11 reff.
z see ch. xi. 21
reff. Ps.
Ixxvii. 42.
a ch. ii. 23 reff.
b 1 Cor. ii. 7
\ ~*~ - ,
2 kat ° ra © vuv, KvotE,
30) dy
Acts only.
Cie EE a 6
# . Mat-
31 \ / ee 13? ae PUN 2
Kat? denbévrwy avrev* eaadev9n 0 8 iN “pe
8 x ’ Kit t , ,u? , a exi. 8
TOTOC EV WD NEAY GUVYNHYLEVOL, Kal erAnoOnoav amavrec e ch. ix, 1 re
NEM: , Vn ys Sei - -
TOU aylou TvEUMaTOC, Kal éA\aAouv TOV Aoyov TOU Oeou
g Sie a ¢ U
Meta ° Tappynstac.
Rom. xv.13. 4 Kingsv. 18.
1 ver. v2 reff. m ch. vii. 36 reff.
viii. J2 al. ver. 27.
r Matt. xi.7. ch. xvi. 26. Ps. xvii. 7.
4i. Neh. vi. 2. uch. ii. 4 reff.
A cov bef maida D 137 Hil,.
s = ch. vii. 4y, from Isa. xvi. 1.
g ch. ii. 29 reff.
h =ch. xx. 19
reff.
ich. xi. 19 reff.
j= ch. iii. 26.
k of God, here only. Exod. vii. 5. see Matt. viii. 3. ch. xxvi. 1.
1 Cor. i. 10 only. o = ch. ili. 16.
3 Kings viii. 33 vat.
n ch. x, 43
q absol., here only. Sir. xxviii. 2.
t = Matt. xxii.
Aaos E 3. 33 Syr Thi-sif Hil Aug.
98. om 2nd cov A!B am! E-lat! Hil Lucif Ambr.
29. edide D.
for ametAas, ayias D!-gr
: txt D-corr!. mac. bef rapp. D-gr E
vulg copt Hil Lucif: om mac. g 26. 36. 57. 187 lect-1 Syr eth Thl-sif-comm.
30. for xepa cov exrewew oe, x. oe ext. AS x. ext. of B: om ce DE N*(see
Tischdf’s note) e f 13 vss Chr: txt N! rel 36 Thl (oth pronouns here and gov in ver
27 agree better with the character of the diction of the prayer).
(txt D%) 133 Thl-sif.
81. maytes Nl.
ABD am.
xiii. 33. The parts of this verse corre-
spond accurately to those of the prophecy
just quoted. maida, servant, as be-
fore, ch. iii. 26. Jesus, the Servant of
Jehovah, is the antitype and completion of
David, and of all other servants of the
Lord: what is said of them only partially
and hyperbolically, is said literally and
entirely of Him. 28.] There is an
ellipsis in the thought between zoijoat
and ca: moijoau, [ds pey eddKer, Thy
idlay Bovahy, bvtws 5] bsa... As De
Wette well remarks, cvvq7xOnoay morjoat
is used subjectively, ‘they were collected,
to do, and then the speaker changes his
ground to an objective one in dca—(as
they believed—but really) as many things
as Thy hand, &c. moijoat must not be
rendered, with Kuinoel, ‘ita ut facerent.’
It does not express the resulé, but the z-
tention, of their assembling. Still worse is
it to take moirqoa with éxpicas, ‘ Whom
Thou hast anointed, ....to do,’ &e., as
some have proposed: the parenthesis, as
well as the whole train of thought, for-
bidding it. 4 xetp o. «. 4 BovAy]} not
a éy dia Svoty (Kuinoel): xelp indicates
the Power, BovAh the Wisdom of God.
The Wisdom decreed, the Hand performed :
but the same word zmpodpicey is used of
both by what grammarians call zeugma—
as in ydAa buas erdrica, od BpSua, 1 Cor.
yeverOar D}
rec mv. ayiov (see ch ii. 4), with E 13. 36 rel vulg Chr: txt
aft mapp. ins mayts Tw OedAovTt morevery DE Iren-int (Aug).
iii. 2. See Winer, edn. 6, § 66. 2, e._
30.] év 79, see ref. ch. iii. and note there:
In Thy stretching forth (while Thou
stretchest forth) Thine hand for (eis, of
the purpose) healing, and that signs and
wonders may come to pass by means of
the Name of Thy Holy Servant Jesus.
31.] As the first outpouring of the Spirit,
so this special one in answer to prayer,
was testified by an outward and visible
sign: but not by the same sign,—for that
first baptism by the Holy Ghost, the great
fulfilment of the promise, was not to be
repeated. The rationalist Commentators
have done good service by pointing out
parallel cases, in profane writers, of swp-
posed tokens of the divine presence. Virg.
An. iii. 89. Ovid, Met. xv. 672. Schétt-
gen, Hor. Hebr. in loc., produces similar
notices from the Rabbinical writings.
It was on every ground probable that the
token of the especial presence of God
would be some phenomenon which would
be recognized by those present as such.
Besides which, the idea was not derived
from profane sources, but from the Scrip-
tures: see Ps. xxix. 8; Isa. ii. 19, 21;
xiii. 138; Ezek. xxxviii. 19 (especially) ;
Joel iii. 16; Hagg. ii. 6, 7. ewhyo-
O@yoav, with a fresh and renewed out-
pouring. TOU ay. Tv. is personal:
they were all filled with the Holy Spirit:
48 IIPAZEIS AIOZTOAQN. IV. 32—37.
ty ~ , = , = Vv /
pl on 32 Tov 8 wAnPove trav miorevoavTwy ny Kapola ABDEN
Xxx. 12. \ ow s woe A os. DRA * \ - ys , abcdf
wPhii27 Kat “ puyn ia, Kal “ouce cic tL Twv Y UTapyOvTwY ghk}
only.1Chron. 4 yy z¥9 +. ee ee ar 4 , mol3
eek. CUTE eAeyev *tdtov Elvat, a nv seine amavra © Kowa,
14. Joh ‘ , > 1
bY Romi, © Kat ” Ouvapec peyady © am eoloouy TO lapripioy ol aTro-
10 (2 Cor. vi. By > , s ’
4 oroAot The ’ avacTasews TOU mee ‘Ingou, Xaptc TE
ae peyadn 1) nv Gear mavrac avrouc. 34 Oude yee " evden TUG
Luke viii. 3°
| Job -
svat vmnpxev ey auToic’ Ocot yao “ KTHTOgES ~Xoploy n ot
‘ivr. KU@Y UTNPXOV, mwAovuvrec épepov rac * rimac TWY TuTpa-
g = John x. 3,
4, 12. a=ch. ii. 44 reff. b = ch. i. 8 reff. c = here only. d—1 Cor. i.6
reff. see ] Cor. ii, 1. — spaptupéa, John i. 7 and passim.
ig ‘Og = Luke x.6, [Rom. iii, 22.]_1 Pet. iv. 14.
jch. i, 18 reff. k=
1 Matt. xiii, 46. xviii. 25, xxvi. 9 J. ch. ii.45. v.4. Rom. vii.l4only. Exod. xxii. 3.
al. see note, and ch. ii. 47.
xv. 4,7. i here only t.
Ia. ly. 1.
f — Lake ii. 40
h here only. Dent.
ch. v. 2,3. vii. 16. Matt. xxvii. 6, ¥ al.
e ch. i. 22 reff.
32. rec ins 7 bef xapdia, with D%E rel Orig, Chr; Bas, Leont Thl: om ABD'X Orig,
(Ath Thdrt) Euthal Bas,.
rec ins 7 bef ux, with E rel 36 Orig, Chr, Bas,
Leont Thl: om ABDN Orig, Ath Thdrt Euthal Bas.
aft mia ins Kat ovk ny
diaxpiois ev avtos ovdeuia D(E) Cypr, Zeno Ambr. —for diak., Xwpiouos, and for ovd.,
wis E. om ka E. ovders Del.
k 1' m 40: om Hr 18. 36. 133.
adAa D.
om tt D. avtov D: avtwy b* fg
travta BD: txt AEX 13 rel 36.
33. ree wey. bef duv., with E rel coptt Thl: txt ABDN ach vulg syrr Chr Iren-
int Ors Aug.
o: amoor. bef to waptr. AE a g h k o Thi-sif Ors Aug.
ins (aft inov) xpiorov (A)DE(R) Syr copt eth-rom arm Chr :
om B.—tv xv 5 bef tov i
AN 36 (addg nuwv).—for Kv wv, wv xv e.—(Very usual varr where the name ina. or xp.
occurs :
the canon being in such cases, that the simplest well-supported form of expres-
sion was the genuine text.)—r. x. t. bef tT. avaor. B.
34. for urnpxev, nv (corrn to avoid tautology) A(B)X Fr-coisl a h Cyr:
rel.—nyv bef tis B.
om uvanpx. D-corr (and lat) R'.
txt DE
ogol yap KTNT. Noav Xwp. n o1K@V uTnpxov (combination) D':
D has mwdAovytes. at pepovtes (aipepov [ep. D*]
tas D? and lat, prefg Kat) Tyas Twv mimpacko .. Twy (-cKowevwy D? and lat).
the meaning being the same with my. ay.,
the influence of the Holy Spirit,—but the
form of expression varied. See ch. i. 8;
ii. 33, 38; ix. 31; x. 45.
32—37.| THe STATE OF THE CHURCH
AT THIS TIME. This passage forms the
conclusion of this division of the history
and the transition to ch. v. 32. Tay
murtevodvtwy | Much the same meaning
as Tay mistevéyTwy, but with reference to
their having become converts, and specially
to those mentioned in ver. 4,—though the
description is general. ‘ Ubiregnum habet
fides, animos ita conciliat ut omnes idem
velint et nolint. Hine enim discordia,
quod non regimur eodem Christi Spiritu.’
Calvin. On the community of goods, see
note at ch. ii. 45. We have the view there
taken strikingly confirmed here by the ex-
pressions used. No one called (reckoned)
any thing of his goods (which were still
Ta indpxovra a’r@, not alienated) [to be]
hisown. (€deyev, dicebat: hoc ipso pre-
supponitur proprietatem possessionis non
plane fuisse deletam. Bengel.) 33. |
The Apostles were the specially appointed
witnesses of the Resurrection, ch. i. 22: and
this their testimony they gave with power,
i. e. with aspecial gift of the Holy Spirit to
enforce and illustrate, to persuade and dis-
pute on, those facts of which their own
experience (see ver. 20) informed them.
That the Spirit did not inspire them with
unbroken uniformity in matters of fact,
our present Gospels, the remnants to us of
this very testimony, sufficiently witness.
Nor was this necessary : each man reported
what he had heard and seen ;—and it was
in the manner of delivering this report
that the great power of the Spirit was
shewn. See, on the whole subject, Pro-
legg. Vol. I.i. § iii. 5 ff. xapts, better
grace, i.e. from God, than favour, i.e.
from the people, which would hardly be
so absolutely designated. 34.) ydp
gives a proof of God’s grace working in
them, in that they imparted their goods
to the poor: see especially 2 Cor. viii. 7.
Tirpackonévwy,—the things which
were being sold: —the process of selling,
as regarded the whole church, yet going
on, though completed in individual cases ;
in the places cited by Wetst. from Demosth.
and Appian the pres. retains its proper
force, as here. In Appian, B. Civ. v. p.
1088, the expression is, tTimas tay ere
V. 1—3.
IIPAZEIS AIOZTOAQN.
49
f \ CNS
ckonévwy © Kal ertBovy ™ ee TovUc 70dac TWV aro ™ Matt. dsr
, 58 eg eel
otoAwy, " duedideto Oe & exaotw °Ka0ore av ric ” Xpstav iv.37 Ald.
ae 36 I 3 fp? Xe O<\ B a n Luke xi, 22,
Bree wang € 0° exikAnJec apvafac * a7o TwDv John'vi i
Josh.
avootoAwy, 6 éoTW ueBepunvevopevoy * vio ‘mapanAie | il 6, ao
= h. ii. 4
° (eft).
FEE; Acveirne, Kom proe TW Rico: 37
* rwAnoac 7 nvEeyksv TO
bd aypou
TOUS modac TOV amtooroAwy. V.
ovduart ouv Zanpeipy TH yuvauct | aurou
Seite Kat €Onkev ™
Vv
UmapXovroc auT@ pch.i 23 reff.
“ qch. ii. 22 reff.
Taoa r Matt. i. 23.
Mark vy. 41.
XV. 22, 34.
Jobn i. (39
v.r.) 42. ch.
xiii, 8 only t.
' “Arig dé tic Avaviae
EmwAnoev
9 Sir. prol. fin.
* «Tha, Kal * evosplaato aro THC FU, “ auvedving ae oe
\ ~ , Ag 7 cil eel, \ as
Kat TNC ‘yuvatKoc, Kal EvEyKaC HEpoc TL * maga rove “fue s
al. 2 Kings
mooac TwY amoarohwy eOncev.
>
Avavia, dua Tl “exAnpwoev 0 oO Laravac THY kapelay OOU
u = ch. xviii. 2 reff. v = ch. iii. 6 reff.
24, 44al. Gen. xxiii. 9.
10 only. Josh. vil. 1. 2 Mace. iv. 32 onl
only. Job xxvii. 6.
xvi. 6. see Eccles. ix. 3.
85. [dredi5eT0, so AB!DEN. |
x 1 Cor. x. 25 reff.
24’) L. ch. viii. 1S, 20. xxiv. 26 only. 2 Chron, i. 11, 12.
y.
d = John xix. 23 al.
3 re
ime € Pa xiii. 28.
+ - oe Hérpoc , = ch. xiii. 15.
xv. 31.
2 Macc, xv.
ue
w here only, exc. gospp. Mt. Mk. L. — Matt. xiii.
y sing. here only, plur. Mark x. 23,
z ch. ii. 45 reff. a Titus ii.
b = ch. iv. 34 reff. c= 1 Cor, iv. 4 (reff.)
Gen. xl vii. 24, ech. iv. 35, 37. f Joha
ins ev bef exaotw D.
36. rec iwons (see note, ch i. 23), with 13 rel syr sah Chr, Thl: txt ABDEN 36. 40
vulg copt Syr eth arm Chr, Epiph.
1m 40 Hr Thi.
37. for aypov, xwpiov D?: -1oy D}.
rec uro, with D rel 36 Chr :
epunvevouwevoy B: om c?.
for mapa, mpos EX 36 Thl-sif.
txt ABENadgh
Kump. bef Aevertns D.
CuaP. V. 1. ev avtw de tw kaipw avnp (beginning of ecclesiastical portion) E.
ovon. bef avavy. AD be m vulg: txt BE Chr.
cappupa D!: -ipa D-corr : caumpipt 13: caupipn N*: waupipn N': txt A E
o Chr:
(-ppipn) k m.
2. om kat N' (eadem manu suppletum videtur).
cuvetduias (corrn), with D rel: txt ABEN.
Thl: om AB D-gr & 13 arm Chr.
8. aft evmev Be ins mpos avtov E;
Thi. rec om o, with D rel:
TITpArKoMevov. 35.| mapa Tovs
aédas,—not a Hebraism for the whole
person—but /z¢eral. So Cicero pro Flacco,
c. 28, ‘Ante pedes Preetoris in foro ex-
pensum est auri pondo centum.’ (Rosenm.)
Wetstein givesseveral other examples. The
Apostles, like the Pr tor, probably sat upon
a raised seat, on the step of which, at their
feet, the money was laid, in token of reve-
rence. 36.]| Barnabas, TMI) 13, is
vids mpopntelas—and the interpretation
has been generally made good by taking
mapakAnois as included in rpopnteta, and
as in the sense of exhortation: see ch. xi.
23. Aevetryns | The Levites might pos-
sess land at all times within the precincts
of the Levitical cities : such was the case,
e. g., in Jer. xxxii. 7. At the division of
the kingdoms, the priests and Levites all
resorted to Rehoboam in Judah (and Ben-
jamin), 2 Chron. xi. 13; from that time pro-
bably, but certainly after the captivity,
when the Mosaic division of the land was no
longer accurately observed, the possession of
Vou. Il.
oamrepa (corrn) BD a b? g h 1
for amo, ex D. rec
ree aft yuy. ins avtouv, with E rel
Gero D.
aft merpos c; simly vulg-ms(Matthii) syr-w-ast
ins ABEX b m 13 Chr.
for avavia, ™pos avaviav
land by Levites seems to have been allowed.
The whole subject is involved in some
uncertainty : cf. Levit. xxv. 32 ff.; Num.
xxxv. 1—8; Deut. xii. 12; xviii. 8, al.
Kvmptos | For the state of Cyprus
at this time, see notes on ch. xi. 19; xiii.
4—7. 37. xpypa] Very unusual in
this sense. See Herod. iii. 38, em moo
dv xphuwatt Bovdolaro tos matépas aro-
OvhoKovtas arooiréecOa, and other exam-
ples in Wetstein.
Cuap. V.1—11.] THE HISTORY OF ANA-
NIAS ANDSAPPHIRA. Thisincident, though
naturally connected with the end of the last
chapter, forms an important independent
narrative. 1.] *Avavias, 22», Nehem.
ili, 23, or M227, Dan. i. 6, in “LXX: also
1 Chron. iii. 21, al.= The cloud of God, or
The mercy of God. Lamdeipy, per-
haps from the Greek odmeipos, sapphire,
or from the Syriac xvew, beautiful (Grot.).
The crime of these two is well described
by Meyer: ‘ By the sale of their field, and
the bringing in of the money, they in fact
E
50
g Matt. v.11 al. &
constr., here
only. Deut.
Xxxiii. 29.
h—ch.i. 18
reff.
i = here only.
1 Mace. xv.7.
k ch. iv. 34 reff.
Ich. i. 7.
m = ver. 9.
Loke ii. 49
only. 2
Kings xix.
22. see John
xiv. 22.
n Luke ix. 44.
xxi.14. Hag. ii.19. see ch.i.7.
aAXa To Dew.
p ver. 10. ch. xii. 23 only. Jodg.iv. 21 F. Ezek. xxi.7 only.
see ch. ii. 43.
Jer. xiv. 3.
D vulg-mss(Lachmann).
r= ch. viii. 26, 27 refl.
IIPAZEIS ATOSTOAQN.
\ ’ ~ fed (PY ’ ie? is mn ye nv >
moaley Ev T?) o1) eSoucia uTNpXsV ; TLOTL eQou ev ™7)
, N yy)
rovrove meawy ? e&erbuSev.
STN , ‘ ? 7,
emi Tavrag Tove uKOVOYrac.
oconstr., here only. Josh. xxiv. 27. 2 Kings xxii. 45.
for emAnp., emnpwoev XN.
ME
, ’ ‘ ~ , ¢ \a ’ ff) !
Wevoacbat of TO TVEULA TO AYyLOY Kal vooploacUal | GE
> A a) - - ’ - oe ey es \o7 \
avo TNC TIipyn¢c TOV ‘ KwWptlou 5 4 ovuyl JEVOV GOL EMEVEY, KAL
‘ - ~ > > , > ,
Kapdla gov TO Toayua TOUTO; OVUK ° Epevow avOpwrote,
> ‘ ¢ , ’ . ,
5 akovwvy b& 0 ‘Avaviac tove Adyouc
\ 2 tied ia ‘
kat 7 eyeveTo poPoc péyac
66? , a fs ,
avacTavTEec OF OL VEW-
Ps. Ixxvii. 36.
q—ver. ll. Lukei.65. Gen. xxxv. 6,
s= John xxi. 18. 1 Tim.v.1,2al. ot v., Tit. ii. 6.
to ay. Tv. D-gr.
rec om 2nd ge, with ABEX ck 10 36: ins D rel 38. 42. 95. 96. 113. 177 sah Leont.
(I insert it as more in character, and very likely to have been omd as unnecessary.)
4. euevoy (but corrd) X': wero D!: txt D?.
om on D. for To mp. TovTo,
momoat tovnpov Tovto D sah: facere dolose rem istam D-lat: ins ro bef mov. D?.
evevoou D!: txt D*.
5. akovoas de D-gr: ka evdews axovwy E.
ins ABEN ab dfghk mo Chr Thi.
rec om o, with D rel 36 Orig Gc:
ins tapaxpnua bef recov D. ree aft
axovovtas ins tavta (see ver 11), with EX® rel syr Chr Thl: om ABDN'" vulg Syr
coptt zth-pl Orig Lucif.
6. aft avaor. de ins mapaypnua E.
professed to give the whole price as a gift
of brotherly love to the common stock : but
their aim was to get for themselves the
credit of holy love and zeal by one portion
of the price, whereas they had selfishly
kept back the other portion for themselves.
They wished to serve fwo masters, but to
appear to serve only One.’ $7] The
dia ti implies the power of resistance to
Satan—Why hast thou allowed Satan to
fill, &c.? 4.| While it remained,
did it not remain thine own? i.e. was it
not in thine absolute power? and when
sold, was it not (i.e. the price of it) in
thine own power, to do with it what
seemed good to thee ? vl Stu, i. e.
tl éorw drt: see reff. €Oov ev T.
kapd.,=35%y ow, Dan. i. 8; Mal. ii. 2.
Satan suggested the lie, which Ananias
ought to have repelled: instead of that, he
put it in his heart,—placed it there where
the springs of action are, and it passed out
into an act. ovK ep. avd., GAAG T. 8. ]
This ov«, GAAd, is not always an absolute
and exclusive negation and assertion, see
Mark ix. 37; John xii. 44. But here it
seems to be so, and to imply, ‘ Thine at-
tempt to deceive was not to deceive us,
men; but to deceive the Holy Ghost,—
God, abiding in His church, and in us its
appointed superintendents.’ This verse is
of weighty doctrinal import, as proving the
Deity of the Holy Spirit ; unless it be held,
that the Holy Spirit whom (ver. 3) Ananias
attempted to deceive, and God to whom
he lied, are different. ‘ Hac est sententia :
Ananias mentitus est Deo et ejus Spiritui,
non hominibus et Petro. Aude si potes,
Sociniane, ita dicere: mentitus est non
Spiritui Sancto et Petro, sed Deo.’ Bengel.
5.] The deaths of Ananias and Sap-
phira were beyond question supernaturally
inflicted by Peter, speaking in the power of
the Holy Spirit. This is the only honest
interpretation of the incident. Many, how-
ever, and among them even Neander, at-
tempt to account for them on natural
erounds,—from their horror at detection,
and at the solemn words of Peter. But, in
addition to all other objections against this
(see on é€olcoucvy, ver. 9),—it would make
man and wife of the same temperament,
which would be very unlikely. We surely
need not require any justification for this
judicial sentence of the Apostle, filling as
he did at this time the highest place in the
church, and acting under the immediate
prompting of the Holy Spirit. If such,
however, be sought, we may remember that
this was the first attempt made by Satan
to obtain, by hypocrisy, a footing among
Christ’s flock : and that however, for wise
reasons, this may since then have been
permitted, it was absolutely necessary in
the infancy of the church, that suchattempt
should be at once, and with severity, de-
feated. Bengel remarks: ‘ Quod gravitati
pene in corpore accessit, in anima potuit
decedere.’ k. éyév. P68. «.7.A.] The
akovovres can hardly be (Meyer) those
present, who (De W.) not only heard, but
saw : the remark is proleptical, and = that
in ver. 11. 6.| Were ot vedtepor a
class in the congregation accustomed to
perform such services,—or merely the
younger men, from whom they would na-
ABDEN
abcdf
ghkl
mol3
4—10.
t , nN ads \
TEOOL OUVEGTELAGCVY QUTOV Kal
Te > t i oe we c ~ ~
Eyer éTO €, WC WOwYV T PLY
TIPAZ EIS ATIOSTOAQN.
51
u? t vy t = here only t.
eEeviyKkavrec eQawav. Ear. Troad.
= , \ Ps ‘ 76. (1 Cor,
vii. 29 only.
Oaornua, Kal 4 DP Andee Mes rT
= vv. 9, 10
~ > ~ > ~
avurou pu) ELovla TO yeyovoc eccnr ev. By amekoi0n 7 00¢ be (15, Mark
: ‘
2 “ , > , ry ,
autnv [lérpoc Eure por * et * rosovrov ro
oO) td y c \ z \ ,
améooobe; 7 Se etzev Nat * rosovrouv.
‘ VES d noe e , tee
mooc autnv “Tt ort * cvvepwrn fy * piv
] ~
‘ rveupa
- j \ ~ \ ‘s
avooa cov ‘Em TH ipa, kal * eEoicovaw ce.
viii. 23. Luke
,
XVa22. wl
a i i Tim. vi 7.
oO 6& Plexone mays
Luke vii. 12.
g f be
1 Cor. 4
TEOATAL OV ae Xv
rei.
h he ATP ys S e ’ me y, , ‘ SS ¢
KUOLOD 5 tood ot mwodec tw * Oaavrwy tov Fee
x here only t.
10 ¥ of space, Gen.
ETEOEV xxsil. 16 al.
= ch. iii. 12.
% = y i. 12
Oe ' Tapaypnua To0¢ ToOvCG TOdaCg avTOU kat ™ eGebuyev® Matt x1. 20
Deut. xxvi. 5.
Rev. vi.6. 4 Kings vii.1.
d ver. 4 reff.
only. f dat., Matt. v.21? James iii. 18.
= ex. ib.)
k ver. 6 reff. 1 ch. iii. 7 reff.
7. ews N). Siacreua D.
z= Matt. xxvi. 63. Mark xv. 44.
b ver. 3.
h 2 Cor. iii. 17. see Luke iv. 18, from Isa. 1xi. 1.
a gen. of price, Matt. x. 29. x xvi. 9.
e=ch.vii.9. Heb. xii. 16 only. Gen. xxv. 33.
e Matt. xviii. 19. xx.2,13, Luke v.36. ch. xv.14 only. 4 Kings xii. 8. impers., here
Winer, edn. 6, § 31. 10. g 1 Cor. x. Y reff.
i= ch. iii. 10, 11 ref.
m ver. 5 reff.
8. rec aft amexp. ins de, with AN rel 36 syr Chr Thl: evrey de D vulg: txt (the
simplest, and prob original) B 137 vulg-mss-Ln (syr sah).—pos nv o merpos eon E.
rec (for zpos avtyyv) avry, with rel vulg (syr-w-ast) Chr Thl: om b!: txt ABDR
dem 36. 40 Orig Lucif.
d 36.
D-gr.
mpos D!-gr: ins D3.
ins Tov bef kup. D.
10. ka: er. D Syr Lucif.
rec ins o bef wetpos, with DE rel Orig Chr: om ABN
for eve jot et, ewmepwrnow ce ec apa D-gy sah.
om 7 5 B: 7 dy D!': txt D-corr!.
9. rec aft werp. ins eve, with A rel 36: exrev de metp. E: txt BD vulg.
aft 7: ins ovy &1(N disapproving).
evoTayTa: emt Ty O. EK.
rec for mpos, mapa (see ch iv. 35, 37, v. 2), with E
To xwpiov bef Towavrou
om
cuvedaynoev D.
Tas Oupais A.
rel Lucif: em: 26. 87: vmo 2: txt ABDN Orig.—for mp. 7. m., evwmov 15. 18. 36.
turally be expected? Meyer and Olshausen
(also Mosh.and Kuin.) maintain the former ;
Neander and De W. the latter. We can
hardly assume, as yet, any such official dis-
tinctions in the congregation as would mark
off of veérepor from of mperBTepor, which
latter are first officially mentioned ch. xi.30.
Besides which, we have no suchecclesiastical
class as of vedérepor. And the use of of vea-
vioxot in ver. 10, as applying to these same
persons, seems to decide that they were
merely the younger members of the church,
acting perhaps in accordance with Jewish
custom,—perhaps also on some hint given
by Peter. cuvesrethav] So mepi-
otTéAAw, Ezek. xxix. 5; Tobit xii. 13; Sir.
Xxxvilil. 16, wrapped the body up,—pro-
bably in their own mantles, taken off in pre-
paring to carry him out. The context will
not permit any more careful enfolding of the
body to be understood. The speedy
burial of the dead, practised among thelater
Jews, was unknown in earlier times, see Gen.
xxiii. It was grounded on Num. xix. 11 ff
The practice was to bury before sunset of
the same day. The immediate burial in
this case adds to the probability that the
young men obeyed an intimation from the
Apostle. 7.]| The construction is, éyé-
veto 5é,... «al, It happened, that: and
®s @. T. Sider. is parenthetical, not the
nom. to éyéveto. See a precisely similar
construction, Luke ix. 28 : and Winer, edn.
6, § 62. 2. 8.] dwerp., perhaps fo her
salutation : or, it may be, to her manner,
challenging a reply. The word must at
any rate be taken as implying some pre-
vious communication, to which an answer
was to be given. _ Togovr., naming
the sum : or perhaps pointing to the money
lying at his feet. The sense tantilli
(Born.) is implied of course, but not ex-
pressed by tocovrov. No stress on @r-
€5000e as referring to the smallness of price:
it is the ordinary word for selling, see reff.
9.] To try the omniscience of the
Spirit then visibly dwelling in the Apostles
and the church, was, in the highest sense, fo
tempt the Spirit of God. It was a saying
in their hearts ‘There is no Holy Spirit :’
and certainly approached very closely to a
sin against the Holy Ghost. Peter charac-
terizes the sin more solemnly this second
time, because by the wife’s answer it was
now proved to be no individual lie of a
bad and covetous man, but a preconcerted
scheme to deceive God. ot wédes | Not
that Peter heard (Olsh.) the tread of the
young men outside (they were probably
barefooted), but it isan expression common
in the poetical or lively description of the
Hebrews, and indeed of all nations (see
Isa. lii.7; Nah. i. 15; Rom. x. 15; Eurip.
Hippol. 656; Soph. Gd. Col. 890, al. freq.),
making the member whereby the person
acts, the actor. I take the words to mean,
K 2
MM
52 DPAZEIS AMOSTOAQN.
’ . 4 ‘ k ,
eine ain eiceADovrec O& of ” véaviokot ebpov aurny _vekpav Kat “ &&- re
_ s ‘ , ,
ari6, Lave EviyKAVTEC "eOaxpav ° "o0C Tov avepa aurnc. | kat P eye- Enea
vii. 14, ch, it.
17. 1 John ii.
13, 14 only.
Gen, xiv. 24,
o — Matt. iii.
Tove akovoyvrac ravuTa.
16. Gal L
VETO p6Poc péyac ep OAny thy exkAnatav Kal éml TavtTac
18. 12.9 Ava & TOY Xepon Tov amootowy & eyivero oneta
p ver. 5.
q ch, xi. 80
reff.
pha 36 Po . ~
reff.
schilarer, @TaVTEC EV TY
tch. sii, 11 reff.
u a ii. 3.
1 Thess. iv.
\
Kal
"répara moAXa ev tw Aaw.
‘arog Lodopwvoc"
oveec EroApa ‘KoA\AacOat adroig, add’ “
Kal Noav * onoOupaddy
se 6 “ Aowrwv
gueyaduvev av-
TWY
e ~- \ / z ,
Le f. 20, TovuG o dade" 14 * nadXov O& 7 rouceriBerto mar evovT ec
b ‘
Ba. Cor. v. TW Kupiy, *AiOn avdpor re kat yuvackov" |} were ° Kata
16,17. Rut e 28
5, eae nae * mAareiag aps TOUG aobeveic kat ° riOévat emt
h
go yale v, 36. ‘ kAwapiwy Kal ® koaBarrwr, iva EO YOmEVvoU Tléroov Kav
Jobn xix. &.
ch, ix. 22 al. y — ch. ii. 41 reff. z absol., ch. iv. 32 al. fr. a plur., here “s Ps.
exivi.4 b = Luke x. 32 al. ec Luke xiy. 21. Rev. xxi. 2lal. Ezek. xxviii. 23. d ver.
6 reff. e=— Rev. x.2. Loke viii. 16. f here only t. see Luke v. 19, 24. & Mark ii.
4, &c. vi. 55. Jobn v. 8, &c. ch. ix. 33 only t. bh = Mark vy. 28. vi. 56. 2 Cor. xi. 16.
txt BD.
akovortes D.
evpay A: nupay E:
11. om em A sah.
12. for de, re B Syr eth.
lect-12 Cyr-jer, ec Thi:
Steph eyevero, with h 4. 13. 14. 15.
txt ABDEX rel 36 Chr Lucif.
cuvoreiAavtes etnveykay kat D-gr.
78. 127. 180
rec ev Tw Aaw bef moAAa,
with rel 36 Chr Thl: om zoAAa k 133 lect-12: txt ABDEX m o 13 vulg Syr Lucif.
for amavtes, mavtes ABE 1: txt DN rel Chr Thl:
Tw tepw D 42 sah eth; ev Tw vaw ovvnymevor KE.
cadouwvtos N: txt BDE rel.
ov8es B.
rec goAouwrtos, with A k o 36 Chr Thi:
13. Kat ovders Twv Aoirwy D eth.
14. ins o: bef mor. A 13.
15. for kara, kat ers ABD®N k 13. 36. 40; war ev tars mAaTies E: om eth:
om tas D!.
rec kAwwyv (corrn to more usual word), with E rel
none of the vss have kat.
710. ins evrpocbev avtwy EK.
Chr Thdrt:
that the time was just at hand for their
return: see James v.9. The space of three
hours was not too long: they would have to
carry the corpse to the burying-ground, at a
considerable distance from the city (Lightf.),
and when there, to dig a grave, and bury it.
tEotcovery | This word, spoken before
her death, decisively proves that death to
have been not a resu/t merely of her detec-
tion, but ajudicial infliction. —_ 10.] etsed-
Odvres, when they came in: not implying
that they immediately entered, but leaving
room for some interval of time: see above.
12—16.| Progress oF THE Faitu;
MIRACULOUS POWER AND DIGNITY OF
THE APOSTLES. 12.) 8ێ is merely
transitional, and does not imply any con-
trast to the péBos just mentioned, q. d.
‘notwithstanding this fear, the Apostles
went on working, &c.’ See ch. ii. 43.
Gwavres, the Apostles only, not all the
Christians. It does not follow, from wdyres
referring to all the believers in ch. ii. 1 (see
note there), that &ravres necessarily refers
to the same here also. The Apostles are
the subject of the paragraph : and it is to
txt ABDR rel Cyr-jer.—pref tay A.
add cuvnymevar S Syr copt; ev
aft ev Tn ot. ins Tn D 42.
txt D',
aft ac@ev. ins avtwy D al. aft
[xpaBatrwy, so ABDN. ]
set forth their unanimity and dignity that
the description is given. They are repre-
sented as distinct from all others, believers
and unbelievers (both which I take to be
included under the term of Aovrol): and
the Jewish people itself magnified them.
The further connexion see on ver. 14.
or. Xod.] See ch. iii. 11; John x. 23,
note. 13.] t@v Aowrdyv, all else,
whether believers or not: none dared to
join himself to (see reff.), as being one of,
or equal to, them: but (so far was this
from being the case that) the very people
(multitude) magnified them. 14. ]
And (not parenthetical, but continuing the
description of the dignity of the Apostles)
the result of this was that believers were
the more added to the Lord (not mor.
T@ kuplw, but mposer. TP Kup., as decided
by ch. xi. 24), multitudes of men and
women. 15.] ste now takes up
afresh the main subject of vv. 12 and 13,
the glorification of the apostolic office, in-
somuch, that It is connected not
only with eueydAuvey adr. & A., but also
with ver. 12. kata wA.| down [the |
11—17.
a | Sk? , \ > ~
yy oKtla ETLOKLAG)) TLVL AUTWDV-
mAnGoc trav ™ ming TOAEwY ‘TepovcaAnn, pépovTEc aobevetc
Kat” ox Aoupévouc u7o ° rvevpatwy °F axa0aorwv,
ai) , ¢
E EpaTeVvOVTO aTaVTEC.
17? \ 3} ey 3 ‘ \ , ‘ N >
Avaordc 6£ 0 apylepevge Kal TavTEG OL GUY auTY,
€ c! ed ~
1 ovoa * alozaig TwY Taddovcatwy, “ exrAnoOncav
Jos. B. J. ii. 19. 1.
ospp. Rey. xvi. 13. xviii. 2.
£ Zech. xiii. 2.
rch, viii. 26, 27 reff.
ji. lonlyt. Jos. Antt. xiii, 5. 9. see Ley. xxii. 18,
45 (retf.).
aft ox. ins avrov E 33 vulg Thdrt Thl-fin.
auTw XN).
16 |
n here (Luke vi. 18 rec.) only t+. Tobit vi. 7.
sch. xv. 5. xxiv. §, 14. xxvi. 6. xxviii. 22.
TIPAZEIS AIOSTOAQN. 53
, \ \ AS i Matt. iv. 16.
GvuViIOXETO és KQ@t TO Mark iv. 32.
Luke i. 79.
Col. ii. 17.
Heb. viii. 5.
x. 1 only.
Judg. ix. 36.
k and constr.,
Mark ix. 7
q ad
OLTLVEC
35 only. Ps.
uy?’ xc. 4.
CyAov Ich. i. 6 reff.
m here only t.
o Matt. x. 1 al. fr. in
q = ch. x. 41 reff.
_1 Cor. xi.19. Gal. vy. 2U. 2 Pet.
t = ch. iii. 10 reff. uch. xiii.
pch. x. 14 reff.
emickiace: B13. 58. 133 Thl-fin.
aft avtwy add amnAAaccovTo yap aro Tacns agbevias ws eLxev
exaoTos avtwy D; Kat puodwow amo macys acbevias ns etxov E; et liberarentur ab
infirmitatibus suis vulg(not fuld) Lucif.—liberabantur am Lucif; ab infirmitate omg
s. am demid,
16. S10 cvvnp. E.
om kat To D!; om to D?.
for mepit, wept D!: txt D*(?).
rec ins eis bef tepovo., with DE rel 36 demid Chr Thl: eczrca syr coptt:
om ABN k vulg Lucif.—“ from the other cities round about Jer” Syr (Etheridge).
for uvmo, amo D.
mavtes D.
17. for avaor. de, kat Tavta BAeTwy avaot. E: om Syr.
streets, i.e. in the line of the streets,—
see Winer, edn. 6, § 49, d. note.
kd. «. kpaB. |] Kuinoel’s distinction, that
the latter is a poor and humble bed, the
former a couch of richer character, appears
to be unfounded. (So also Bengel.)
Tlérpov| As the greatest, in pre-eminence
and spiritual energizing, of the Apostles.
Now especially was fulfilled to him the
promise of Matt. xvi. 18 (see note there):
—and even the shadow of the Rock (Isa.
xxxii. 2, Heb., and E. V., spoken primarily
of His divine Master) was sought for.
We need find no stumbling-block in the
fact of Peter’s shadow having been be-
lieved to be the medium (or, as is surely
implied, having been the medium) of work-
ing miracles. Cannot the ‘ Creator Spirit’
work with any instruments, or with none,
as pleases Him? And what is a hand or a
voice, more than a shadow, except that the
analogy of the ordinary instrument is a
greater help to faith in the recipient?
Where faith, as apparently here, did not
need this help, the less likely medium was
adopted. See, on the whole, ch. xix.
12, and note: and remark that only in the
case of our Lord (Luke viii. 46 ||) and His
two great Apostles in the N. T.,—and of
Elisha in the O. T., have we instances of
this healing virtue in the mere contact
with or accessories of the person. But
what a fertile harvest of superstition and
imposture has been made to spring out of
these scanty examples ! 16.| Keep, in
both verbs, ovvyjpxeto and eGeparevovto,
for o:twes, kat D-gr 38. 113 sah Lucif.
€LWYTO
(ndous B!(Mai).
the imperfect sense; ‘the multitude, &c.,
was coming together, bearing, &c.,—for
all such (quippe qui) were being healed ¥
viz. when the next incident, avaotas 8é
«.7.A., happened. :
17—42.] IMPRISONMENT, MIRACULOU
LIBERATION, EXAMINATION BEFORE THE
SANHEDRIM, AND SCOURGING OF THE
APOSTLES. 17.] avacrds is not re-
dundant, but implies being excited by the
popularity of the Apostles, and on that ac-
count commencing a course of action hos-
tile to them: see reff. (‘Non sibi quiescen-
dum ratus est. Beng. Sinyép0n Kiw7Oels
éml tots yevouevots, Chrys.) ‘To suppose
that the H. P. ‘rose up’ after a council
held (Meyer) is far-fetched, and against the
émdxjaOnaav {ydAov, which points to the
kindling zeal of men first stirred up to
action. 6 dpx.] Annas,—ch. iv. 6,
and note on Luke iii. 2. ot ovv avTa |
those who were with him (see ch. iv.
13; xix. 38; xxii. 9). Not the members
of the Sanhedrim: but the friends and
kindred (ch. iv. 6) of the H. P.: see ver.
21: Kuinoel’s ‘qui a partibus ejus sta-
bant’ is too definite (De W.): it was so,
but this meaning is not in the words.
4 ovea] attr., but implying more than of
bvres €& aipéoews T. &.:—the movement
extended through the whole sect. On
aip. 7. =., see Matt. iii. 7, note. The
passage of Josephus, Antiq. xx. 9. 1, is
worth transcribing: méumec 5€ Kaioap
(Nero) AA Bivoy els Thy "lovdalay erapxov,
Shorov thy tedeuvthv mudduevos. 4 dé
O-+4
vch. xxi. 27
reff.
w ch. iv. 3 reff. ,,
x = hereonlyt. eQevro
see ch. xvi.
37 reff.
y ch. [xvi. 9.]
xvii. 10,
xxiii. 31.
Herod, i 62
init. & fin.
% = Matt. xiv.
'
KUOLOU
~ ~
NaXeire Ev TH I
aAgits EV TW LEOW TH
10. Acts, ch. , 9] ? ,
viii 3 & TavuTne. “~ AKOUGQAVTEC
passim. Heb. . awe a CIV
x10. Nee sie ¢Q teo0v Kal EdiOaoKOV.
a = here only ‘ \ « Ny Cy ae
(see note) lepeug Kat OL GUY auTwW
p — here only. t
Jonah iv. 10,
sO UTO Tihv
Ewan,
Polyb. i.53.4.
to Thy
wpatav (prima estate), iii. 16. 7.
Josh. xxiii, 2. mid., cb. x. 24 al.
vi. “laop.)
Matt. xi. 2.
18. emeBaddov A.
36. 40 vulg Syr arm Thl Lucif.
IIPAZEIS AMOSTOAQN.
> , % /
avrovc ev “ rnonoet * Onocta.
macav thv © yepovoltay tav viwv Iopand, Kat
> ‘\ i , > ~ > 7
éatetday etc TO ‘ C&aMwTNOLOV ay Onvat auTouc.
c Luke xxiv. 1 [John viii. 2] only. Joelii. 2.
6i. John iii. 23. Acts, ch. ix. 26. xvii. 10 & passim. Gen. xiv, 13.
fch. iv. 15 reff.
h constr., w. pass., here only (?). see ch, xiii. 42 note.
ch. xvi. 26only. Gen, xxxix. 22 bis. xl. 3, 5 only.
.
~ eee | . > , ‘
18 ga éveaXov Tac “ y stpac ‘ent rove awootoAove Kal
19 ayyedoc Og
ft ty , ~ z ws
Y Sa vuKroe nvosev tae Ovoac tHe pudakne,
s 9 \ /
eSayaywr TE avrove simev 7 lopevesbe Kat orabévrec
~ cs ~ ~
Aaw TwavTa Ta pymata THE * Zwne
dé etenABov ure Tov ° ooPoov
c ,
* rapayevomevoc oe 0 aox-
, A Of , \
© cuvexaXcoav TO ouvecotov KGL
he?
a7-
« \
ol oe
d Luke xii.
eact., Mark xv. 16, Luke xv. 6 only.
g here only. Exod. iii. 16 al. Ir. (there a'so w.
act., ch. xxvi. 17 reff. i here bis.
22
rec aft xeipas ins avtwy, with E rel syr coptt Chr: om ABDN
eis Thpnoew K-gr Lucif (omg dnu.).
aft
du. ins Kat ewopevOn ets exagTos ets Ta dia, D.
19. tote dia v. bef ay. x. D.
ree ins ts bef vuxtos, with EX3 rel 836 Chr: om
ABDR!. avoitas AN 36 vulg sah: avewtay D!-gr, avewtev D% Chr. for Te, de
B 73. ka eg. E.
21. for axouvo. de, ekeAOovTes Se EH Syr. add ex rns pudAakns E. Topo
yevouevoy B}(sic, see table).
aft cvv avtw ins eyepOevtes To mpw D.
ovveadecamevor D, retaining the rat bef ameotevav.
Bactrtebs ahelAcro wey Toy “IdbanToV TY
apxiepwotvnv, Te Se “Avdvov maid!, Kar
ate "Avdv@ Aeyouevm, Thy Biadoxhy Tis
apxis €dwke. TovTov Sé pact Toy TpEo-
Birarov ~Avavoy edvtuxéactatov yeverOau"
méevte yup eoxe maidas, kal TovToOUs Tay-
Tas cuveBn apxieparetoa TH eg, adTds
Kal mpdrepoy Tis Tis eml mA€ioTOY arro-
Aatoas, brep oddev) cuveBn TAY Tap juiv
apxtepéwy. 6 5& vedrepos *Avavos ....
Opacds iv tov tpdmov, kal ToAunThs Sia-
pepdvtTws* aipeotv 8é petyjer Tav LadSov-
Kaiwyv, olep cial wep) tas Kploeis wpol
mapa mdvras tovs “lovdatous, Kadws Hdn
dedyAdKauev. This shews that the family
of Annas, if not he himself, were connected
with the sect of the Sadducees. They (see
ch. iv. 1, note) were the chief enemies of
the Apostles, for teaching the resurrection.
18. thp.] see ch. iv. 3. 20. |
TAS Cwis TavTHS, an unusual expression,
seems to refer to the peculiar nature of
the enmity shewn towards them by the
Sadducees, for preaching the avdoracts
(wijs—‘ of this LirB, which they call in
question.’ Or perhaps 7. ¢..7. may import
the religion of Jesus having its issue in
life. A similar expression, 6 Adyos rijs
cwrnplas tavrns, occurs ch. xiii. 26.
also Rom. vii. 24, But beware of assuming
in either of these passages the use of the
figure called by the grammarians hypallage,
so that ra §. rijs ¢. tavTns = 7a phuara
See
Tavta THs (ws: for thus the sense is
enervated, and the peculiar reference in
each case lost. The indiscriminate appli-
cation of these supposed figures of speech
has been, and continues to be, one of the
worst foes of sound exegesis. The de-
liverance, here granted to all the Apostles,
was again vouchsafed to Peter in ch. xii.,and
is there related more in detail. Itis therea
minute touch of truth, that he should mis-
take for a dream (ver. 9) what he saw:
having lain so long in prison, and his mind
naturally dwelling on this his former mira-
culous liberation. 21.] um. T. dpOp.,
at daybreak: see reff. Tapayeve-
pevos | to the ordinary session chamber in
the Temple, on the south side of it (Winer,
RWB.): and therefore, if the Apostles were
teaching in Solomon’s porch (ver. 12), not
in their immediate vicinity. Perhaps the
mapayevomevos . . .. TuvekdAcooy ....,
implying that the summons was not issued
till after the arrival of the IT. P. and his
Sriends, may point to a meeting of the
Sanhedrim hurriedly and insufficiently
called, for the purpose of ‘packing’ it
against the Apostles. If so, they did not
succeed, see ver. 40: perhaps on account
of the arrival of some who had been listeners
to the Apostles’ preaching. Taga
T. yepovoiev| Probably the mpeoBuirepar,
including perhaps some who were not
members of the Sanhedrim; the well-
ABDEN
abcdf
ghkl
mo 13
18—26.
“ mapayevonevor Umnpérat ovxX Evpov avrouc év 7 rae
Aary’ 23 J 4
TO ' Seopurhpeoy evpomey
sia Kal Trove pvA\akac éoTwrac
c 8s nv yOe e
GQAVTEC OF EOW OVOEVA EVOOMEV.
Aoyous | TOUTOUC O TE
doX eget, ° Guyogouy TEOL auT@v Tl av yévouro TOUTO.
m 248 ~ ff) ~ > ,
€7Tl TwvV VOWDV, avolt-
i oTparnyoc rou
TIPASZEIS AMOSTOAQN. 5d
j=ch. xv. 16
only. Gen.
Vili. 9.
avaaroipayrec oe amivyyedav Aéeyourec ¢ Ore see John it.
1 oO. Or. 1.
12 al.
KekAstopévov Ev Taon acha- : Ween a
Xxv. 10. ch.
xxi. 30. Rev.
Exi. 25.
9 ¢ ie! ‘ '
24 We Oe NHKOVOaY TOUC Ezek, xllv.
ox = \ © 1=1 Thess. v.
ep Kal Ol 3(Lukei.
4) only. Ley.
Xxvi. 5. (-@s,
Mark xiv.
44.)
ana maga'yevontevoc oe Te amy yethey avroic ort ov Ob ee =?
avdoec ouvc Heabe ev TH * pudaky stot év Tw tep@ sataree
Kal OLOaGKOVTEC TOV ey 26
‘ ‘ a e , vo > ~ >
nyOC GUY TOIC UTNOETALC nyayev autTove ov
eo ~ ‘ ‘ x ¢ sd oe
Eq oBovvro yap tov aoy, [ iva | ey
22. ch.ix.17. xxiii.32. Gen. xix. 2.
xiv. 25.
X. 31, 32, 33. xi. 8. ch. xiv. 19.
22. rec umnp. bef mapay., with DE rel 36 sah :
add rat avutaytes THv pvdAaxny D vulg syr-w-ast.
for nae kat D}.
amnyyetvov X.
D. for ev Tn pua., cow D.
23. for Se, kat D!, Se kar D-corr!.
rote @
s = John xviii. 28. xix. 31. see Winer, edn. 6, § 56. 2, note.
2 Cor. xi. 26. Heb. xi. 37 only. "2 Kings xvi. 6, 13 only.
eae 19, Gen.
xviii. 1. (70,
James v. 9.
ch. xii. 6.)
; n= John xx.
r 26. Gen.
Blac, XEXix. 11.
och. iv. 1 reff.
* A Macbaow. . Soe ii. 12 reff.
Matt. ii.
tch, xxiv. 7 (xxi. 35. xxvii. 41) oe: “lyon i. 14,
t John [viii. 5.]
above O ° oTpat-
r iN
Lee
txt ABN a h vulg Syr copt eth Lucif.
ovxX NupoV KE, OUK €upov
om ot: H-gr vulg Syr.
rec aft vo ins wey (to answer to Se folly), with E-gr rel 36 vulg coptt Chr: om
ABDN Hr E-lat syrr eth.
nupaey (twice) E.
evxekAciopuevay D!,
rec ins efw bef ear. (gloss to particularize, and to answer to ecw follg), with (none of
our mss) Chr-txt: om ABDER® rel yss Chr-comm Thl Lucif.
(more usual), with E rel vulg-ed syr copt Chr:
demid D-lat E-lat Syr sah.
24. rec ins sepevs kat o bef otpatnyos, with rel Thl-fin Hc:
apxtepeus kat o 67. 98. 104 syr Chr Thl-sif: for o Te to apxuepers, o
preceding o te, HE:
TE OTpaTIYOS K. O tepeus Tou tepov 96H; ot apxtepers K. of OTpaTyyo. T. Le. Syx wth:
eSavuatoyv mey Te Kat Sint. wT. avT. Tt av Gedor
ABDX e 36 vulg coptt arm Lucif.
eva T. HE.
aft avTwy ins To &!(N3 disapproving).
rec for em, mpo
mpos c: txt ABDXN m 36, ad am fuld
ot tepets Kat o, omg the
txt
yevntat D'(txt D').
25. ree aft autos ins Aeywy, with 36 Thl-fin (Lucif): om ABDER rel vulg syrr
coptt «th arm Chr Ge Thl-sif.
kat XN,
26. nyev BD'N:
vulg Chr Thl Lucif.
deducebant D-lat:
known foes of Jesus and his doctrine.
The expression T. T. Y€povg. TOY vi.
*IopanaA, common in the LXX, is perhaps
translated from the form of words i in which
they were summoned. v‘yepovola, being
the ordinary word for the mpeoBurepoi,
would be the Hellenistic formal expression.
23. év waco. dod.] Not, as Vulg.,
‘cum omni diligentia’ (so Luth.), nor as
KE. V. ‘with all safety’ (?); but in all
security—‘in a state of perfect safety.’
24.| If the iepeds of the rec. be
genuine, it must designate the High
Priest ; not that the word itself can bear
the meaning (compare 1 Mace. xv. 1 and
2), but that the context points out the
priest thus designated to be the H. P.
(Meyer.) On 6 otpar. T. tep., see
note, ch. iv. 1. He appears to have been
om ot N'.
om ov D!(and lat) :
om wa (to connect wn with epoB.) BDEN 13:
om «at X-corr!: om eotwres
amayayovtes 13: nyayoy 1: txt AD'E rel 36
ins D3 ors, poBovmeva yap D-gr.
ins A rel 86 Chr Thl.
summoned to meet the Sanhedrim, per-
haps as the offence had taken place within
his jurisdiction. But he was probably
one of the apxiepets (see Winer, RWB.,
Tempel, end). These latter were the
titular High Priests, partly those who
had served the office, partly the presidents
of the twenty-four courses, partly the kin-
dred of the H. P. (see Matt. ii. 4.)
aivtav | ‘The Apostles,’ the avrovs of ver.
22: not ‘these words, as would appear
at first sight. at Gv yév. TovTo] To
what this would come; ‘whereunto this
would grow,’ K. V.:—not § quomodo fac-
tum sit,’ as Kuin.,—nor ‘quid hoc esset
rei’ (ri dy etm, as chit - 17), as Grot. and
others. 26.) [ve] p37] AL8. depends
upon ov meta Bias, not upon edo. If,
however, iva be omitted, then this latter is
56 IIPAZEIS ATOSTOAQN. v.
Vea is 7 ayayovrec é avrovc * Eornoay ev TW " swvedpip. Kat
"Shere ie, eweperaecy avrove o apXtepeve “a deywv * “Mapayyedia
_isealt “wapnyyetAauev uaty wy eidacxay * emt Tw ovouart
Hg ea ae TOUTW, Kat toov workers THY ‘lepoveaAgn m™¢
Joh it 29, * R8axic, vuwy, Kal BotrgoBe ° erayayely ep nuac To la
a. eae aiua Tov avOowrou eesny 9S "Azoxpibeic & Tlérpoc «63 nee
es Kal ot Ree ve eitav * Teapyetv det Dew aaa n asa
aii aAparorc. 6 © Oede Ter ‘ watTéowy see NyEtoev Kimo)
ih Gn. _Inoovv, ov vueic * Stexetpicacbe * koeuacavrec ext “ EvXov.
c = Matt. xxiii.35. xxvii. 25. 2 Kings i. 16.
(xxii. 37). Esdr. viii. 94 (90) only.
x. 8 ch. iii. 1572
k = as above (1).
(i). 1 Pet. ii.
h ch. xxvi. 21 onlyt.
27. o wepevs D'-gr Lucif: txt D>.
ech.iii 13. xxii 14.
iv. 20. vi. 51. ch. ii. 13. vil. 11, — Xiii. 17. xv. 10. xxii. 14.
i
Luke Exiii. 39 (Matt. xviii. 6. xxii. 30. ch. xxviii. 4) only. Gen. xl.1
24.
d ver. 32. ch. xxvii. 21. Titus iii.lonly+. Sir. a 28
1 Chron. xii. = al = Jobo
1 Cor. x. 1. see ch, ni. pa
ch. x. 3Y. Cal ih. 13, from Deat. xxi. 23.
1 = as above
28. rec ins ov bef xapayy. (making it a question, which has evidently been occa-
sioned by exepwtynoev), with DEN rel 36 syrr sah eth Thdrt: om ABN! vulg D-lat
eopt Ath Cyr Lucif Preedest.
1st xa: D}(and lat): ins D?.
exesvov D}-gr sah: txt D®.
29. rec ins o bef werp., with 13. 36 Thl
30. ins de bef Geos AN copt.
the case. 28.] d€ov eépwrica: mpo-
Tor, TOs ebfAsere ; @s ovderds yevouevon,
€pwrGotA€yortes* x.7.A. Chrys. Thesame
shyness of open allusion to the names or
facts connected with Jesus and the spread
of his doctrine may be traced in the évo-
pati tovre@, and the dv@perov tovrov,
and is a strong mark of truth and cireum-
stantiality. ‘Fugit appellare Jesum: Pe-
trus appellat et celebrat, vv.30,31/ Bengel.
éway. é’ Hpas| not meaning, that
divine vengeance would come on them for
the murder of Jesus: but with a stress on
7uas—that the people would be incited to
take vengeance on them, the Sanhedrim,
for that murder. The preceding clause
(zexAnp. x.7.A.) shews this to be their
thought. Compare the pointed address of
Peter to the Sanhedrim, ch. iv. 8 —12, and
thedistinction between them and thepeople
in iv. 21. This being so, the resemblance
between this expression and the i r= saints
tion of the people in Matt. xxvii. 25 must
not be too closely pressed, though the coin-
cidence is too striking to escape notice.
29.) Peter, by word of mouth ; the
Apostles, as a body, by assent, implied in
his own utterance and their silence. There
is no ellipse of &AAo: before axder.
This defence of Peter divides itself into the
propositions of an ordinary syllogism—(1)
The statement of the general truth that we
must obey God rather than men: (2) The
reduction of the present circumstances
for d:dacx., AaAew A lect-17 Cyr Thdrt.
exAnpwoare AN Chr Cyr.
om
ebayayew = txt D®.
: om ABEN rel Chr.—D! omits azoxp. to
e:xay, adding at end of ver o de werpos exwev zpos avTous.
Leavy, so ABER. }
ins Toy maida avtov bef inc. E.
under that general truth, as being the
work of the God of their Fathers—shewn
in his having raised and glorified Jesus,
for a definite purpose, to give, &c. (3) the
identification of themselves with the course
of action marked out by the weBapyetv
Set . .. in that they were bearing witness
to God’s work, under the inspiration of the
Holy Spirit given them as men obedient to
God The whole is a perfect model of
concise and ready eloquence, and of unan-
swerable logical coherence ; and a notable
fulfilment of the promise, do€jceTa: Syiv
év éxelyn TH Spa tl AaAjonte (Matt.x. 19).
mevbapyeiv | much stronger than
axovew, ch. iv. 19,—as their conduct, i in
persisting after prohibition, had been more
marked and determined. That was a mere
‘ listening to’ the proposition then made to
them: this, a course of deliberate action,
chosen and entered on. 6ed—op
to ris 8d. tpey of the H. P.; and to
_av@pérov tovrov. In the background,
there would be the command of the angel,
ver. 20: but it is not alleged: the great
duty of preaching the gospel of Christ is
kept on its highest grounds. 30. tay
wat. Hp.) thus binding on Christ and his
work, to the covenant whereof all present
were partakers. Hyetpev | both from
the emphatic position of the verb, and
from the context, it must refer to the
resurrection, not merely, as in Matt. xi.
11, Luke i. 69, Judg. iii. 9, to raising up
27—34.
~ e >
31 touTov oO Qcde
deka auTou,
* apaprioy. 32 kat mete
* pnmaroy ToOUTWY, ‘kal TO mvevpa ie’ ot | TO aytov, 0 Eowxev
0 Ode Tore
\
* Qterpiovto kai “ eBouAsvovTo
ch. ii. 38. Col. i.14 al.
gen., Phil. i. 2& ii. 30. Heb. xiii. 7.
onlyt. 1 Chron, xx.3only.
Esth. iii. 6.
Ezek. x xvi. 8.
81. for defia, Sof D! sah Iren-int, caritate D-lat: txt D?.
B &'(83 disapproving) Chr, ; em: tw Chry,.
avtw D}(and lat) sah eeth-rom.
TIPAZ EIS AIIOSTOAQN.
m? ‘ \
apxnyov Kat
° dovvat ° weTavoray Tw Tepana Kat ?
eouev
~
" reJaoyovow aut.
>
*aveXsw avrovc.
r = ch. i. 8 and Acts passim. constr., ch. xiii. 31.
t ch. iii. 24 reff.
w = Luke xiv.31.
x Luke xxii. 2. xxiii. 32. ch. ii. 23. vii. 2] al.
57
~ m=ch. iii. 15
WOEV ne
‘ageow re “
2 Tim. ii. 25.
“paprupec TWV
_swrTnga " v
auTou Wisd. xii. 19.
a Antt. xx.
Pp Mark i Be 29.
Eph
33 Oi Oz axovoavrec Heb. ix. 223.
q Matt. xxvi.
34 ava- 28. Luke i.
7Z< Tin
Job xvi. 20. s double
u ver. 29 reff. v ch. vii. 54
John (xi. £3 v.r,) xii. 10. ch. xxvii.39 . 2 Cor. i.17.
Luke only, exc. Matt. ii. 16. Heb.x 9.
ins tov bef Sovva:
ins tev bef auapt. D*(al ?).—add ev
32. for ecuev avtov, ev avtw B 69!. 100. 105 Iren-int: avrw m: om ecuey eth:
papt. bef esuey A am D-lat Syr Iren-int:
om avrov AD!X g h vulg Syr sah
Chr, Did: syr places avtov aft pnuatwy: txt (avtov was prob omd from not being
understood, and transposed from being thought to belong to t. pnuatwy tovrwy) DSEH
36 (eth) Chr, Thi.
ins mavtwy bef twy p. tT. D\(and lat).
ABD'!®8 m vulg sah arm Did Thl-fin Iren-int :
om de (corn)
ins D*E (H ?) rel 36 Chr Thl-sif.
om o B17. 73 copt: ov D'E: txt AD-corr H® rel 36.
83. aft axovo. ins tavta E 28 sah.
understood) ABE e1 copt «th Chr, :
in the ordinary sense. tpets, answering
to the eg’ pas of the H. P. emt EvAov |
compare reff. and the similar contrast in
ch. iii. 14,15. The manner of death is de-
scribed thus barely and ignominiously, to
waken compunction in the hearers, to
whom the expression was well known as
entailing curse and disgrace on the victim.
31, 32.] apxny. kK. cwr., not, ‘to be
a Prince and a Saviour : but the words
are the predicate of todrov—as a P. and
aS. apxnydv, as ch. iii. 15, which see.
K. owt. not = THs owrnplas. Jesus was
to be King and Captain of Israel, and also
their Saviour. The two offices, though
inseparably connected in fact, had each its
separate meaning in Peter’s speech: @
Prince, to whom you owe obedience—
a Saviour, by whom you must be saved
from your sins. Ty Seta, by (not fo)
His right hand, as in ch. ii. 33, where see
note. The great aim here, as there, is to
set forth God as the DorER of all this.
Sodvat, in his Kingly prerogative; per. «.
ad. ap., to lead to salvation (eis cwrnpiar,
as 2 Cor. vii. 10: ets (why, as ch. xi. 18)
by him as a Saviour. Somewhat similarly
Bengel: ‘per., qua Jesus accipitur ut Prin-
ceps: &peo. qua accipitur ut Salvator?
The key. to this part of the speech is
Luke xxiv. 47—49, where we have, in our
Lord’s command to them, the same con-
junction of wer. k. &peo. au.—and imme-
diately follows, as here, buets pudptupes
TovTwy, appointing them to that office
which they were now discharging,—and,
eBovAovto (corn, eBovAev. not being
emeBovAevoavto b: eBovAevoayvto k Thl-fin: txt
DHX rel vulg syrr Chr-comm Thl-sif Lucif.
corresponding to Té mvetpa 76 Gy. of our
text, (30 ey ebamwooTéAAw Thy émayye-
Alay Tod marpds gov ed’ tuas. By con-
joining the Holy Ghost, as a witness, with
themselves,—they claim and assert the
promise of John xv. 26, 27: see also the
apostolic letter of ch. xv. 28. When we
remember, how much of the apostolic tes-
timony was given in writing, as well as
by word of mouth, this declaration of Peter
becomes an important datum for judging
of the nature of that testimony also. See
a very similar conjunction, 1 John yv. 9.
They were God’s witnesses, in the
things which they had seen and heard as
men: the Holy Ghost in them was God’s
Witness, in purifying and enlarging by His
inspiration that their testimony to facts,
and in unfolding, from (and as inseparable
from) these witnessed facts,—the things
which eye hath not seen, nor ear heard.
And in the Scripture THESE SAME TESTI-
MONIES are conjoined ; that of the Apos-
tles, holy men under the guidance and
reminding of the Holy Spirit, faithfully
and honestly reporting those things which
fall under human observation: and that
of God the Spirit Himself, testifying,
through them, those loftier things which
no human experience can assure, nor human
imagination compass. pynpatev | his-
tories, things expressed in words: see
note on Luke i. 4. tots wev8.] Not
ety, which might make an unreal dis-
tinction between the Apostles and the then
believers, and an implied exclusion of the
58
TIPAZ EIS AMOSTOAQN.
Ls
t ’ ~ ' _ pie ie i
yrs, orac 6 tic Ev Tw 7 uvedoiw Dapicatoc ovonatt Vapadmd,
T j 7 f b \ = os dy yg c?
ieee yomoowackaXog * timo ° mavti TH Naw, EKéAEVGEV * Ew
Neh. viii. 7 > , - er ee >) C am...
Al it 19. “ Bpayd rove avPowmoug * Tomoat, 35. sinéy te TO0C ABCD
” Heb. xiii. 4. Sia , ~ , Fas ~ > \ EHNab
Prov. tHe, avuTouc Avooec IopanXtra, i T POCENETE EaUTOLC F ETL dfgh
b dat., ch. vii. 9 > , ie 7 36 klmo
ee tote avOparotg TovToLIG Tt méAXETE TOAGoEW. Too yao “"13
c = here only.
€ Luke xii. 1, xvii. 3. xxi. 34. ch. XX 28. (Deut. iv. 9.)
see Job xi. 14. xxii. 23. Xen. Anab. vi. 6. 5, 26.
d ch. xxvii. 28 reff.
f 2nd pers.. 2 Cor. vii. 11 reff. g = Mark vi. 62.
TWUTO émoince TO Kat §7t caf Ovyatpi, Herod. iii. 14,
J
34. aft cuved. ins avrwy E: ex tov ovvedpiov D-gr E copt: om e. tr. ouvedp. Syr.
rec aft Bpaxv ins 71, with (H) rel Thl-sif: Bpaxutnts o: txt ABDEN Chr,.—r.
am. Bp. t1 H deo: 7. am. ckw Bp. mono D.
txt ABN vulg copt arm Chr.
for avTous, Tovs apxovTas kat Tovs ovyedpiouvs D sah.
DEH rel 36 Syr sah eth Chr, Thl:
85. for te, de C k 58 copt.
eautous D!,
hearers from this gift,—but generally, to
all the weWapyotow alte, by this word
recalling the opening of the speech and
binding all together. So that the sense
of the whole is, ‘We are acting in obe-
dience to God, and for the everlasting good
of our common Israel: and otherwise we
cannot do.’ And a solemn invitation is
implied. ‘Be ye obedient likewise” It
is remarkable that a similar word, t7-
Hkovov 77 more, is used of the multitude
of converted priests, ch. vi. 7. 33. Se-
emplovto] sc. tTais Kkapdias as ch. vii. 54.
From its conjunction there with €8puxov
T. 6d6vras, it does not appear to have any
connexion with the phrase mplew or d:a-
mplew 7. 65. with which Hesych. and Wetst.
identify it. They were cut asunder (in
heart). So Persius, iii. 8, ‘ turgescit vitrea
bilis: Findor, ut Arcadiz pecuaria rudere
credas.. And Plautus, Bacch. ii. 3. 17,
‘Cor meum et cerebrum, Nicobule, findilur,
Istius hominis ubi fit quaque mentio.”? And
Euseb. H. E. v. 1 (in Suicer, sub voce, where
he cites other authorities also), éxaAémawvov
. demplovto Kal? juav. éBovAevovro |
they were purposing, ‘ taking counsel with
the intent,’ see reff. 34.) Papodiyd =
y'903, (see Numb. i. 10; ii. 20,) is gene-
rally , and not without probability, assumed
to be identical with the celebrated Rabban
Gamaliel, j737 (the old man), one of the
seven, to whom, among their Rabbis, the
Jews give this title Rabban (= paBBovri,
John xx. 16), a wise and enlightened Pha-
risee, the son of Rabban Sy pen (tradition-
ally the Symeon of Luke ii. 25) and grand-
son of the famous Hillel. His name often
appears in the Mischna, as an utterer of
sayings quoted as authorities. He died
eighteen years before the destruction of the .
city. (See Lightf. Centuria Chorogr. Matth.
premissa, ch. xv.) He was the preceptor
of St. Paul (ch. xxii. 3). Heclesiastical
tradition makes him become a Christian
amo Tay avOpwrev TovTwy K tol.
rec (for av8pwmous) amoaTohous, with
mpartew &.
and be baptized by Peter and John (Phot.
cod. 171, vol. iii. p. 118 b. Winer, RWB.),
and in the Clementine Recognn. (i. 65, p.
1242), he is stated to have been at this
time a Christian, but secretly. The Jewish
accounts do not agree, which make him die
a Pharisee, with much more probability.
Nor is the least trace of a Christian leaning
to be found in his speech: see below. And
considering that he was a Pharisee, oppos-
ing the prevalent faction of Sadduczism in
a matter where the Resurrection was called
in question,—and a wise and enlightened
man opposing furious and unreasoning
zealots,—considering also, that when the
anti-pharisaical element of Christianity
vas brought out in the acts and sayings of
Stephen, his pupil Saul was found the fore-
most persecutor,—we should, I think, be
slow to suspect him of any favouring of the
Apostles as followers of Jesus. (See par-
ticulars respecting Gamaliel collected in
Conybeare and Howson’s St. Paul, edn. 2,
vol. i. p. 69, f.) He does not here appear as
the president of the Sanhedrim, but only as
a member. ew Tovyjoat | see reff. to put
out—‘cause to withdraw.’ They are re-
called in ver. 40. 35. | The words ém 7.
avOp. Tout. may be joined either with mpos-
ex. EauT., OF with rf méa. mpaoo. The latter
would give the more usual construction :
and the tr ansposition of words is not un-
exampled in the Acts, see ch. i. 2; xix. 4.
36.] A great chronological difficulty
arises here. Josephus relates, Antt. KRige Ly
}d5ov dé rijs lovdaias émitporevovtos ons
Tis Gvip Oevdas dv Smart melBer Tov TAEloTOY
bxAov avadaBdvra Tas KTHOELS Erec Oat
mpods Tov “Lopddvny ToTauoyv av’Tg* mpo-
parns yap eAreyev eivat, Kab Tpostaypart
Toy ToTaoy oxioas, diodov pn Tapetew
avTots padiav. kal TattTa A€ywv moA-
Aovs jmarnoey. ov why elacey avtods
Tis appottyns bvacbat Pddos, GAN ef-
émeunwev trnv tamréwy er avTovs, 4Tts
30—37. IIPAZEIS AIOSTOAQN. 59
h = ch. vii. 18,
, ~ € ~ he ke aa , s nH
TOUTWV TWV TYMEOWDV avéaoTY Orv ac Néywv éival TLV from Exod. i.
e , « & > 0 > iS = > 0 < le i see ch. vi.
eauTov, w TOOCEKALUH aYV OW aowuocg WC TETPAm 5 2) Cor. iii. 7
, ani m? ‘A \ , e n? 0 ? ™ ret;
KOGLWY OC aVyPEUn, Kal TavTec OGdOl ETELUOVTO QUTW k here only t.
0 BS , pe ohew/ pP. ar 37 4 N ~ Hom. Od. 9’.
v“AdAvOnsay Kal éeyevovTo élc oveev. META TOVTOY 188. wpos-
KAlvwy tots
“Podéous oO
TivoA. Kat.
7. OAnV al-
peo,
n = ch. xxiii. 21. xxvii. 11.
dca. thy stpatictv, Xen. Cyr. v. 5.43.
Luke xiii. 19. Rom. xi. 9. q ch. xiii.
s = here only. (ver. 38.) Deut, xiii. 10.
au =—ch. xx. 30. 1 Tim. v.15.
3 / id ~ ~ ~ >
" avistn Tovdac 0 TadtAatoc év tate nugeare Tne ' aTo-
~ Vg
yeagpne, kat ° avéotnoev ‘aov
Polyb. iv. 51.6. | = ver. 7 al. m = ver. 33.
Gal. v.7. James iii. 3. Prov. xxvi. 25. o here only t.
p Matt. xxi. 42, ch. iv. 11 and | Pet. ii. 7, from Ps. exvii. 22.
25 reff. r Luke ii. 2 only +. 2 Macc. ii. 1 only.
Herod. i. 154, and classics passim. t = Luke xsiii. 5 al.
Rey. siii. 3, constr. pregn., see ch, xiii, 8. Lukeiv. 38. Rom. xvi. 20.
36. ins neyay bef cavtov D: aft, APE k 0 13. 36 tol Syr Cyr Jer: om A!BCHR rel vulg
syr coptt Eus Chr Thl. aft w ins ka: D-gr. rec mposexoAAnOn, with
fk o Chr Thl Gc: mposexanénoay Cl(appy): mposexAerOnoay D-corr: mposereOn 36:
appositt sunt Jer: inclinaverunt syr: adheserunt copt: secuti sunt Syr sah eth:
accesserunt arm: txt ABEHN a? b dh m, zposexAn9n (céacism) C2D! a! g 1, consensit
vulg E-lat, adsensum est D-lat (the varr have been interpretations of or substitutions
for the amat rey. in N T, wposerdAn). rec api0. bef avdp., with DH rel vulg
syr Chr: txt ABCEN m demid. rec wset, with HN! rel 36 Thl: txt ABCDEN?
h. TeTpakootor NX}, os d1eAv0y (avnpeOn D') avros 5? avrov D, om
SteAvenoay D!: ins Dt. ovgey D 33.
87. rec aft Aaoy ins :xavov, with H rel 36 syrr sah Thl: pref Ek 40 copt Chr: Aa.
amposdéxntos eémimecotca moAAovs pmev
u 2) , ’ rag > -
OTLOW QAUTOU KAKELVOC
aveide, ToAAoUs be Cavtas ~dAaBev" avTdy
Te Toy Ocvdav Cwypicaytes amoTeuvovaet
Thy Kepadyy, Kal KoulCovow eis ‘Iepood-
Avupa. But this was in the reign of Clau-
dius, not before the year a.D. 44; and con-
sequently at least twelve years after this
speech of Gamaliel’s. On this difficulty
1 will remark, that we are plainly in no
position (setting all other considerations
aside) to charge St. Luke with having put
into the mouth of Gamaliel words which he
could not have uttered. For Josephus him-
self, speaking of a time which would accord
very well with that referred to by Gamaliel,
viz. the time when Archelaus went to Rome
to be confirmed in the kingdom, says, év
TovT@ 5&€ Kal ETepa pupla OoptBwv exéd-
eva THY “lovdalavy KkateAduBave, moAA@V
TorAAaxdoe Kat oikelwy éeAwidas Kepday
kal “lovdalwy exOpas em Td moAremeiy
a&punuevev. And among these there may
well have been an impostor of this name.
But all attempts to identify Theudas with
any other leader of cutbreaks mentioned by
Josephus have failed to convince any one
except their propounders: e. g. that cited
in Bisecoe from Usher, Ann., p. 797, who
supposes him the same as Judas the robber,
son of Ezechias, Jos. Antt. xvii. 10. 5,—
of Sonntag, who tries to identify him with
Simon, mentioned Jos. Antt. xvii. 10. 6;
B. J. ii. 4. 2,—and of Wieseler, who would
have us believe him the same with Matthias
6 MapyeaAddov, Antt. xxvii. 6. 2,4. The
assumption of Josephus having misplaced
his Theudas is perhaps improbable; but
by no means impossible, in a historian
teeming with inaccuracies. (See this abun-
dantly demonstrated in an article on ‘the
Bible and Josephus,’ in the Journal of
Sacred Literature for Oct. 1850.) All we
can say is, that such impostors were too
frequent, for any one to beable to say that
there was not one of this name (a name by
no means uncommon, see Cicero ad divers.
vi. 10, and Grot. h. 1.) at the time spe-
cified. It is exceedingly improbable, con-
sidering the time and circumstances of the
writing of the Acts, and the evident super-
vision of them by St. Paul, the pupil of
Gamaliel, that a gross historical mistake
should have been here put into his mouth.
The Aéyey eivat of our text is curiously
related to the &Aeyey eiva: of Josephus.
os Tetpakootev hardly agrees with
the trav mAciotov bxAov of Josephus above,
and confirms the idea that different events
are pointed at in the two accounts. But
the Jewish historian speaks very widely
about such matters: see note on ch. xxi. 38.
87. | The decided pera todtoy fixes
beyond doubt the place here assigned to
Theudas. This Judas, and the occasion
of his revolt, are related by Josephus, Antt.
Xvili. 1. 1, Kupfvios 68... . én) Suplas
maphv, wmd Katoapos Sixaoddtns Tov
eOvous GmectaApévos, K. TyLnThs TOV
ovolay ‘yevnodmevos .... Tapyy S€ Kar
Kup. eis viv “lovdalwy mposOhikny Tis
Buplas yevouevny amotiunoduevds Te ad-
TOY TAS ovolas, K. Gmodwodmevos TE
"ApxeAdov xphwata. Oi dé, Kalwep 7d
Kat apxas ev Sewa epovtes Thy én
Tas amoypapais axpoucw, trokatéBynoay
TOU eis MA€oy evayTiwicba ..... Lovdas
V. 388—42.
60 IIPAZEIS AMOSTOAQN.
v ver. 36 reff.
am WA al Tavrec Ooot * éreiBovto avtw
w Matt. xxvi. aTWAETO, Kat TA e u
" dueckooTiaOn-
’ ‘
: jiees ae ASG , Can ’ , ~
Zech. ili.7 cav. ® Kali “ta * voy AEyw URW, Yamoornre aro tTwy
ods uke i. ’ \ ” > | de rs P) Sas
61. John xi. avOpwrwy TOUTwWVY Kal ” agpetTe avuToucg’ oT tay ¥ &&
52. Num. x.
5 ’ NAG we - d U
x ch.iv. 29 reff av0pwmwv n° Bovdy auTn 7 To ° Epyov rouTo, Kkata\v0n-
y = Luke iv.
, ’ ~ 2? , > , d ~-
13. ch. xxii, GeTaL" 39 et Oe * ex Oeov EOTLV, OU *Svvacbe ° Karadvaa
29. 2 Cor
7: rt , \ , e ~ v? Vy
x5 Si adrove, © unmore Kat ‘Ocopayor® evpeOnre. 4° * exeioOnoav
Z = Matt. xv \ _ \ , ‘ 5) ax h 3 '
14. hae be auTw, Kal T pockaAEcapevot TOUC ATOOTOAOUG El-
RIV Py
k
ieee Sm ~ ae =
Kings iv. 27. ETL TW OovouaTl TOU
anetint si, pavtTec ‘maonyyetAav wn Aadew
25
* , ~ ses , 4] Ol \ CP ’ 7 ’
b = Luke xxiii. Inoouv, Kal améAvoav. t MEV OUV ETOOEVOVTO Xaloov~
51. ch. xxvii. : .
12, 42. e John vii. 2]. d= Rom. xiv. 20. 2 Macc. ii. 22. e constr., here only. see note.
fhere only t. Symm. only, Job xxvi. 5. Prov. ix. 18, xxi. 16. (-xetv, 2 Mace. vii. 19. Eur. Iph. in Aul. 1409.)
g = 2 Cor. iv. 2 reff. h Luke xxii. 63. ch. xvi. 37. xxii. 19al.t 2 Chron. xxix. 34 F. only. i=ch...
4 rel. k ch. iv. 17 reff. 1 = ch. xxvi. 32 reff.
modu C D-gr: txt A'BX vulg D-lat Eus Cyr. om mavtes D 96. for ovoi, o C!S,
38. om ta E(not B: see table). om vuiv &!: ins N-corr!. aft vuy ins
e.ov adeAda D (eco is marked for erasure). rec (for apere) eacate, with DEH
rel 386 Chr Thl: txt ABCR. aft avtovs ins un miavavtes Tas xeipas D 34:
bn MoAuvoyTes Tas x. vuwy HE. om avt7n Habef gh! Thi-fin Ee.
39. for e1, eav E. * Surnasabs BCDEX ah k 13(appy) 36 vulg Syr sah Orig
Chr Ge Thl-fin (alteration to agree with the foregoing future, and the conditional e: ?
see note): dvvacbe AH rel fuld syr copt Chr, Thl-sif. rec auto (alteration to suit
epyov), with C'H rel demid Syr coptt Chr Thl Ge: avroy 180: toutov bid8arKadray
Orig: txt ABC*DEX am fuld syr eth arm Bede. aft avrous add ovre vets
OUTE Ol APXOVTES ULWY E; OUTE VMELS OUTE Baoirets OUTE TuUpavvol’ amexerbat OUY aro
Tov avopwrev TovTwy D: simly 33-marg 180 demid syr-w-ast.
lat) 163 coptt: ins D?.
40. for emeicOnoay, eweioT...
deletis”) D': txt D?(?).
tit EX: avrovs A.
5& Tavdavirns dvhyp ex mdbdrews bvoua
Tayada . .. . Hmelyeto én) amocrdcet.
And, in returning to the mention of him as
the founder of the fourth sect among the-
Jews (xviii. 1. 6), he calls him 6 TadtAaios
*Iovdas. From the above citation it is
plain that this aroypaph was that so
called kar’ éfoxhy, under Quirinus: see
Luke ii. 2 and note. His revolt took a
theocratic character, his followers main-
taining udvoy jyeudva Kal Seandtny rv
Oedv (ib. 1. 6). am@deto] Not re-
lated by Josephus. Steoxopticbycay |
Strictly accurate—for they still existed, and
at last became active and notorious again,
under Menahem, son of Judas 70d kaAov-
Mevov TadiAalov, ds jv codicths Sewvd-
taros, Kal éml Kupnviov mote *lovdalous
éveidioas. (B. Jud. ii. 17.7 ; see also Antt.
Xx. 5.2.) 38. | dav 7, el... éoriv: imply-
ing by the first, perhaps, the manifold de-
vices of human imposture and wickedness,
any of which it might be, (q. d. dt. &y 7
ef avOpar.,) and all of which would equally
come to nought,—and, on the other hand,
the solemnity and fixedness of the divine
purpose, by the indicative, which are also in-
timated, in our text, by the pres. od dbvacGe.
Or perhaps the indicative is used in the
om kat D! (and
. es (“una litera ante er. et quatuor fere ante es
aft Seip. ins avtovs E: c@sis cis D-lat.
rec aft aed, ins avrous, with DEH rel 36 vulg Chr: om ABC.
aft AaAew ins
second place, because that is the case as-
sumed, and on which the advice is founded.
7 BovAy | The wholeplan—the scheme,
of which this €pyov, the fact under your
present cognizance, forms a part. 39. |
The somewhat difficult connexion of pymrote
k. 9. ebp. may be explained,—not by paren-
thesizing 871 aitovs, but by under-
standing ‘ and ye will be obliged to give up
your attempt’ (which thought is contained
in ov dvvac. Kat. avt.), lest ye be, ke.
kat] Opponents not only to them,
but also to God :—‘ even, in E. V., does not
give the sense. As regards Gamaliel’s
advice, we may remark that it was founded
on a view of the issues of events, agreeing
with the fatalism of the Pharisees : that it
betokens no leaning towards Christianity,
nor indeed very much even of worldly wis-
dom ;—but serves to shew how low the su-
preme council of the Jews had sunk both in
their theology and their political sagacity, if
sucha fallacious laissez-aller view of matters
was the counsel of the wisest among them.
It seems certainly, ona closer view, as if they
accepted, from fear of the people (see ver.
26), this opportunity of compromising the
matter, which Gamaliel had designedly af-
forded them. 40. Selpavres | See Deut.
ABCD
EHNab
edfgh
klmo
13
Wis 1,2. IIPAZEIS ATOSTOAQN. 61
Mrs oS , - on 8 ’ 7 °o cae
TEC (ATO TPOCwTOV TOV " GuVEdoLOU, OTI KatnewwOnoav m ch. vii. a5
Cia ki ~ Sie ’ ~ al 4 e ret.
Pumeo tov ’ avouatoc ‘artpacOnvat, 42 T paoav re" nuéoay utes eet
(xxi. 36 v. r.)
2 Thess. i. 5
only. Gen.
XxXxi. 28com:
plut. 2 Macc.
> i e — 3 | Ss ’ > > ts: , ,
Ev TW lEOW Kal KaT OLKOV OUK ET AVOVTO OvoacKovTec
\ ? , ‘ -
Kal “ evayyeAZomevor TOV Xolorov "Inoouv.
> \ ~ cele , , - . 12.
VI. ! Ev & raic nusoae tavtaic * tTAnBuvovtwy TOV F'Mace. iii.
21 (only 2).
~ , / Ww ‘ ~ x? ~ s - |
sh. ix. 16 reff.
padnrev eyevero " yoyyvonog Tay EM nnerev mpog Poh iret
2 ee See od
rove Y EBoatove, ori * rapePewpovvro ev ry * Stakovia ry a Sark i. 4
suKEe XX, .
2 zpockaAgcapevor 8: ot
b 0 ~ e c ~ 5) ~
ka nMEOWy al xneae aUTWY.
ii, 23. Jemesii.6 only. Proy, xxii. 22.
s ch. ii. 46 reff. t ch. xiii. 10 reff.
Exod. i. 20. see ver. 7 reff.
xX ch. ix. 29 (xi. 20 rec.) only t. see 2 Mace. iv. 13.
z here onlyt. Xen. Mem. iv. 8.7, but not =.
bhere only ¢. Judith xii. 15 only.
14. xli. 12.
12, 13 ¢ (1 Macc. xi. 58 only).
41. aft ovy add arocroAo D 180 syr.
w John vii. 12. Phil. ii. 14.
John viii. 49,
Rom. i. 24.
r Jer. xx. 7, 8. see Matt. xxviii. 20. 2 Pet. ii. 8.
u constr., ch. xi. 2U ret. v intrans., here only.
1 Pet. iv. 9 only. Exod. xvi. 7, ¥.
y 2 Cor. xi. 22. Thil. iii. 6 only. Gen. xxxix.
a=ch. xi. 29. 2Cor.ix.),
c ch. ix, 59, 41 reff.
rec um. T. ov. bef katné., with DEH rel
syr Chr Th] Lucif: txt ABCN adh m vulg Syr (coptt) Orig, Thdrt Ambrst, Quest.
rec aft ovou. ins avtov, with ¢ d wth Orig, Lucif; tov kupiov maou Eb f g 2
Thl-sif ; moov k o 13 vulg Thdrt; 7. mo. 36; 7. xpiorov ae h m fuld tol Chr Thdrt,
Thl-fin Ambrst Quest (all plainly shewing the additions to be spurious) : om ABCDHX
syr coptt Ammon-e.
42. for te, 5e D vulg H-lat coptt Lucif. rec ino. bef +. xp., with H rel am
tol Syr copt eth-rom Lucif: imo. xp. KE 65 Chr: 7. kupiov mo. C 13: Tov Kv w, omg
xp.» k: 7. kup. ino. xp. D sah eth-pl: txt ABN 36 fuld syr Bas Cyr-jer (Iren-int).
—(om ver c.)
Cuap. VI. 1. tavtas bef 7. nu. D-gr: for ravt., exewors C3 73 vulg sah.
at end ins ev T7 diakovia Twy eBpaiwy D'(and lat).
2nd t7 D': ins D®,
xxv. 2,—for disobedience to their command.
41. tov dv.| Not ‘this Name’ (as
Beng. and Kuin.), but the Name, kar’
efoxnv, viz. of Christ. So the Heb. ow
is used Levit. xxiv. 11, 16: see reff. and
compare t7s 6600, ch. ix. 2, and Euseb.
H. EH. v. 18, «éxpitar (sc. Alexander) ....
ov bia Td bvoua, GAA BL Gs eTdAUNTE
Anotelas. 42. mwacov 7p.| every
day, not ‘all day long,’ which would be
TAG. THY HK. On kar’ olkoy see note on
ref. Tov xpto. “Ino.| According to
the true reading even more pointedly than
in the rec., tov xpior. is the predicate,
and Inc. the subject: preaching (that)
Jesus (is) the Christ.
Cuap. VI. 1—7.] ELECTION OF SEVEN
PERSONS TO SUPERINTEND THE DISTRIBU-
TION OF ALMS. 1.] 8, in contrast to
the former entire unity of the church : in-
troducing that great and important chapter
in her history of Judaizing divisions, which
from this time onward disquieted her.
év tT. Hp. T.] See ch. i. 15:—but not ne-
cessarily as there, ‘ within a very few days:’
the expression is quite indefinite. Some
time must have elapsed since ch. iv. 32.
“EAAnvict@v— EBpatous] The Hellenists
(from éAAnvife) were the Grecian Jews :
not only those who were themselves prose-
om
lytes, nor only those who came of families
once proselytized,—but all who, on ac-
count of origin or habitation, spoke
Greek as their ordinary language, and
used ordinarily the LXX version.
The Hebrews were the pure Jews, not
necessarily resident in Palestine (e. g.
Paul, who was ‘Efpatos é& ‘EBpaiwv, Phil.
iii. 5. See also 2 Cor. xi. 22),—nor ne-
cessarily of unmixed Jewish descent, else
the ef ‘E8p. would hardly have been an
additional distinction,—but rather distin-
guished by language, as speaking the Syro-
Chaidaic and using the Hebrew Scriptures.
twapeGewpovvto] The use of this ap-
propriate word shews, I think, that Olsh.’s
supposition, that xjpa: implies all their
poor, is not correct. Those poor who could
attend for themselves and represent their
case were served: but the widows, who re-
quired more searching out at their own
houses, were overlooked. And this because
the Apostles, who certainly before this had
the charge of the duty of distribution, being
already too much occupied in the ministry
of the Word to attend personally to it, had
entrusted it apparently to some deputies
among the Hebrews, who had committed
this oversight. For the low estimation in
which the Hellenistic Jews were held by
62 VI.
d = ch. iv. 32.
XVii. 4.
Luke i. 10.
xix. 37 al.
absol., ver. 5.
TIPAZEIZ AMOZTOAQN.
~ ~ ~ Ld , ’ ,
Sweexa ro 2 TAnQ0e Tov pabntov eirav Oux ° apeoTov
~ ~ ~ b
gor Tac ‘ karaAstbavrac roy & Aoyov rov © Qcov ° dta-
viii, O¢ - i k » , * ? g. oe
“th xia. KOvEW | TpaTréZatc. 3K imoxebacbe ovr, ade pot, avepac
my. Ler. 2k Ome | évoue era, " wAnpee ™ rvebmaToc Kal
only. sev.
= 0, oteety., : is say lb Social sii 2 mp M
pe | - Ul , e
"goplac, ove °KaTaotioomey emt THC Pyoeag Travrne
4
here only.
Bary lg : ; ?
5 § Mk., from ~ ~ ~ a
Gen. 24. nace O& TH mpocevyy Kat tH 4 Stakovia Tov doyou
2 Pet. ii. 15. : q
Pe xi.1 reff. h = here only. see Matt. iv.11. Luke x.40. John xii. 2. ae i= — XV. 27.
is : i. 34. 2 Kings ix. 7. (see Matt. xxi. 12 ]. k=hereonly. Ezek. xxxiv.1l. = ox,
Gen, oi 3 cs wed Sch teeth 4 tim. v.10. Heb. Ny 2, 89 t. Qipao.) m ch. vii. 55 reff.
n = Col. iv. 5. oO Matt. xxiv. 44, 47. Luke xii.42. Gen. xli. 33, 41, 43. p —hereonly. 1 Mace. x. 57.
2 Mace. viii. 9. q = ch. xii. 25 reff. see ver. } reff.
2. om Se D!-gr sah: ins D-corr', [errav, so ABC.] aft em. ins mpos
avtous D, eis Syr sah Cypr. nuw CD Thi-fin: txt ABEH rel 36 Bas Mac Mare
Chr Thl-sif.—xaraa. bef nu. E 13. 180. kataAumrovras Ei 5. 13. 40. 180 lect-12.
3. emoxe~opeba B(Mai expr). for ovy, 57 A: d¢ BN: om eth sah Quest: om
adeAp. A 13 wth Bas Mare Orig-int Quest: Ti ovy eat adeApo: emicxeWacba D: txt
CEH rel vss ff. ef uu. avtwy bef avdp. D Mare. rec aft wvevu. ins
ayiov, with A C!-5(appy) EH rel 36 demid sah Bas: om B C?(appy) DX am fuld lux
syr copt Chr Thl-sif-comm. (Zhe omission may have been made to suit ver 10: at
the same time the insertion of ayiov from ver 5 was very obvious, and is the more
probable of the two.)—®' also omits kat.
vulg D-lat E-lat Mare Thl-fin:
av7ns D!: txt D3(?).
4. nu. de ecoueba....
rec katacTnowuey (corrn), with H e 13
txt ABCDER® rel Syr sah wth Bas Chr @e Thl-sif.
‘
mposxaptepouvtes D: sumus and perseveramus D-lat: mpos-
Kaptepnowuevy EH 1 m coptt Ephr Bas Chr Mare Procop.
the Hebrews, see Biscoe, History of the
Acts, pp. 60, 61. év TH Stak. 7. Kad. |
Some have argued from this that there
must have been ‘ deacons’ before: and that
those now elected (see below on their names)
were only for the service of the Hellenistic
Jews. But I should rather believe, with
De Wette and Réthe, that the Apostles
had as yet, by themselves or by non-official
deputies, performed the duty. The d:a-
kovla was the daily distribution of food:
see on ver. 2. 2.) 7d AROS T. p.-—
‘the whole number of disciples in Jeru-
salem :’ summoning a general meeting of
the church. How many they were in
number at the time, is not said. Clearly
the 120 names of ch. i. 15, cannot (Lightf.)
be meant. ovK dpeorov got] ‘non
placet :’ it is not our pleasure: not ‘non
zequum est,’ as Beza, Calv., Kuin., and
others (and E. V.), defending this render-
ing by apeordy being used in the LXX for
the Heb. im: but even there it never sig-
nifies good or right absolutely, but is used
subjectively, with T2P2. ‘in thine eyes :’
see Gen. xvi. 6, ds ky co dpeordy §: also
Deut. xii. 28, 7d dpeordy . . . . evavrloy
xuplov 7. Ocod cov. katakelavras |
For to this it would come, if the Apostles
were to enquire into, and do justice in, every
case of asserted neglect. Stakoveiv
tpaméfais] It is a question whether this
expression import the service of distributing
money (see reff. and Luke xix. 23 al.)—or
that of apportioning the daily public meals.
The latter seems to me most probable, both
on account of the Kadnuepivh above, and
of the usage of d:axovety (see reff.). That
both kinds of tables may be meant, is pos-
sible: but hardly probable. 8. emo.
ovv] The similarity to ref. Gen. seems to
shew that the look ye out of the E. V.
is the right rendering. p-apTupov-
pévous] For this use of the- pass. not
found in the Gospp., compare besides reff.,
Jos. Antt. iii. 2.5, Tov orparnydy *Incoby
eveyxwplate, uaptupobuevov ep’ ofs expat-
ev bm mavtbs Tov otparov—and Mare.
Antonin. vii. 62, cuveyas egiordvat, thyes
cialy obra, bp av paptupeicba Orcs.
érta] Some have supposed a re-
ference to the number of nations of which
the Hellenistic Jews would perhaps be
composed : some, to 7000, to which num-
ber the believers would by this time amount
(Bengel): some, to the mystic number
seven, so common in Jewish writings
(Meyer, De Wette) :—but the best remark
is Lightfoot’s:—‘ quare septem eligendi,
dicat cui est audacia.’ Some present
consideration of convenience probably regu-
lated the number. émi +. xpetas 7. ]
‘super hoe opus,’ Vulg. :—‘ad hune usum,’
Grot.:—‘over this requirement (desidera-
tum),’ Meyer :—but the occurrence of the
very same expression 1 Mace. x. 37, ék
TovTav KaTacrebijcerar emi xpeav Tis
Bacirelas t&v oiady eis riot, seems to
make the sense business (as E. V.), duty,
more probable. The duty (see above) was,
ABCD
EHNab
edfgh
klmo
13
3—6.
5 \ st
" moockaprepnaopey. ars
mavroe TOU " rhnBove, Kal
*aAnpn mior ewe Kat met uarog ayiov, Kal Mirtr7ov Kal
Tlodyopov kat Nixavopa kat Tiwwva Kat Elapeeiaye kat 1»
NixoAaov * moocnAuroy "Avriyéa,
, ~ > , a
WTlLOVY TWV aTvTooroAwy
w ch. xv. 7 ref. x ch. xix. 28 reff.
al. zch. i. 23. iv.7. xxii. 30.
5. aft Aoy. ins ovros D Syr sah eth.
padntewy D. etcActay Tov (sic) &.
mioTews N!. tmpoxwpov Hl.
tiwova C? al.
6. ovto: eotadnoay D-gr Syr sah.
not that of ministering to the Hellenistic
Jews only, but that of superintending the
whole distribution. 4.] 7. Staxovia
vt. Adyou, in opposition to the Siaxovia
tpamre(av. ‘He partes sunt nobilissime,
quas nemo episcopus alteri, quasi ipse ma-
joribus rebus intentus, delegare potest.’
Bengel. ‘Hine apparet non frustra pre-
candi studium commendari verbi minis-
tris.’ Calvin. 5. | miotews,—not in the
lower sense (Kuin.) of ‘truthfulness,—
but in the higher of faith, the root of all
Christian virtues: see ch. xi. 24 (De W.)
Of these seven, Stephen and Philip
(ch. viii. 5, 26, 40; xxi. 8) only are else-
where mentioned. On the idea of Nicolas
having founded the heretical sect of the
Nicolaitanes, Rey. ii. 6, 15 (Lightf. and
Grot. from Iren. adv. Her. i. 26, p. 105,
and Epiph. Her. 25, p. 76), see note ad loc.
From his being called rposjAutov Avrioxéa,
some have argued (Heins.) that he only was
a proselyte, and none of the rest : some (Sal-
masius), that a// were proselytes,—but the
rest, of Jerusalem. But neither inference
seems justified: rather I should say that
the addition simply imports that he became
better known than the rest, from the very
circumstance perhaps of Antioch having
been afterwards so important a spot in the
Christian history(ch.xi.19,note). | These
names are all Greek : but we cannot thence
infer that the seven were all Hellenists :
the Apostles Philip and Andrew bore Greek
names, but were certainly not Hellenists.
There does appear howevey, in the case of
these two Apostles, to have been a con-
nexion with Greeks of some sort, see John
xii. 20—22. Possibly, though ‘Efpazo:,
they may not have been é ‘EBpateov (see
above on ver. 1), but sprung from inter-
marriage with Hellenists. And so these
seven may have been partly ‘“E8paio,
though their names seem to indicate, and
their office would appear to require, that
they were connected with Hellenists, and
TIPAZ EIS AILOSTOAQN.
e ,
nossev 0 Avyoc ™
z ebehécavro Srépavoy aveoa
\ ,
Kal moocevSapevor
y ch. ii. 10. xiii. 43. Matt. xxiii. 15 only. aoe xxi. 48, 49
Nunteea 19, 22.
viravepa BE :
aapueva. D'(txt D-corr? ?).
for kat, oitives D-gr.
63
EvOTLOV og i. 14
8 Matt. xiv. 6.
| Mk. elsw.
Paul (Rom.
viii. 8 reff.).
t Jer. xvii. 4.
1 Macc. viii.
(i ak: , u = Luke xiv.
ouc *Eornoav “eye l0al. Num,
xiii. 34.
Aa BI, 5 Cts, dds
> er eOnxav ref
a = ch, ii. 25 refi. b ch. viii. 17, 12 reff.
aft 7A7@. ins Twv
transpose mveupatos and
Teuwva B'D:
evaytiov C.
mAnpns DX.
vicopa D-gr.
avtioxeay C,
not likely to overlook or disparage them.
The title of ‘deacons’ is nowhere applied
to these seven in Scripture, nor does the
word occur in the Acts at all. In 1 Tim.
ili. 8 ff. there is no absolute identification
of the duties of deacons with those allotted
to these seven, but at the same time no-
thing to imply that they were different.
And évéyxAnrot, ib. ver. 10, at all events
is parallel with our waptupoupevous, ver. 3.
The universal consent of all Christian
writers in regarding this as the institution
of the office of deacons should not be over-
looked : but at the same time we must be
careful not to imagine that we have here
the institution of the ecclesiastical order
sonamed. The distinctness of the two is
stated by Chrysostom, Hom. xiv. p. 115,
érotov 5e dpa atlwua elxov obrot, kal
motav edekavTo xElpoToviay, avarykKatoy pa-
Gciv. Gpa Thy tev Biaxdvwv; Kal phy
TovTO é€v Tats ekKAnolais ovkK €oTiV’ GAAG
TaY mpecBuTépwy éatly 7 oikovouta. ober
obre Siakdvewv, ore mpecBuTépwy olua Td
bvouwa elvat SijAoy Kal pavepdv. GAAG Téws
eis TOUTO exeipoTovndncay. So also Cicu-
menius in loc. : Tovs exAeyevTas eis Siakd-
vous exetpoTdvngay, ov KaTa Toy vov ev
Tas exkAng tats Badudy, GAAG Tov Siave-
pew peta axpiBetas Kal dppavots Kal xh-
pats Ta mpds Siatpopyv. See Suicer sub
voce. But that the subsequent office
of deacon was founded upon this appoint-
ment is very probable. The only one of
these seven who appears in the subsequent
history (ch. xxi. 8) is called @fAurmos 6
evayyeAtoTHs, probably from tke success
granted him as recorded in ch. viii. 12. In
these early days titles sprung out of reali-
ties, and were not yet mere hierarchical
classifications. 6.] éweOyay, viz. the
Apostles. Their office of giving themselves
to prayer is here specially exercised.
The laying on of hands, the earliest men-
tion of which is connected with d/essing
only (Gen. xlviii. 14), was prescribed to
64
c = ch. xi. 1.
d = ch. vii. 17.
xii. Wael
Exod.i.7
e€ as above (d).
ch. xix. 20.
Matt. vi. 28.
Luke i. 8U
al. t trans.,
1 Cor. iii. 6.
f as above (d).
TlOTEL.
IIPAZEIS AMOSTOAQN.
agpe, moAve TE ® OxAog TwWDV ispewr,
WA
rf Vee cg
avrotc Tac ” xEipac. Kato Aoyoe rou ° Ocov ? © nucavev,
“f exAnOovero o aovOnoc TY pabnrey ¢ év ‘TepovoaAnu
OanKovov ° TH
8 Zrépavoc Oe ? whnpnc Xaprroc Kat Suvapews ETOLEL
ch. ix. 31.
1 Pet. i. 2. 1
cere ripara Kal onpueie weyada Ev TW Law. 9! Gviarnoay 0é
gch.i. 14. Luke
. 29. vi. 17.
ick. cau TLVEC TOV EK TC ouvaywync TNC Aeyouévne AtBeotivwv
24.
h = Rom. vi. 16, 17. x. 16 al. Deut. xx. 12. see Rom. i. 5. xvi. 26. i Luke xviii. 8. ch. xiii. 8. 1 Tim. v. 8.
jver. 5. k ch. vii. 36 reff, 1= Luke x. 25. Mark xiv. 57,60. 2 Chron. xiii. 4,6.
7. for @eov, kvptov DE vulg syr Chr: txt ABCH rel. pavOavovTwy E.
for repewy, tovdaiwy Nr € 0.
g vulg Chr.
umnkovoy av (or rather av, Scriv) D!: -ovey AE
8. rec (for xapitos) miotews (corrn from ver 5), with H rel: xapitos x. mot. E:
xapitos Beov eth: txt ABDN k 36 vulg Syr coptt arm Bas Did Nyss Chr Aug.
transp on. and rep. E 40. 96.
aft Aaw add 61a Tov ovowaros Kuptov inoou xp.
D sah Aug; d:a Tov ovouaros Tou Kup. ino. xp. k 133 ev ovowats Tov Kupiov E; 4. 7. ov.
kup. SYT-W rast.
9. xa0 o avert. Twes H: adversus quem &e E-lat.
Moses as the form of conferring office on
Joshua, Num. xxvii. 18, and from that
time was used on such occasions by the
Jews. From its adoption by the Apostles,
it has ever been the practice of the Chris-
tian church in ordaining, or setting apart
her ministers. It was also used by the
Apostles on those who, having been bap-
tized, were to be fully endowed with the
gifts of the Holy Spirit : see ch. viii. INGE
xix. 6, and Heb. vi. 2. 7.) wat (not
‘therefore,’ as Kuin.), and, i. e., on this
measure being completed; as would be
the case, seeing that these seven were not
only servants of tables, but men full of
the Holy Ghost and of wisdom :—and we
soon hear of the part which Stephen bore
inthework. Tots OxA. T. tep€wv | The
number of priests who returned from Ba-
bylon, Ezra ii. 36—39, was 4289: and the
number would probably have much in-
creased since then. No evasion of the his-
torian’s assertion is to be attempted. Ca-
saubon, approved by Beza and Valcknaer,
would read, moAds Te OxAOs, Kal THY lepéwy
(se. Twés) bw.; and Heinsius, Wolf, Kui-
noel, and Elsner attempt # distinction
between dxAos tay fep., ‘sacerdotes ex
plebe,’ and the ‘ sacerdotes docti’ But,
besides that the words will not bear this
meaning, the distinction is one wholly un-
known in the N. T. At this time was
probably the culminating point of popu-
larity of the church at Jerusalem. As yet,
all seemed going on prosperously for the
conversion of Israel. The multitude
honoured the Apostles: the advice of Ga-
maliel had moderated the opposition of the
Sanhedrim: the priests were gradually
being won over. But God’s designs were
far different. At this period another great
om Ist Tov & TOV
element in the testimony of the church is
brought out, in the person of Stephen,—
its protest against Pharisaism. 'This ar-
rays against it that powerful and zealous
sect, and henceforward it finds neither
favour nor tolerance with either of the
parties among the Jews, but increasing
and bitter enmity from them both.
8—Cu. VII. 60.] THE accuUsATION,
DEFENCE, AND MARTYRDOM OF STEPHEN.
8.]| This is the first instance of any,
not an Apostle, working signs and won-
ders. The power was perhaps conferred
by the laying on of the Apostles’ hands ;
though, that having been for a special pur-
pose merely, and the working miracles
being a fulfilment of the promise, Mark xvi.
17, 18, to all believers, I should rather refer
the power to the eminence of Stephen’s
faith. Xapitos, divine grace (not
‘favour with the people’): the effects of
which, the miracles, were called yaptopata.
9.] AvBeptivey is rightly explained
by Chrysostom: of “Papalwy amedetOepor.
Philo, Legat. ad Caium, § 23, vol. ii. p. 568,
speaks of riv mépay Tov TiBépews moTauovd
MeyaAny Tis ‘Paéuns amorouhy .... kaTEexXo-
hévny Kal oikovuévny mpds “lovdalwy, and
adds, ‘Pwuator 5¢ Foay of wAclovs areAcvOe-
pwlevres* aixuddAwTor yap axOévres eis
*IraAlay, b4d TaY KTNTAaMEvwv HAEvOEpd-
Onoav, ovdty tay matplwy mapaxapata
Biacbévtes (p. 1014, Potter). Tacitus, Ann.
ii. 85 (A.D. 19), relates, ‘ Actum et de sacris
AMgyptiis Judaicisque pellendis: factum-
que Patrum consultum, ut quatuor millia
libertini generis, ea superstitione infecta,
queis idonea étas, in insulam Sardiniam
veherentur .... caeteri cederent Italia, nisi
certam ante diem profanos ritus exuissent.’
In this Josephus agrees, Antt. xviii. 3. 5,
+ ogo C,
C ves...
ABCD
EHX ab
edfgh
klmo
13
7—12.
IIPAZEIS AMOSTOAQN.
65
\ ~ es
kat Kvenvaiwy kat ‘AdsEavdoéwy kat tov “amo Kidtxtac ™5 ei
1? ’ n ~ - , Vi £9 y
cat. Aciac " cuvZnrovuvtec TW Lrepavyy, 10 kat ovK ° io voy
Pp
“ uréBaXov avooac * Néyovrac Ort aknkoamey avrov * \a-
Aovvroc ‘ pnuara * Braopnua “ete Mwvony kat rov Ocov,
12
‘ ~ \ > , , Seat
TOUC yeoauwuaretc, Kal * STLOTAVTEC * cuynoTacay auTOv
q = Lukei.17 al. Dan. vi. 3.
v. 10. 4.
nu =2 Pet. ii. 11.
v constr., Mark iii. 24.
Luke xx. 1. Zech. i. 10, 11.
2 Mace. ici. 27. iv. 41 only.
Rev. xiii. 5 onlyt. (1 Tim. i.
Aeyouevwv AX k coptt’Chr-mss.
[ovv(nr., so AB'CDEN. }
10. for kat, orrwwes ove D: om kau sah.
? - a U \ = q ? CANES ll ,
2 VTLOTYVAL ™) copia Kal TW TVEVMATL 0) eAaAe. TOTE
w , , \ N \ N 1 \
OUVEKLYNOAV TE TOV Aaov Kal TOUC pea Purépouc Kal
r here only t.
s constr, ch. xv. 27, 2 Pet. ii. 4. Winer, edn. 6, § 45.
13. 2 Tim. iii. 2 only.
2 Mace. viii.4 Bel and Dr. 9 Theod.
ych. xix. 29, xxvii. 15. Luke viii. 29 only. Proy. vi. 25.
n and constr.,
Mark viii. 11.
ix. 14t. w.
m™pos, ch, jx.
2y.
o = Matt. viii.
28. ch. xv. 10.
Xxv.7 al.
Isa. 1. 2.
p Malt. v, 39.
ch, xiii. 8.
Rom. ix. 19.
xiii. 2. Lev.
XXVi. 37.
Job xii. 2.
Josh. xxiii. 4 Symm. so Ut0fAnTos, Jos. B. J.
d. 1. tch. xi. 14 refi.
Isa. 1xvi. 3 only, Wisd. i. 6 al.)
w here only ¢. x absol.,
om kat acias AD'(and lat: ins D2).
TN Top. TN OVO EV QAUTW K. TW TY. TW
ayiw w ehadet, dia TO eAeyXETIat avTous (Sot: eAcyXovTO E) um (er D!: um D2) avrov
HETA Tagns Tappnotas’ un Svvauevor ovy (ov D!) avtopdadpery (emidy ove nduvayto ayTi-
Aeyw E) tm adndea DE: simly from dia To eAeyx. am? syr-marg.
ll. Aeyovtes AX, so probably D'.
BAacpnuras D-gr X!(but corrd) 137 vule.
12. ins kat Tava evmovtes bef cuver. Te E.
relating a story as one of its causes, in
which Ida, a freedwoman, was the agent of
the mischief. Here then we have abundant
reason for numbers of these Jews ‘libertini
generis ’ having come to Jerusalem, being
among the ceteri who were ordered to quit
Italy : and what place so likely a refuge for
Jews as Jerusalem ? Those who find
a difficulty in this interpretation suppose
them to have been inhabitants of Libertum,
a town in. Africa propria, or proconsularis,
from which we find an episcopus Liberti-
nensis sitting in the synod of Carthage in
411 (so Suidas, A:Beprivo:, bvoua e6vous,
—Schleusn., al.); or conjecture AiBvotivwy
to have been the true reading (so the Arm.
version, Libyorum, Cicum., Lyra, Beza,
Le Clere, al.),—or even A:Biwy 7év Kata
Kupjvnv (Schulthess) ;—or suppose them
(Lightf.) to have been freedmen from Jew-
ish servitude,—or Italian freedmen, who
had become proselytes. (The Arabic ver-
sion given in the Paris polyglott curiously
renders it Corinthiorum.) But none of
these suppositions will bear examination,
and the best interpretation is the usual one
—that they were the descendants of Jewish
freedman at Rome, who had been expelled
by Tiberius. ‘There is no difficulty in their
having had a synagogue of their own: for
there were 460 or 480 synagogues at Jeru-
salem (Vitringa, Synag. p. 256. Lightf.,
Meyer). Kvpyvatev | See ch. ii. 10,
note. *AdeEavdpewv | Two of the five
regions of Alexandria were inhabited byJ ews
(see Jos. Antt. xiv. 7. 2, 10.1; xix. 5.2 al.).
it was also the seat of the learning and
philosophy of the Grecian Jews, which was
Vou. II.
for AaAouyTos, Aeyovtos XN). ae
om 2nd tous C! k. om emoray-
now at its height. This metropolis of the
Hellenists would certainly have a synagogue
in Jerusalem. I understand three distinct
synagogues to be meant, notwithstanding
the somewhat equivocal construction,—and
Aeyouévns only to apply to the unusual
term A:Beprivwy. Tov amo K.] It
seems doubtful whether this genitive also
depends on cuvaywyjs. At first sight it
would seem not, from the repetition of
Tov, answering to the tév before. But
then we must remember, that as Kupyvalwy
and ’AAcéavopewy both belong to towns,
and towns well known as the residences of
Jews, a change of designation would be
necessary when the Jews of whole pro-
vinces came to be mentioned, and the
syuagogue would not be called that of the
Kiduces or ’Aciavot (ch. xx. 4), but that of
ot amd K. k.’A.:—and, this being the case,
the article could not but be repeated, with-
out any reference to the tév before.
Cilicia was at this time a Roman province,
the capital being the free city of Tarsus, see
note on ch. ix. 11. Asia,—not exactly
as in ch. ii. 9, where it is distinguished from
Phrygia,—here and usually in the Acts
implies Asia proconsularis, a large and im-
portant Roman province, including Mysia,
Lydia, Caria, and Phrygia—known also as
Asia cis Taurum. 11.] Neander well.
remarks (Pil. u. Leit., p. 81 ff.) that this
false charge, coupled with the character of
Stephen’s apologetic speech, shews the real
character of his arguments with his oppo-
nents :—that he seems to have been the first
who plainly set forth the transitory nature
of the law and temple, as compared with
66 TIPAZEIS AMOZTOAQN. VI. 138—15.
= . \w , \ 2 BS 13 a’ , ,
Sapte tek, Kat nyayov él¢ TO GuVECpLOY, EoTHOaY TE HaoTUOAC
r. 6. = / e ” 7 ? c ,
b Rev. ii. 2. : Wevdeic AEyovrac O avlowmoc OUTOC OU TavEeTal
xxi. 8 only. is
Prov. xxiv.
82 (xxx. #).
see 1 Cor. xv.
14,
c and constr.,
~ d 4 ~e , a aOuke ay ‘
pnuara : AaXov KaTa TOU TOTOU TOU aytou Kat TOU
14
, ? , N , - , 7 | - €
vOHMOU. aknKOaMEV yao auTOu Aéyovtoc OTL ynaovg O
‘
mee - ? f | , , - \
ad NaZwoatocg ovtocgc KatadAvoel TOV TOTOVY TOUTOY Kal
= Matt. v. 11. ? s s hy ue | , GS = 15 \
xi Bo "8 arXdaca ta *£0n a * rapsdwKev macy Mwuvonc. Kat
e Matt. xxiv. 4 ' , > A e e , =
= ae arevica VTEG ELC AUTOV ATAVTEC OL Ka OeZouevot gv TW
on 3
ane e 5 \ , > ~ e¢ \ , ? U
fo Matt, . ouvedolw ELOOV TO TWOOCWTOYV AUTOV WCEL TOOCWTOV ayyé-
xx vi. 61 |. = ‘ec is << mp’ —m ~ oe
Heat v- 3 Aov. VII. | ime Oe 0 apylépeuc Eu [ apa | TavTa OVUTWC
Zra V. 12. ]
Cor. 51, 5: ; h = Lukei. 9. ii. 42. ch. xv. 1. xxi. 21 al. Luke only, exc. John xix. 4”.
oi Heb. x. Ost. aes xi. 25. : i = 1 Cor. ei oe 23. 2 Pet. ii. 21. Jude 3. k ch. i. 10 reff.
1 Matt. xxvi.55. Luke ii. 46. John iv. 6, xi. 20. xx. 12. ch. xx.Qonly. Ley. xii.5. Job xxxix.27. Ezek. xxvi.
16 only, m ch. viii. 22 reff. nch. xii. 15. xvii. 11. xxiv. ¥.
Tes Ni. aft nyayov ins avtov A e Syr syr-w-ob coptt. .
18. kat ect. D: eot. 5c H13.40. 96 E-lat copt. aft Wevd. ins kata(kat D-corr)
avtov I). AevyorTes &. out. bef o av#p. C some-vss Chr Thl. rec aft pnu.
ins BAaopnua (insertion from ver 11), with EH (k) 36 lux eth arm Procl, Thl: om
ABCDX rel vulg syrr coptt.—kata Tt. Tom. T. ayiov kK. T. vowov AaAwy pnu. BAacd. k 13
Chr Procl,. Aad. bef pnu. BCR (k) vulg syrr coptt Procl: txt ADEH rel Chr Thl.
rec aft ay. ins Tovtou (to agree with ver 14: or perhaps because the meeting of
the Sanhedrim seemed to have been in a part of the temple), with BC 18 rel 36 tol
syrr sah Chr Thl-fin: bef, k: om ADEHXN a bcefh1o vulg copt «th arm Nyss-ms
Chr comm Damase Thi-sif.
15. nrevi(ov Se avtw D!-gr: txt D?(and lat): om es N!: ins N-corr!. for
anavtes, mavtes ABCD?EX! ¢ Thl-sif: om 18: txt (see proleg) D'H rel Chr Ge Thl-
fin. kabnuevar D c 137. 180. aft ayy. ins ectwros ev wecw avtwy D:
Tov Qeov wth sah.
Cap. VIT. 1. aft apy. ins tw orepayw DE tol.
36: ins DEH rel Chr Thl Ge: enim E-lat : not expressed in vulg D-lat.
the permanence of the latter and better co-
venant, thus being in a remarkable manner
the forerunner of St. Paul. 12.] tov
haoy, first,—that by means of the popular
feeling they might act upon the mpeo®. x.
yp-, the members of the Sanhedrim.
émuotavtes | The same persons,—acting
now by the authority of the Sanhedrim ;
Saul, among of amd KiArklas, being, as
is afterwards (ch. vii. 58) implied, among
the foremost,—came upon him (see reff.),
and seized him. 13. evdeis| The
falsehood of their witness consisted, as in
the similar case of our Lord, in taking
Stephen’s words out of their context, and
misrepresenting what perhaps, totidem ver-
bis, he had actually said. Tov TérT.
tT. ay.] The temple, see reff. 14.] We
may either take the words thus, &7: Inaovs
56 Na(wpatos, obtos xar., ‘that Jesus of
N., he it is who shall destroy’... . (see
ch. vii. 835; 1 Cor. vi. 4),—or étt "Inoods,
6 Na{wpaios obros, kar., ‘that Jesus, this
Nazarene, shall destroy... .,’—or, which
seems by far the best, take the whole to-
gether, that this Jesus of N. shall destroy,
as in E. V. Compare 6 Madaos odtos, ch,
xix. 26. 15.| It is a question with re-
gard to this verse, Does it relate any super-
om apa (as unnecessary) ABC
touvto D.
natural appearance, glorifying the face of
Stephen,—or merely describe the calm and
holy aspect with which he stood before the
council? The majority of Commentators
suppose the latter: and certainly the fore-
going description of Stephen would lead us
to infer, that there was something remark-
ably striking in his appearance and de-
meanour, which overawed his adversaries.
But both from the plain language of our
text, well understood among the Jews to
signify supernatural brightness (see exam-
ples in Wetstein), and from the fact that in
Luke’s own narrative we have supernatural
brightness associated with angelic appear-
ances more than once (see Luke ii. 9; ch.
xii. 7), I should be inclined to think that the
face of the martyr was lighted up with a di-
vine radiance. That the effect on those pre-
sent was not such asto prevent the examina-
tion proceeding, is no argument against this
view : in the very mildness of the question
of the H. P. which follows, I see the trace
of some unusual incident exercising an in-
fluence over him. Chrysostom (who does
not, however, seem to adopt the above in-
terpretation, his todT0 «ad 7 Sdta Mwucéws
being apparently only rhetorical) explains
well the effect on the council: émlxyapw
ABCD
EHNab
cedfgh
kimo
iT AL, 2:
TIPAZ EIS AIOSTOAQN.
67
w e a f ? \ \ ’
. EXEL; 2 6 08 Eon “Avooec adsA pot Kal TATEDEC, akovuaTE, ohereonly. Ps.
0° Ode rhe ° ddéne P woOn TW Tarot Newv VABoadu
Pp ch. ii. 3 reff.
21 only.
2. adeAgy (sic) D!-gr: txt D?.
3 avToy Sore? wor morjoa Toy Gedy, TAXG,
eel EucdAe TW epeiv, Kad iva edOéws TH
mposdet Katamdhin adtovs. eat. ydp,
éott Kal mpdswra xdpitos yéuovta mvev-
Hatikis erépaota Tois moOovow civat, Kad
aid€oua Tots uicodar kad poBepd. 7 Kab
ws aitlay TovTo elmev, 80 hy jvérxovto Tis
dnunyoplas aitov. tl dal 6 apxiepeds;...
Opds mais meta emtekelas 7 epotnats Kah
ovdty Téws poptixdy €xovea; In Act. Homil.
xv. p. 120. Cuap. VII. 1.] Qn the
H. P.’s question, see Chrys. just quoted.
It is parallel with Matt. xxvi. 62, but
singularly distinguished from that question
by its mildness: see above. 2—53. }
STEPHEN’S DEFENCE. In order to under-
stand this wonderful and somewhat diffi-
cult speech, it will be well to bear in
mind, (1) that the general character of it
is apologetic, referring to the charge made
against him: but (2) that in this apology,
forgetting himself in the vast subject
which he is vindicating, he every where
mixes in the polemic and didactic element.
A general synopsis of it may be thus given:
(1) He shews (apologetically) that, so far
from dishonouring Moses or God, he be-
lieves and holds in mind God’s dealings
with Abraham and Moses, and grounds
upon them his preaching ; that, so far from
dishonouring the temple, he bears in mind
its history and the sayings of the prophets
respecting it; and he is proceeding,—when
(interrupted by their murmurs or inatten-
tion ? but see note, ver. 51) he bursts forth
into a holy vehemence of invective against
their rejection of God, which provokes his
tumultuary expulsion from the council, and
execution. (2) But simultaneously and
parallel with this apologetic procedure, he
also proceeds didactically, shewing them
that a future Prophet was pointed out by
Moses as the final Lawgiver of God’s
people,—that the Most High had revealed
His spiritual and heavenly nature by the
prophets, and did not dwell in temples
made with hands. And (38) even more re-
markably still does the polemic element run
through the speech. “ I¢is not I, but you,
who from the first times till now have re-
jected and spoken against God.” And this
element, just appearing ver. 9, and again
more plainly vv. 25—28, and again more
pointedly still in ver. 35, becomes dominant
in vv. 39—44, and finally prevails, to the
exclusion of the apologetic and didactic, in
q Luke i. 73. (xvi. 24, 30.) John viii. 39, 53 (56).
XXVili. 3. see
1 Cor. ii. 8.
Heb. ix. 5.
Ps, ¥xiii.7, 9.
Rom. iv. (1) 12, 16. James ii.
vv. 51—53. That other connected pur-
poses have been discovered in the speech,
as e. g. that so ably followed out by Chrys.
Hom. xv.—xvii. (similarly Grot. and Calv.),
of shewing that the covenant and promises
were before the law, and sacrifice and the
law before the temple,—is to be attributed
to the wonderful depth of words uttered
like these under the immediate inspiration
of the Holy Spirit, presenting to us, from
whichever side they are viewed, new and
inimitable hues of heavenly wisdom. Many
of these will be brought out as we advance.
The question, from what probable
source Luke derived his report of this
speech, so peculiar in its character and cita-
tions as to bear, even to the most prejudiced,
decisive evidence of authenticity, can be
only conjecturally answered: but in this
case the conjecture can hardly be wrong.
I have discussed the point in the Prolegg. to
this vol. ch. i. § ii. 12 (a). Another ques-
tion has been, in what language the speech
was delivered. (1) It isa hardly disputable
inference from ch. vi. 9, that Stephen was
a Hellenist: (2) his citations and quasi-
citations for the most part agree with the
LXX version. Hence it seems most pro-
bable that he spoke in Greek, which was
almost universally understood in Jerusalem.
If he spoke in Hebrew (Syro-Chaldaic),
then either those passages where the LXX
varies from the Hebrew text (see below)
must owe their insertion in that shape to
some Greek narrator or to Luke him-
self,—or Stephen must have, in speaking,
translated them, thus varying, into He-
brew: either supposition being in the high-
est degree improbable. 2. avdp. a8.
k. wat.| So Paul, ch. xxii. 1, before a
mixed assembly of Jews. The Gv8p. a6.
would embrace all: the wat. would be a
title of respect to the members of the San-
hedrim, in this case, but hardly in ch.
xxiv i. 6 Ged 7. S6Ens | Not = Oeds
évSotos, but the God of (i. e. who possesses
and manifests Himself by) Glory, viz. the
Shechinah, see Exod. xxiv. 16, 17, and ver.
55. The words t@ twatpt Hpav decide
nothing as to Stephen’s genuine Hebrew ex-
traction. Any Jew would thus speak.
O0y .... mplv F Kat. ait. év Xap.] This
was the Jewish tradition, though not as-
serted in Genesis. Thus Philo (de Abrah.
§ 15 end, vol. ii. p. 12), having paraphrased
the divine command, says, 61a tovto Thy
F 2
68
r Matt. i. 18.
Mark xiv. 30.
ch. ii. 20.
Isa. vii. 15.
s GEN. xii. 1.
t Lukei. 61.
ver. 14 only.
Exod. xii. 21.
Job xxxii. 2.
” ,
av ool detew.
u ver. 34 (from ’ Ree
Exod.ii.10). GEV EV Xappav.
Matt. xix. E
2Lf. John xi. 43. Rom.i.13. Rev. xvii. 1. xxi. 9 only.
IIPAZEIS AMOSTOAQN.
Wil.
byte ev ty Mecororapia * tow ) KaToiKynoat avrov ev
Xappayr, 3 kal eimev mpoc auto “”REedOe Ex THC yne cov
Kal [ex | Tne ‘ouyyevelac cou, kat " deupo ele THY yn nv
4 Tore e€ehPav ex yng Xaddaiwv KaTwKn-
kaxeWev ‘pera ro amofavety tov matéoa
veh xix. 21 reff.
xappa E m2(Aug): xapa m!: xapav D-gr vulg(not am demid fuld &c).
8. for 1st ex, aro D': txt D%, de D-lat.
(so xx) ACEHR® rel 36 vss Thl-fin Iren-int Aug.
Kal €k Tov olKov Tov Tatpos gov EH} 65. 67 Aug.
om 2nd ex BD-gr sah Thl-sif: ins
aft cuyy. gov ins (from 1xx)
aft Sevpo ins ex D!. rec om
tnv (perhaps an error owing to similarity of endings: perhaps an attempt to render
ynv more indefinite), with H rel 86 Chr Thl: ins ABCDEX.
Kat katwxnoeyv D'(and lat).
for kakeev, rarer nv, insg kat bef wetwx., D'
4. aft tore ins aBpaau D Syr.
efmo Thl: om 65. 67: em 13.
mpoTny aroklay ard THs Xaddalwy yas eis
tiv Xappatwy AéyeTrat woretcOar. But he
accurately distinguishes between the Ady:ov
which he obeyed in leaving Chaldea, and
the eds &POn afterwards, adding a reason
after his manner, why God could not be
seen nor apprehended by him while he was
yet xaddai(wy and an astrologer, The
fact of his having left Ur by some divine
intimation is plainly stated in Gen. xv. 7,
and referred to in Neh. ix.7. It was surely
both natural and allowable to express this
first command in the well-known words of
the second. But we can hardly suppose
that Stephen adopted the pluperfect ren-
dering of oN») in Gen. xii. 1, as the LXX
has elrev. (Josephus, ordinarily cited as
relating the same tradition, throws, as he
often does, the whole history into confusion,
saying, it is true, Antt. i. 7.1, catadelmrer
7. Xaddalav... Tov Beod KeAevoavTos eis
Thy Xavavalav petedOety, but omitting
entirely the sojourn in Haran, and connect-
ing the migration with an outbreak of the
Chaldeans against him for teaching the
worship of the true God.) Xappav] So
the LXX for y7, Gen. xi. 31, &e.; 4 Kings
xix. 12; Ezek. xxvii. 23,—Kadppac ijs
Meoororaulas, Herodian iv. 13 (Ptol. v.
18.12. Strabo, xvi. p. 747),—* Carras cade
Crassi nobiles,’ Plin. v. 24,—* Miserando
funere Crassus Assyrias Latio maculavit
sanguine Carras,’ Lucan i. 104. It lay
on an ancient road, in a large plain sur-
rounded by mountains; it was still a
great city in the days of the Arabian
caliphs. See Winer, RWB. 4. pera
76 amwo8aveiy Tov Tat. avt.| In Gen. xi.
26, we read that Terah lived 70 years
and begot Abram, Nahor, and Haran ;
in xi. 82, that Terah lived 205 years, and
died in Haran; and in xii. 4, that Abram
was 75 years old when he left Haran.
Since then cir. 70 + 75 = cir. 145, Terah
must have lived cir. 60 years in Haran
after Abram’s departure. It seems
eay RN}.
for ev, ess H
evident, that the Jewish chronology,
which Stephen follows, was at fault here,
owing to the circumstance of Terah’s
death being mentioned Gen. xi. 32, before
the command to Abram to leave Haran ;—
it not having been observed that the men-
tion is anticipatory. And this is confirmed
by Philo having fallen into the same mis-
take, de Migr. Abrah. § 32, vol. i. p. 464,
mpdorepoy mey ex THs Xaddaikjs avactas ys
"ABpadu @anoev cis Xappav’ TeNevTHTav-
Tos S€ avTov Tov TaTpos exec Kal ek Tav-
THs meTaviatatat. It isobservable that the
Samaritan Pentateuch in Gen. xi. 32, for
205, reads 145, which has most probably
been an alteration to remove the apparent
inconsistency. The subterfuge of under-
standing the spiritual death of Terah, who
is, as a further hypothesis, supposed to
have relapsed into idolatry at Haran, ap-
pears to have originated with the Rabbis
(see Kuinoel ad loc. and Lightf. Hor.
Heb.) on discovering that their tradition
was at variance with the sacred chronology.
They have not been without followers in
modern Christendom. It is truly lament-
able to see the great Bengel, warped by the
unworthy effort of squaring at all hazards,
the letter of God’s word in such matters,
write thus: ‘Abram, dum Thara vixit in
Haran, domum quodammodo paternam ha-
buit in Haran, in terra Canaan duntaxat
peregrinum agens; mortuo autem patre,
plane in terra Canaan domum unice habere
cepit. (This alteration of relation zz the
land being expressed by pet@kioev adrdv
eis!) The way in which the difficulty has
been met by Dr. Wordsworth and others,
viz. that we have no right to assume that
Abram was born when Terah was 70, but
may regard him as the youngest son, would
leave us in this equally unsatisfactory posi-
tion:—Terah, in the course of nature,
begets his son Abram at 130 (205—75):
yet this very son Abram regards it as in-
credible that he himself should beget a son
«ee pOS
avrov d.
ABCD
EHNab
efgh
klmo
13
3—8.
b ~ Ww , SLs ’ < - , x ?” a € =
QuTOU MET WKLOEV auTov &C T1I)V yuyv TAaUTHV éi¢ NV UMLELE
MPAZEIS AIMOSTOAQN.
69
w ver. 43 only.
1 Chron. vill.
-~ x : - \ , DANY > ~- / 5. (- (
pov *Karotkeire, > Kal ovK Eowkev avtw * kAnoovontay Sates.
» Sa yO z - 80 = Aa / ae = 11.) «3 6S
EV QUTY, OUOE na Toooc’ Kal emny yétAaTo Souvat * Matt. ii. 28.
> ~ be? c , SeeUN \ - d , ? = 2 Chron xix.
auTw eg KaTaoXEGlY auTyny Kal TW OTEPMATL AVTOV arat. 3
e ’ ey > ” > ’ 62,2 \ y= Heb. xi. 8.
fer avTOY, OUK OVTOC AUTW TEKVOU. tAaAnosv OE | Josh. xiii. 14.
eo e , e a x
voutwe 0 Oedc, OT EaTat TO
Ct g ? ’ A
yv adXorpia, Kat
» -,
Ern TeToaKoola.
k eg tal) P
KoWw Eye,
\ 1) , ' ? = , ,
Kal aT pEVTOVGLY pol Ev TW TOTW TOUTW.
d Rom. ix. 7 reff. ech. xiii 25 reff.
g Rom. xiv. 4 reff h Rom. vi. 18, 22.
Gen. |. c. Wisd. xix. 14.
13 only. Exod. v.22 al.
(and lat: kaxede D*).
aft KaTotk.
aves Git cia few ,
oTEOMa auTou TAOOLKOYV Ev_
h 8 x i eS Aes
ovAWwcovoltv auTO Kal
T Kat tO voc @
ose
e 0 a z \ a ~ ’ ,
o Ueoc ElmeVv, KAL META TauTa e&eAevoovTal
c
1 Cor. vii. 15. ix. 14.
1 Mace. viil. 11 only. i
k =1 Cor. xi. 31, 32.
10 (from Deut. vi. 13). ver. 42. ch. xxiv.14, Rom. i. 9 al.
petorkynoev D!
ins Kat ot matepes nuwy DE syr-w-ast Aug, but for nuwv, vuwy E
z — here only.
eut. ii. 5.
s, .
1 KaKWOOUGIY a GeX. xiii. 15.
pret , constr , Mark
gav SovAgvaovely 4, = Static xiii.
gy. xiv. Val.
GEN. xvii. 8.
ver. 45 only.
Y 198 2.
8 kat EOwKEy Nam =x
Eph. ii. 19. 1 Pet. ii. 11 only. Gen. xv. 15.
Gal.iv. 3. ‘Tit. ii.3. 2 Pet. ii. 19 only.
i ver. 19. ch. xii. 1. xiv. 2. xviii.10. 1 Pet. iil.
Rev. xviii. 8. xix. 2. Gen. l.c. 1 Matt. iv.
Exon, iii. 12. (-peca, Rom. ix. 4.)
f ver. 29.
= txb) D2. aft avr. ins o Oeos EK Syr.
Aug; D adds further o: rpo nuwr, syr-w-ast o1 ™po up.
5. for 2nd cat, aAA D am &e sah Iren-int : txt ABCEHR rel fuld syrr
rec avtw bef Sovva: (with none of our
—Sovvar avtTny eis Kataox. avtTw AEN a hk 18.
: avtw ouvtws b 49. 96 Ath.
for avrov, cou &.
ins auto C vss Thl-sif-comm ; avtw 13.— kar
6. for ovtws, avrw H'® k
D Iren-int : Aeyav mp. avtoy Syr.
coptt wth: avTw e 13. aft Kakwo.
auto kK. Sova. K.
%. ro de Ce 120 sah eth-pl.
cwow (corrn to suit Lxx), with BEHR® rel vulg
DEH rel 36 vss Chr Thl Iren-int: txt ABCR.
rec evrev bef o @., with
efeA. ins exerdev E. Aatpevowow ClE.
at 99 (Gen. xvii. 1, 17); and on the fact
of the birth of Isaac being out of the
course of nature, most important Serip-
tural arguments and consequences are
founded, ef. Rom. iv. 17—21, Heb. xi. 11,
12. Wemay fairly leave these Commenta-
tors with their new difficulty: only re-
marking for our instruction, how sure those
are to plunge into hopeless confusion, who,
from motives however good, once begin to
handle the word of God deceitfully. eT.
avr. eis] In these words Stephen clearly
recognizes the second command, to migrate
from Haran to Canaan: and as clearly
therefore made no mistake in ver. 2, but
applied the expressed words of the second
command to the first injunction, the Adyov
of Philo. 5. ov« éwxev| There is
no occasion here to wrest our text in order
to produce accordance with the history.
The field which Abraham bought for the
burial of his dead surely did not come
under the description of KAnpovouia, nor
give him any standing as a possessor in the
land. To avoid this seeming inconsistency,
Schéttgen and Bengel lay astress on ZOwicev,
“agrum illum... . non ex donatione divina
accepit Abraham, sed emit, ipsa emtione
peregrinum eum esse docente’ (Bengel).
av BD: txt ACEHR rel Chr.
copt Chr Thl.
mss): txt ABCDEH bc efg 1mo Thl.
for last avrw, avrov C.
aft o @. ins mpos avTOV
for avto, avtous D vulg
rec dovAeu-
Chr : txt AC D-gr syrr coptt Iren-int.
aft
Kuinoel and Olshausen take’ od« for ofr.
nat before éernyy. is not ‘yet’
(Beza), nor is ernyy- to be construed
pluperfect (id.); and he promised is the
simple rendering of the words, and the
right one. The following xat is by Kuin.
rendered ‘nimirum :? but again it is only
the simple copula, 7y. 6, 7.] A
free citation from the LXX, with the words
kal AaTp. mor ev T. TOT. tovTw adapted
and added from Exod. iii. 12. The shifts
of some Commentators to avoid this plain
fact are not worth recounting: but again,
the student who would not handle the
word of God deceitfully should be here
and every where on his guard against
them. The round number, 400 years,
given here and Gen. 1. ¢., is further spe-
cified Exod. xii. 40 as 430. (See Gal.
iii. 17, and note.) 7.] 6 Oeds cimev
is inserted by Stephen in passing from the
narrative form (7d om. abrov) into the
direct (p. &y®). 8.] On the institu-
tion of circumcision, it is called a d:a0HKn,
Gen. xvii. 10, and the immediate promise of
that covenant was déo0w cor kK. T@ omeppatl
gov peta oe Thy “yay hy mapoikels, TATAY
Thy yiv Xavaav eis KaTdoxeoty aidviov"
Kad Zcouat avtors els Oedy, id. ver. 8.
70 IIPAZEIS AMOZSTOAQN. VII.
sss og ’ ~” «ma rd n a. ‘io e ae af) ‘
m = chili. 25. qur@ ctabnkny “ repitrounc’ Kat ° ovTwe eyErvnoeY TOV
ed. » 4
rid. xix. 5. ” ‘ ‘ 0 358 a et ote | , \
nicorwiis Loaak Kat * meotéreuey avTov Ty NMEeoa TH oyoon, Kat
reff. , ‘ N ? , We) nN ‘ , q
o=Romv.12 Toaak tov laxk@B, Kat ‘TaxoB rove swdexa 4 rato-
ref.
ii \ e 3 i¢ s , ‘
a oer aoxac. 9 kal ot 1‘ raro.apyat "CnAwoartec tov lwonp
xxi. 4. Ft aay ’ o s Seat, € = t _ 2 cae
ret amréoovTo ELC Atyumrov Kal 34V oO Oeoc MET QuTOU
¢ vil.
© ‘ ay > is: Ai ’ - ~ v , ,’ os.
ony. Lehron. 10 eat " ecitkato avrov ex Ttacwy tav * OAtbewv avrov,
Xxvii. 22. ow > - , \ ’ x? ’ ‘
Fase eye Kal EOWKED auTW : Kap Kal copiav EvavTlov Papaw
or. alge > , \ A 3 4 ane ?
4 gamesiv. Bagtkéwe Avytvmrov, Kat ” katéotnoev avtov * nyounevoy
xxxvii. ll. ’ / 1 of ‘ *. > -~ =
sacha. 8 Yew’ Alyuttov cat oAov tov “otkov avrov. 1 AOev
eb. Xi.
of \ x ‘ \
al oe > Amoc Ep oAnv thy Atyumrov Kat Xavaav kat
36
* OdnY an, Kal ovy °nvoiKov “ yopracpata oi
t ch. x. 38 reff. pig = peEyaan, t xX nvo Xp b
GEN. XxXix. 2 ‘ Re 12
untersa.ch. TATEDEC NMWY.
ii. 11. xxiii. , i? / ‘ e , iss Need se “¥
yexxv.i7. Alyumroy *e&aréateXev trove * matéoac “ nuwy towror,
(Mart ¥. 2”. 13 cat® ev rw * Seutéow | aveyvw iaOn Twond TOIC adeA poic
sh Me a t P% D4 Pp s 3 2 * :
xod. iii. 8. - m ,
yRom.v.sref. AUTOU, Kat ™ daveoov “eyévero Tw Dapaw To ” yEvog
w —ch. ii. 47
reff. GEN. Twond. 14 Grooreiac 8 "lwong ° wetekadéoaro tg
REMIX. 2)
> , es ‘ f » Ps ee Se
akovoac oe laxwpB ovTa : oOlTlta =&lC
x Mark ii. 12. ‘ bs t ? - \ - ‘ p ,
Lokei. 6. xx. KW TOV TaTEPAa auToOvU, Kat Taoav THv ouyyevetayv
26. xxiv. 19.
ch. viii. 32 only. Gen. vi. 8. y Luke xii. 14. vv. 27,35. Heb. vii. 28. Grn. xli. 41. _ 2= Matt.
ii.6. Luke xxii. 26. Heb. xiii.7,17, 24. Deut. i. 15. a ~=ch_ x. 2 reff. b Luke iv. 25. xv. 14.
GEN. xi. 54. c = Lukeix.12. [Rom.iy.1.] 2 Tim.i.18. Lam. i. 6. d here onlyt. Gen.
xiii. 27. Dent. xi. 15 al. ech, v. 30 reff. fconstr., ch. xxiv. 10 reff. g here ouly.
Prov. xxx. 22. oitos, Gen. xlii.2. otra, Job xii. 1] al. h = ch. xix. 22 reff. i ch. ix. 30. xi.
22al4. Gal.iv.4,6. Lukei. 53. xx.10, llonly.L.P. Gen. xlv.1. k = here only. l here only.
Gen. xlv.1, m 1 Cor. iii. 13 reff. n= ch. iv. 6 reff. och. x. 32. xx. 17. xxiv. 26 only.
Hos. xi. 2. p ver. 3 reff.
8. for oydon, eBdoun N!. rec ins o bef 2nd ioaax, with DH rel 36 Chr Thl-fin
(ec: om ABCEN Thl-sif. aft i. ins eyevynoe E syr. rec ins o bef 2nd
taxwB, with D?H rel 36 Chr Ge Thl: om ABCD'ER.
10. [efe:Aaro, so ABCDEN m 36 Thl-fin. | xapw bef avr. D-gr: om avtw A.
evavTteN k. ins ep bef oAov AC E-gr & g vulg Syr copt : om BDH rel 36
E-lat Chr.
ll. ree tTHhv ynv avyurrov, with EH rel 36 syr eth Chr: ed oAns rns aryurrov D,
super omnem terram egypti D-lat (see rxx): txt ABCN vulg Syr coptt. [ nupickor,
so B(sic: see table) E k. |
12. ree oita, with H rel Chr: ovrovy 13 Thi-sif: ovrera 15. 40. 100: txt ABCDEN.
rec ev avryurtw (corrn, as more usual: Meyer thinks ets avy. to have been a
gloss to etameoreirev, and then to have found its way into the tat to the exclusion of
the original ev avy., but this is far-fetched), with DH Chr Thl: txt ABCEN 40.
efameocte:Aay N}.
18. for ev, er: D 18. eyvwpic9n AB: eyvwo0n 25: agnitus est E-lat: recog-
nitus est D-lat : cognitus est vulg: txt CDEHR rel 36 Chr Thi. for eyevero, eyevn8n
D. om Tw bef dapaw &. rec ins tov bef wand (added for clearness), with
DH rel Chr: om BC.—for iwo., avtov AEX 40 vulg arm.
14. rec tov mar. av. bef taxwB8, with H rel syrr Chr: om taxw8 15. 18. 471. 163
eth: txt ABCDEN ah m vulg coptt arm. rec aft ovyy. ins avtou (for ex-
plicitness), with B(Mai) DE rel: om ACHN b f g m o 836 am demid fuld arm Chr Thi.
otrws, thus, ‘in this new covenant state;’ 10.] Observe (Mey.) the simple coupling
—or, ‘in fulfilment of the promise of seed of the clauses by kai, as characteristic of
implied in the above words.’ In thisword this speech. Xap «x. cod.| No
ovtws lies hid the germ of the subsequent Hendiadys: favour, so that he was ac-
teaching of the Holy Spirit by St.Paul, Gal. ceptable to Pharaoh (see reff.): and wis-
ili. 9.| Here we have the first hint dom,sothat Ph. consulted him and followed
of the rebellious spirit in Israel, which the his suggestion, especially in the important
progress of the history brings out. case recorded Gen. xli. 38. KaT-
ABCD
EHRab
efgh
klmo
13
9—16.
- e ;"
4 ty ®Wuyatce eBdounkovrarévte.
li
> 4
ec Atyumroy, Kal
* MOV,
rw * pvqwate 7 @ 2 wynoaTo "ABpaau * rune
v Gal. i. 6.
42al. 3 Kings xiii. 31.
xiv. 1). yattr., ch. i. 1 reil.
xx. 33. Exod. xxi. 32.
TIPAZEI> AHOSTOAQN.
Heb. vii. 12. xi. 5 bis. Jude 4 only. Sir. xliv. 16. Deut. xxvii. 17.
x Luke viii. 27 | Mk. xxiii. 53. xxiv. 1. ch. ii. 29. Rev. xi. 9 only. Exod.
z here only ft. i
71
\ > ‘ =- i
15 kal © katéBn Taxco 9a aed,
DEUT. x. 22.
t? , aN \ 2 ’
ereXeUTNGEVY aUTOG Kal Ol © TWaTEPEC t= chil. al
retl.
Viv , D \ \ , ’ ss
16 kat ’ pereréOnoav etc Luyeu Kat eréOnaav Ev > 30°) Gea.
b? ! eta f
a UOLOU ¢ ch. ii. 29 reff.
ry P uch, vy. 30 reff.
w = John xix. 4l,
a = ch. iv. 34 reff. b ch. iii. 6.
eBd. bef Wux. (see xxx) DH a(c) fhm: é xa €Y D: D syr Chrseem to join ev
e. m. YW. with kateBn follg (see xx Deut x. 22).
15. rec kateBy Se, with
ACER 36 vulg Syr wth. (From similarity
om ets avyurtov B.
then 5 was supplied.)
BH rel coptt Chr: xateBn (alone) D 40. 73. 96 syr: txt
of kot Kat., Kat dropped out as in D, and
(Omitted as superfluous ? or perhaps
it was a gloss from the marg. Tischendorf excludes it from the txt : but the authority
is too weak.)
16. petnxOnoay D.
éatyoev] viz. Pharaoh: a change of sub-
ject : see ref. Gen. 14. év ouxais
€BSopyxovtarevte] In the Hebrew text,
Gen. xlvi. 27; Exod. i. 5; Deut. x. 22,
seventy souls are reckoned, viz. sixty-six
born of Jacob, Jacob himself, Joseph, and
his two sons born in Egypt. So also
Josephus, Antt. ii. 7. 4; vi. 5. 6. But the
LXX, whom Stephen follows, insert in
Gen. xlvi. 20 an account of the children and
grandchildren of Manasseh and Ephraim,
five in number: and in ver. 27 read viol
BE "lwohp of yevduevor adT@ ev Yh Aly.,
Wuxal évvéa, maoor Wuxal otkov *lakwB
af eiseAOodoa meT& laxwB (alex. om peta
*IakéB, but obviously without any effect
on the general statement) «is Atyumrov,
wuxat EBopykovramévre :—reckoning, as
it appears, curiously enough, among the
sons of Joseph, Joseph himself, and his wife
Asenath ; for these are required to make up
the nine, according to their ver. 20. And
similarly in Exod. i. 5, and in alex. Deut. x.
22. (Dr. Wordsw., who is careful to note
that the alex. omits werd "IaxwB in Gen.
xlvi. 27, omits the fact that it reads mévTe
here, by stating ‘seventy ” as the LXX
testimony.) With regard to the various
attempts to solve the difficulty (66 + 12
wives — [Joseph and his wife, and J udah’s
wite who died in Canaan] = 75, Seb.
Schmid and Wolf:—that Stephen spoke
of those who were invited, —Moses of those
who went, Krebs and Loesner :—that mav-
res should be read for wévte, Beza :—e.),
see above on vv. 6, 7. The remarks of
Jerome are curious:—he is arguing, on
Gen. 1. c., that the number really was
seventy,—and adds, ‘Quod si e contrario
nobis id opponitur, quomodo in Actibus
Apostolorum in concione Stephani dicatur
ad populum, septuaginta quinque animas
ingressas esse Aigyptum, facilis excusatio
est. Non enim debuit sanctus Lucas, qui
aft avros ins exe: E Syr: te D.
ovxev (1st) D-gr.
aut. bef eredeut. B(Btly).
rec (for &) 8, with H rel Chr Thl-
ipsius (istius ?) historie scriptor est, in
gentes Actuum Apostolorum volumen emit-
tens, contrarium aliquid scribere adversus
eam scripturam, quee jam fuerat gentibus
divulgata.’ Philo, de Migr. Abr. § 36, vol.
i. pp. 467 f., mentions both numbers (read-
ing 75 in Gen. and 70 in Deut., see above),
and gives allegorical reasons for both: and
really Dr. Wordsworth’s solution, that
Stephen includes those born of Jacob’s line
in Egypt to shew that they “ were equally
children of the promise with those born in
Canaan,” is hardly better. When we come
to understand petexadéoato. . .macay Thy
ouyyeveray ev Wuxais éBdounkovTaTevTe,
as represented by including, for a purpose,
those already in Egypt, it seems to me
that a stigma is cast on St. Stephen far
more serious than that of mere nuimeral
inaccuracy. 16.| petetéOnoay, viz.
adds Kal of matépes juav, not the latter
only,—as Kuin., Olsh., and Wordsw., to
evade part of the difficulty of the verse.
The facts, as related in the O. T., were
these: Jacob, dying in Egypt, was (Gen.
]. 13) taken into the land of Canaan, and
buried in the cave of Macpelah, before
Mamre (on the rest of the verse see below) :
Joseph, dying also in Egypt, was taken in
a coffin (Gen. 1. 26) at the Exodus (Exod.
xiii. 19), and finally buried (Josh. XXiv. 32)
at Shechem. Of the burial of the other
patriarchs the sacred text says nothing,
but rather by the specification in Exod,
xiii. 19, leaves it to be inferred that they
were buried in Egypt. Josephus, Antt. ii.
8. 2, relates that they were taken and
buried in Hebron, and adds, B. J. iv. 9. 7,
Sv kal Td pynueta péxpe TOO vov ev THE
7h modlxvn (Hebron) SelkvuTai, mavu
Kadjs pmapudpov Kal pidotinws eipyao-
péva:—the Rabbinical traditions men-
tioned by Wetst. and Lightf. report them
to have been buried in Sychem : and Jerome
72
c = Rev. iii.18. ¢
2 Kings
xxiv. 2]. —
d = (here only?)
2 Mace. i. Sl.
e = Luke xxi.
28. xxii. lal.
IIPAZEIS ANOSTOAQN.
VIL
mapa tov viev "Eupop tov Svoyen. 7“ xabdc dé
Z ny ytcev 0 * \ypovoc THC
6 Occ TW "ABoaan, ‘nutncey 6 Rade Kal | exAnOivOn
g
emayyeAlac Yne > wpoAdynoev
Deut. xxxi. » ey 4 k ¥ ae Ta de 2 ‘ me? a
4. a Ev Avyurry, 18 ayot ou avEoTY Baatrsd¢ eTEOOC oc
f =ch. iii. 21 ; ” . x ” ~ > P ‘
igh areff, OUK Hoet TOV [wond. 19 ouToc KaTacopiaamevoc TO
a] tt. xiv. t co Plt ‘ U r > “
‘7 deri. ° yévog juwy ° exkaxwoev tove 1 mateoac “tov * 7wo.w
(3liv.) 25.
éSéovro 8€.. 6 d€ cuoAOyes, Xen. Anab. vii. 4. 13. ich. vi. 7 (reff.). Exop.i.7. k w. indic.,
ch, xxvii. 33. Rev. xvii. 17. see Heb. iii. 13. 1 = ch. vy. 36,37. Exop.i. 8. _m =ch. ii. 40 al.
nhere only, Exop.i.J0. Judith v.11. x. 19 only. o =ch. xviii. 2 reff. p ver 6 reff. q absol.,
John vi. 58. vii. 22. ch. xiii. 32. xxvi. 6. Rom. ix. 5. xi. 28. xv.8. Heb. i.1. 2 Pet. iii. 4 only. r=ch.
iii. 12 reff. s = Matt. iii. 3 |. v.36. Rev. xxi. 5.
fin: txt ABCDEN ec g 1m Thl-sif. ‘aft aBp. ins o marnp nuwy E(sic). rec
exmop, with E rel Thl-sif: txt ABCDHN a c h copt Chr.
for tov, ev BCR! sah
arm: tov ev AEN® tol syr copt: ef Sychem D-lat: txt DH rel vulg eth Chr Thl Cc.
(The varr arise from this cvxeu having been mistaken for a place, as above.)
17. for kaOws, ws A.
rec wpuooev, with H p rel: ernyyeiAato DE tol: txt
ABC R(opodoy.), confessus erat vulg. (The varr have arisen from the unusual sense
of wor.)
18. rec axpis (corrn), with AB2EH® 36 Chr: txt B'CD Thl-sif.
aft erepos ins
ex aryumtov ABC o 36 Syr syr-marg coptt: om DEH p rel syr Chr Thl Cc.
for nde: Tov, euvnoOn Tov DE.
19. for ovros, kat D-gr: om D-lat.
(Ep. 108 [27] ad Eustochium : Epitaph.
Paulx, 13, p. 703) relating the pilgrimages
of Paula to the sacred places, says : “trans-
ivit Sichem, . - atque inde divertens
vidit duodecim Patriarcharum sepulchra.”
These traditions probably Stephen fol-
lowed; and, in haste or inadvertence,
classed Jacob with the rest. @ ovy-
gato ABpadp| The burying-place which
Abraham bought was not at Sychem, but
(Gen. xxiii. 3—20) at Hebron, and was
bought of Ephron the Hittite. It was
Jacob who (Gen. xxxiii. 19) bought a field
where he had pitched his tent, near Sychem,
of the children of Hamor, Shechem’s father:
and no mention is made of its being for a
burying-place. The two incidents are cer-
tainly here confused : and no ingenuity of
the Commentators has ever devised an es-
cape from the inference. The mention of
a few such attempts may suffice.—(1) The
omission of ’ABpadu (Beza, Valck., Kuin.,
Schétt., al.) against all MS. evidence [not
excepting E, the reading of which, vari-
ously stated by Meyer and Tischendorf,
has been ascertained by inspection ],—and
against the construction also; for after
petetédnoay, "laxéB could hardly be the
subject to avicaro:—(2) rendering, against
all grammar, while omitting ABpadu, avh-
garo ‘emptum erat’ (Kuin.):—(3) con-
struing “ABpadu, Abrahamides,i. e. Jacob
(Surenhus. al.) :—(4) that of Dr. Words-
worth, made up of—omitting Jacob from
the grammatical construction (see above);
—proving, from Jerome and Bede (with-
out any allusion to the passage of Josephus
rec aft marepas ins nuwv, with ACEH rel
above cited!), that the other patriarchs
were buried-at Shechem :—a priori reasons
why Stephen should have chosen to bring
forward Shechem and not Hebron ; reasons
(see Wordsw.’s note) not very creditable,
if they existed: &e. &e. The fact of
the mistake occurring where it does, will
be far more instructive to the Christian
student than the most ingenious solution
of the difficulty could be, if it teaches him
fearlessly and honestly to recognize the
phenomena presented by the text of
Scripture, instead of wresting them to
suit a preconceived theory. I entirely
agree with Dr. Wordsworth, that “ there is
nothing in these difficulties which invali-
dates the claims of St. Stephen to Inspira-
tion,” any more than those expressions
in Scripture “invalidate its inspiration,”
which imply that the sun revolves round
the earth. But as Dr. W. lives in days
when men are no longer burnt for asserting
that the earth moves, he surely might
abstain from railing in such unmeasured
terms (see his Acts, p. 35, col. i.) at those
who in contending for common fairness
and honesty find it necessary to carry some-
what further the same canon of reasonable
interpretation. Humble searchers after
divine truth will not be terrified by being
charged with “assumption and conceit,” or
being told that their exegesis can produce
no result but “degeneracy, degradation, dis-
belief, and demoralization.” But they will
deeply feel it to be their duty, to caution
the student against all crooked and disin-
genuous ways of handling the word of God.
17—23.
NPAZEIS AMOSTOAQN.
73
S ¢ uw > - v? . . ~ i .
Ta Bpépn exOera autwy “sc TO Ly " CworyoversOar. ‘i's: i216.
> - viii. 15.
20 * ey Rigas Kaipyp eyev On Movone Kal nv 2 aoretoc 2 Tim. ii, 15.
ii
zZ * Qa }
TW Oew. oc aveToagpn pnvac T ELC ev TW olky) Tov #Us
, 91 b d Ps. viii.3 Aq.
Tar poc. exteQévroc o& ‘aurou ° aveiAaTo aurov 1 Ovy a- u here only +.
~ \ ? t oun e ~ , 1, Pp zek. xiii.
tno Dapaw Kat “aveOpepato “avtov eauty “sic viov. Auesia
2 aes ie , ~ » , ’ ? , ? é dé 5
22 Kat emardevOn Movone Ev ag os Avyu7tiwy, nv Vero eee
S g 5 Nd 93 ¢ 3) h? x Pheen., 25.
Fd vvatoc év oyorc Kal Epyouc avrov. WC OE a ie i. Vat
ki 2 ’ yas
oouTo auT@ ‘ TEDGEMAKOVTAETNC Xpdvoc, avén ET THY saa a
k ] ‘ > ~ N vol. ii. p. 83.
Kapoiay aurou emioxéeWac0ar rove aded pove auTou TovCE Exileais,
Wisd. xi. 14.)
v ch. iii. 19. Rom. ae 11, 20 al.
x here only.
y Heb. xi. 23 only. Exon. ii. 2.
3 only t. Wisd. vii. 4 vat. F (not A) only.
ver. 19 reff. c¢ constr. >John vili. 30 xii. 37.
.33 retf. e¢ = ver. 5. ch. xiii. 22. Isa. xlix. 6.
(1 Cor. xi. 32 reff.). Prov. xxix. 17.
30. ch. ix. 23. xxiv. 27. Gen, Xxv. 24,
Isa. lxv.16. Jer. iii 16.
James i. 27. Judg. xv. 1.
36 am-corr! yss Chr: om BDX am! fuld.
36 Chr Thl:
20. rec aft ratpos ins avtov, with DE
w Luke xvii. 33.
év aut. 7. Ky Luke xiii, 1. év Eketv. Tt. K., Matt. xi. 25
z dat., Jonah iii. 3. 2 Cor. x. 4.
edn. 6, § 31. 4. see Gen. x. 9. Xxiii. 6. xxx. ” 8 (Heb.).
w. €v, Luke xxiv. 38 only.
Ta Bpedn avtwy exPera m p: txt ABCN.
gm o 13 Thl: om ABCH rel Chr.—N! has
1 Tim. vi. 13 only. Exod. i. 17, 18, 22 al.
év ™ K. ToUr., Mark x. 30.
James ii. 5. (1 Cor. ix. 2.) Winer,
Luke i. 15. 2 Cor. i. 12. a here bis, ch. xxii.
b = here onlyt. Wisd. xviii. 5. (ch. xi. 4 reff.) see
d=here only. Exop.ii. 10. see ch. v.
f=ch. xxii 3. 2 Tim. ii. 25
h = Luke xxi. 24. ver.
k w. emt, 1 Cor. ii. 9 only.
l=ch. xv.36. Matt. axv. 3i, 43.
g ch. xviii. 24 reff.
ich. siii. 18 only.
rec exOera bef ta Bpepyn, with DEH rel
aft (woyov. ins Ta appeva E.
pov, but marked for erasure by the same hand.
21. rec exrePevta Se avtov, with EH rel
acehko Chr Thi.
lat) e.—for eavtn, avtn D! 180:
: txt ABCDN p 36.
ABCDEH f! p. |]—add mapa (ers E) tov totauov DE syr-w-ast.
om iat D!-gr:
ev avtn 13: txt D3.
[avetAato, so
om 2nd avroy
om 38rd avtoy D}(and
om es B.
ins D? or 4,
22. rec om Ist ev, with B(Mai) D-corr H rel 36 vulg Orig-ms, Chr, Thl: ins ACEX
vulg-ms syrr coptt eth Orig,
copiav D',
ree ins ev bef epy., with H-gr g
¢ 1m 13 vulg syr eth:
Ps-Just Bas Thdrt.—racns codpias B(Bch): tacav thy
for Se, te D E-gr 1 vss:
txt ABCH® rel 36 E-lat copt Chr, Thl.
om A B(sic : see table)
CDHN a b fh o p 36 E-lat copt Chr 4 Thi. —epyois kK. ev Aoyols C.—ev Aoyw K. ev epyw k.
rec om avtou (as unnecessary), with H rel syr Ps-Just Chr :
p 86 vulg Syr coptt.
23. mw’ erns (sic) bef avtw D.
om 2nd tous B.
«Non tali auxilio, nee defensoribus istis.”
17.] KaQes, not ‘when’ (as E. V.,
Beza, Kuin.), but as, ‘in proportion as.’
See ref. 19. tov wmovetv| so that
they exposed, see ref. Meyer maintains
that the inf. of the purpose is not to be
departed from,—‘ in order that they might
expose :” but I do not see that this mean-
ing would express the fact. The purpose
is afterwards expressed, eis T6 K.7.A.
20. dor. tH Bed] add to reff. (Meyer),
Hesiod, Op. 825, avattios a9avaroiwiv,—
and isch. Agam. 352, Oeo?s avaumAdkntos.
‘fhe expression here seems borrowed from
tradition: Josephus calls the infant Moses
maida popdy Getov. Phil. de vit. Mos.
§ 3, vol. ii. p. 83, says, yevynOels obv 6 mats
evdds di evepnvey aoreotépay #) Kat”
idiot nv. 22.] That Moses was in-
structed in the wisdom of the Egyptians, is
not found in the O. T., but derived from
tradition, and following as a matter of
course from his adopted station as the son
of Pharaoh’s daughter. This wisdom of the
for em, ers H.
ins ABCDENX
ins tov bef erick. E 180.
Egyptians, celebrated by so many ancient
writers (see Wetst. ad loc.), consisted mainly
in natural philosophy, medicine, and ma-
thematies, and its teachers were the
priests. Phil. vit. Mos. § 5, p. 84, enters
into minute detail: apiOuobs méev ody k.
yewmetplay, kK. THY TE PuOuKiy K. apuovi-
Khy K. meTpikhy Oewplay, kK. movolKhy THY
cipmacay, bid TE xphoews dpydvev, kK.
Adywv tay év tais Téxvats, K. dietddors
Tomikwtéepais. Aiyumtiwv of Adyior Tap-
é50cav, Kk. mposétt Tov Bid cuuBddAwy
pirocopiay, hv ev Tots Aeyouevors tepois
yedumaciv emideixvuTa, Kk. Sia THS TOY
(éwv arodox7s, & kal Gedy Tigmats yepal-
povot, Thy be UAAnv eyKUKALOV Tradclay
“EAAnves €didackov* of 8 ex Ta&Y TAnCLO-
xdépwy, Ta 7 “Acouplwy ypaumata, K. Thy
Tay ovpaviwy Xadbaixhy emotHhunv.
Suvatos év Adyots| So Josephus calls
Moses maAjGeowv dbmtAciy mibavédratos, but
late in his cowrse, during the journey
through the wilderness ;—when the di-
vine Spirit, as the book of Deuteronomy
Vit.
74 NPAZEIS ANOSTOAQN.
4 , , 1? , > , >’ ,
mech. x. 36 reff, ™ viove Iooand. 24 kal Lowy Tiva " adLtKoUmEVOY ° NuvVaATO
Exop. ii. 11.
+ ‘ , ' 2 ’ i? , 5 /
nicor viz. Kat ° éroincey Pl exdiknow tw ‘KkataTovoupévy * maragac
25
Isa. i. 17. ‘ wy: > 7 ee , ‘ > ‘
o here only. TOV Avyurtuoyr. EVOMICEV Oe ovuvitvat TOUC aceA pouc
BEA. uSiciic] Brvib Dede MEN Waren BEOMeIowais Coiled
P 7,8 only. . auto | OTLO Qeoc dua KXELOOC auTOu didwow owTnolay
Micah v. 15. 96
gq Rom. xii. 19
reff.
r 2 Pet. ii. 7
only.
2 Macc. viii.
2A (not
F) only.
s = Matt. xxvi.
31 J, from
Zech. xiii. 7.
ExoD. ii. 12.
t w. OT, Matt.
xvi. 12. xvii.
13. Isa. xlisi.
10. abs.,Matt.
xiii. 13, 15 |
(fzom Isa. vi.
9, 10).
v ch. xi. 30 reff.
, Sos ec A ye 3 _ ~ > ee , € , y »” Q
auTolc’ OL dé ov ovrnkav. TH TE ETLOVTY NEON won
> ~ , \ a , ? s > ig iny 4
auTolc * ay onevore, Kal ovvyAacev auTouce &l¢ Elonvny
? ‘ wv (Po € = - be , 19 -
ELT WV Avédoee aceA pot EOTE [ vpetc | va TL GOLKELTE
> , 97 ¢ C3 - \ ’ d? , a)
adAnroue ; * 0 d& adtkwv Tov * tAnsiov * azwcaro avTOY
’ ‘ ’ \ e , »” ‘ fs a Oe |
ELT WV Tie O€ KATEOTYHOEV aoxovTa Kat (KaOTHV Ep
>’ ~
® avetAEc
nnac; 8 un ®avercw pe od OAc "Ov TedTOV
exec TOV Atyorriov ; 29 Epuyev 8 Mwvone “év ry
\ oe 7
'Noyy TOUTW, Kal EyéveTo ™ qapolkoc &v yu Maéerap, ov
Vv pres., ch. xvi. 38 reff. w = Lukei.71. 1 Kings xiv.45. Jos. Antt. ii. 9.7. x ch. xxiii 11.
Xvi. Ll reff. 1 Chron. xx.1. see Matt. vi. 11 and note. ych. ii. 3 reff. z John vi. 52. 2 Tim.
ii. 24. Jamesiv. lonly. Exod. xxi. 22. ahere only +t. 2 Mace. iv. 26, 42. v. 5 only. guveAccus
ac Onpia, Xen. Cyr.i.4. 14. cuveNavvdpevos akev eis waxnv, Plu. Czs. p. 728 (Wetst.). b1 Cor.
x 20 reff. ec Rom. xiii. #, 10 reff. Exon. ii. 13. Roni. 31.1, 2 reft. e ver. 10 reff.
Exop. ii. 14. f ver. 35. Luke xii. }4ouly. Exod. 1. ec. g=ch. v. 33 reff. heh. i.
1 reff. iJohniv.52. Heb. xiii. Sonty. 4 Kings ix. 26. k = Matt. vi. 7. John xvi. 30,
1 Pet. ii. 12. 1 = Lukei. 2Y. ch. v. 6 al. m ver. 6 reff. Exon. ii. 22.
24. aft adic. ins ex Tov yevous avtov DE Syr syr-w-ast «xth.—om aut. D-gr.
aft avy. add (from Exod ii. 12, rxx) kat expuWev avtov ev Ty apo D eth.
25. evourCov D-gr 13. om Ist avrov BCX vulg(am demid, not tol) :*ins ADEH
rel. rec aut. bef owt., with EH rel syr sah Chr: txt ABCDX m p vulg copt Fulg.
for ot, ov N'(but corrd). om ov D!-gr: ins D-corr!.
26. elz (for te) de, with E vulg coptt: txt ABCD?HX rel 36 syr eth Chr Thl &e.—
for tn Te, Tote D!'. aft wax. (-vos D'-gr: txt D?) ins kat evdev avtous adixovytas
D'. ouvnAdAacoevy BCDX o sah eth Promiss, veconciliabit vulg, reconciliavit D-lat :
suvnddAagev H p: txt AE rel vss Chr. (The varr appear to be occasioned by expla-
nations of the origl ovvndacev.) avrows C!H. om vues (as unnecessary)
ABCER p vulg (Syr?) sah arm Chr Promiss: ins H rel 36 syr (copt) Thl Ge.—r:
movetTe avdpes adeAdot wa TL adiKertar Ets AAAnAOUs D, om ers D?.
27. eras D. for kat, 7 E vss.
p 13 Thl-sif: txt DE rel Chr.
28. [exGes, so B'CDN. |
29. ovrws kat epuyadevoey Mwvons D':
abundantly testifies, had turned his ‘slow-
ness of speech’ into the most fervid elo-
quence. That he was so thus early, during
his Egyptian course, was probably reported
by tradition, but hardly seems to agree
with Exod. iv. 1O—16. 23. Teooepa-
KovTaeTHs Xp.| meyas yevduevos M., Exod,
ii. 11, LXX. The exact age was traditional,
see Lightf. avéBy | No nominative
(as d:aAoyiouds, Kuin.) must be supplied :
it is impersonal; see reff. 24.| Tov
Atytrrvoy, from the history being so uni-
versally known, that the agent in the ad:xla
would be readily supplied: see Winer, edn.
655 67.15 d. 25.| The present, 5(8w-
ov, sets forth the work of liberation as
already begun by the act just related,
see ret. Here we have again the
resistance to the Holy Spirit hinted: see
ver. 51, and note on ver. 2. 26. |
avtots, to them, ‘wo of them, taken as
nuev (from rxx, Exod ii. 14) ABCHN m?
epuyadevoey 5€ Mwvony FE: txt D*.
representing his brethren the children of
Israel. ovvyAacev, not imperf., ‘he
endeavoured to unite ;’ the aorist will not
bear this sense: nor is it needed :—the
act, on Moses’ part, was complete ;—not
‘he would have set them at one’ (E. V.),
but, he set them at one. If the explana-
tory reading cvvjAAaocer be taken, we then
have the imperfect foree—“ he was recon-
ciling,” or ‘‘ attempted to reconcile,” them.
GvSpes GSeAgot should be taken
together, as in Gen. xiii. 8, &vOpwrot
adeApol eouev juets. See also ch. ii. 14
(De W.). 27.) The further progress
of resistance to the Spirit on the part of
Israel. 29. MaSiap] So LXX, Exod.
ii. 15, for pu. Winer (RWB. *‘ Midian’)
supposes this Midian to have been a nomad
detachment of the more settled Midianites,
—which at that time was encamped in the
neighbourhood of Sinai and Horeb. For
ABCD
EHNab
efgh
kimo
pl3
ees ee
24—34.
, , a8 ,
eyevynoev viouc dvo.
o Mn OE alt) ce Ob ey 2 -~ ~ »
KovTa wpOn auTw EY TH EPH TOV OOOUC Zwa ayyeXoc
aly
ep Pa prot P TUpOC ‘ Barov. 0
Se he 5 , \ > - u ~
pradev TO ooapa TOOCEPX OLEVOU Oe auTOU KaTavoynoat
’ > a
* eyéveto pwn Kuplov 32 "Eyo
e 4 > Tie?
cov, 0 Oed¢ “ABoadp kai Ioaax kat Tako.
\ , ~ , ~
de yevouevog Mwvonc ovuk EroApa “ KaTavonoal.
Se av senee aay NE Va Coo cs = =.
é aut o Kvotog ~ Avooy To UToonLa TWV TOOWY GOV
e eat) e 4 ~
oO yap TOTOC ep WwW eoTnKkac yn
s constr., Luke vii. 9.
exc. Matt. xvii. 9. Gen. xlvi. 2.
vy = John x. 35. ch. x. 18. xiii. 32.
Dan. x. 11 Theod.
Matt. iii. 11. Lake xv. 22. Gen. xiv. 23.
from Gen. xxii. 17.
dum D!: txt D*.
30. aft ca: ins peta Tavta D.
Gen. xv.
TIPAZEIS AMOSTOAQN.
\ ~
30 cat " rAnpwlévtwv Erwv TEGOEOU-
Jude 16. Job xxxii. 22. Ken. Cyr. iii. 1. 38.
1,4.
x = Loke iii. 16 | Mk. J. ch. xiii.
75
n = ver. 23.
o ver. 26.
Exon. iii. 2.
p Rev. i. 14. ii.
18. xix. 12.
Ps. xxviii. 7.
T. Dry
2 Thess. i. 8.
Heb. i. 7. Sir.
viii. 10.
q as above (p).
Luke xvi. 24
St Mavone towv * eBav-
c rf) A ~ ,
o @:0¢ Twv TaTEpwy
Ul
“ gvTpomoc
4
ls
c=
S
®
=p
a
rey
|| Mk. xx. 37.
ver. 35 only.
Exop. iii. 2
&c. Dent.
(Oe ? ’ 34 2 7Q% XxXiii. 16.
ayla EOTIV. LOWY Job xxxi. 40
only.
tch.ix.10al8. Acts only,
21,27. ch. xi.6, Heb. iii. 1. Gen. xlii. 9.
ch. xvi. 29. Heb. xii. 21 only. Ps. xvii. 7.
25, Exon. iii. 5. as above (x).
g here only. Exop. iil. 7 al. fr. constr., Heb. vi. 14,
3 cimev
a Luke xii.
w
minodevtwy avtTw ern D!: txt D?(and lat).
ree aft ayyedos ins Kupiov (natural addn, and here occasioned by Exod iii. 2,
LXX), with DEH rel Syr: om ABCN p vulg coptt.
txt BDHN p rel syr coptt Chr Thl.
mupt proyos ACE 36 vulg Syr:
31. rec edavuare (corrn to historical tense), with ABC rel vulg Chr Thl-fin: txt
DEHR b f g1 m p 36 Thi-sif Aug.
kat. D}.
E. rec aft Kup. IMs mpos avTor,
demid syr copt arm.
32. om o bef 1st @eos CH! :
2nd 6. C!.
twice, D:) om ABCR p syrr coptt arm.
which D does still more closely by omg the artt.)
eroAunoev X.
33. om o bef «up. A.
Avoat D1(?) 142.
rec for eg,
o Geos E.
om To opaua A.
o Kupios exmev avtw Aeywv D Syr eth.
with CEH rel vulg-mss sah Chr: om ABN p am
eyo eu 8. E vulg(not am fuld) D-lat.
rec ins o Geos bef ic. and tak.,
(The insertion has prob been to suit LxX,
Kat Tposep. aut. | K jae
for Kup., €K Tov oupavov Aeyouge.
om o bef
with (D)EH rel «th Chr Thl: (om 0,
povons bef yevouevos &.
Kat eyeveTo dwvn TpOsS AUTOV D.
aft vod. ins cov ex Cl: ex C2E k syrr eth.—oov bef r. m. B.
ev (corrn to suit xx), with EH rel 36 Chr: txt ABCD?& p: add ov
C (avy C') lect-13 sah arm.—for ep @, ov D'.
Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law, is not found
there, in Exod. xviii. 1 ff., but comes to
visit Moses from a distance. See also
Numb. x. 29 ff. viovs Sv0] Exod. ii.
22; iv. 20; xviii. 3. 30. ér. Teco. |
This follows from the tradition of ver. 28,
combined with Exod. vii. 7, ‘Moses in
palatio Pharaonis degit XL annos, in Mi-
diane XL annos, et ministravit Israel xt
annos.’ Bereshith Rabba, f. 115.3. (Mey.)
Swa] Horeb, Exod. iii. 1. But
both were points of the same mountain
range, and the names were convertibly used.
In Exod., Levit., and Numb., the law is said
to have been given from Sinai; in Deut.
from Horebd. ‘The desert of Mount Sina’
is the desert in which Mt. S. is situated.
So ‘the Peak of Derbyshire,’ originally no
doubt some single hill, has come to mean
the whole district in which that hill is
situated. &yyeAos| Here, as con-
tinually in the O. T., the angel bears the
authority and presence of God Himself:
which angel, since God giveth not His
glory to another, must have been the great
Angel of the covenant, the 3 772 of Isa.
Ixiii. 9, ‘the Angel of His Presence,’ —the
Son oF Gop. See below on eis Siarayas
ayyerwy, ver. 53. Stier remarks, that
this second appearance of God, to Moses (see
ver. 2), introduces the legal dispensation, as
the first,to Abraham, the patriarchal.
The readings of the LXX, as well as of our
text, vary between mvp) paoyds (B) and
proy) mupds (A). The Heb. is oN.
The construction is, in the fiery flame (or,
the flaming fire) of a bush. 32. |
The order of Exod. iii. 6, is here somewhat
varied. The command to put off the shoe
was given on the approach of Moses, and
before these words were spoken. ovuK
érédp. katav. = evAaBeiro KareuBrdfat,
LXX. 33.] See Josh. v.15. Putting
off the sandals was a mark of reverence.
The priests performed all their ministra-
tions barefooted. The Arabs to this day
continue the practice: they always enter
their mosques barefooted. Among the
Pythagoreans it was a maxim, avumddnTos
Give Kk. mposkvver, Iamblich. vit. Pythag.
76 TIPAZEIS AMNOSTOAQN. Vie
= ‘ , ~- - - LP \
ool * doy thy “Kakwow Tov Aaov faov TOU EV Avyurry, Kau
: = ~ re ” \ , d? ,
“int. TOU GTEvayHOU avTwY TKOVaA, Kal “ katésnv “ ekedeo0at
b Rom. viii. 26
: > , \ ~ e -~ > ! ’ of
only. Exo. ayrove’ Kal vuv * deupo amoaTeiiw oe etc AtyuTrov.
1, 24.
c= Gen. xi. 6. 35
~ 4 ~ a
Eee acs. °° rouroy tov Mwuonyv ov
F»2 , 2 , ’ A
novyoa VTO €ELTOVTEC Tic O€
d — ver. 10 reff.
3 & / ” TD ri BS , a a € 0 ‘ \
€ i SSC at KQATEOTIOEY apyxovra Kal ikaoTyyv , TOVTOV O VEOC Kal
Gen. xxi. Vai bY 2 kalas Cee ,
44. aoyovTu Kal Auvtowrny améoTaX\kev Ouv Ketel ayyéXou
f = Matt. x. 33.
at a We. , ? = ’ Pim , 36 av n°’?
h. iii. 13, 14. @ ary. ovrog * etnyayev
ea ne udidasnes auTW EV TY ‘B G Eny Y
etc iorem a@uTouve ° ToLnoag * répara Kal onucia ev yn Atybary Kal
h ver. 27 reff. ,
i ite only. 31 ev "épvllog faracon Kal év ™ Ephuy erm TEdoEpaKovra,
ev. xxv. 31, ’
82. Ps. xsi 87 Girge eat O Muncie 0 €imac Toc vVLOIC ‘lopand
only. , hele , € \ , - > - c -
k otv, = 1 Cor, Toognrny Up avaoTIYoeEl O Geoc EK TWV adeA pov UPWwV
. 10.
re ii. 3 reff. m ver. 30 reff. n absol., Mark xv. 20. ch. v. 19. o = ch. ii. 22. John
xii. 37 al. pin N. T. alw. w. onu., ch. ii. 19, 22, 43 al5, Matt. xxiv. 24] Mk. Johniv. 18. Rom, xv.
19. 2 Cor. xii. 12. 2 Thess. ii. 9 Heb. ii. donly. Exon. xi. 10. q Heb. xi. only. Exod. x. 1.
r= Matt. xxii. 24. ch. iii. 22, from DEUT. xviii. 15, 18.
84. kat tdwv yap D!. om pov D!: ins D®. for avtwy, avrov BD.
axnkoa D 9. yuri C2, rec amooteAw, with H rel Syr Thl (here, though
amootetAw is accordg to rxx, the corrn to -eAw was so very obvious, that I have re-
tained the more unusual form, esp as the authorities in its favour are so strong):
amooTEXMA@ a: txt ABCDEX ¢ p Chr.
35. aft diucacr. ins ep nuwy CDN p 36; ed nuas Eko; so, tol Syr syr-w-ast coptt
wth arm Chr Thl-fin (corrn to suit rxx and ver 27): om ABH rel vulg Thl-sif.
recom 2nd ka, with ACH rel vulg Chr: ins BDE p syr: it is supplied by XN! or &-
corr’. apxnyov A ah Chry. for Autpwrny, Sicactny N!: Autperny dicacrry
3. rec ameorevdey, with CH rel Chr: txt ABDEN c p rec (for ouv) ev,
with HN rel 36 D-lat Chr, Thl: per manum vss: txt ABCDE ec p 13 vulg syr sah
Chr, (ev has appy arisen fr om a confusion with the last syll of amecradkev. ” I cannot
see the force of Meyer’s reasoning, that avy is a corrn setting forth more strikingly
the super human powers of Moses).
36. ins o bef zoinoas D!.
Chr Ge Thi-sif.
sah Chr @e Thl-sif.
87. om Isto DH ab? cefho.
EH rel 36 Chr: txt ABCDN p.
for yn, Tm BC m D-lat sah: om b!: txt ADEHN
rec acyvrrov, with D rel Thl-fin: txt ABCEHX hk1mo p 36
rec e:twy (corrn to more usual form), with
rec ins kuptos bef @cos, with CEH rel: aft, Syr:
om ABDX p vulg sah eth. rec aft Oeos ins vuwy, with bm 13: nuwy EH “rel
Thl: om ABDX p vulg syrr coptt eth. om vuwy XR}. wser DD), rec aft
eve ins avtov akovoecbe, with CDE rel 36 vulg syrr copt: (akoveoOe D![?], quem
audistis K-lat':) om ABH af gh1m p sah Chr, Thi-sif.
105 (Mey.). So Juvenal, Sat. vi. 158, there is regarded as the representative of
the nation:
‘ Observant ubi festa mero pede sabbata
reges.’ On the sanctity of the place,
Chrys. remarks,—ovddauod vads, x. 5 Témos
&y.os TH emipavela x. evepyela ToD xpioTod.
34.) i8av elSov, Lax: Emphatic,
to express the ‘1 1 of the Heb., as
often elsewhere. T he instances commonly
cited from the classics, of the phrase gev-
yor expetyew, Herod. v. 95; Aristoph.
Acharn. 177; Nub. 168 ; Eur. Phoeniss.
1231, &e., do not apply: for, as Porson
observes, ‘in his locis simplici verbo co-
natus, composito effectus indicatur.’
amroorteihw] aorist rt amt as LXX.
See Winer, edn. 6, § 41. 35.| The
second tovrov is beoetee emphatically.
So obros again, vv. 36, 37, 38.
‘pvyoavro, ver. 27. The rejecter of Moses
see note on avtots, ver. 26.
In this express mention of the rejection
of Moses by the Jews and his election
and mission by God, the parallel of Jesus
Christ is no doubt in Stephen’s mind, and
the inference intended to be drawn, that
it does not follow that Gop REJECTS
those whom THEY REJECTED. The
difficulty of amwéoradkey has caused it to
be altered into the historic tense, az-
éatetkev. But the perf. sets forth not only
the fact of God’s sending Moses then, but
the endurance of his mission till now—
him hath God sent: with a still closer
reference than before, to Him whom God
had now exalted as the true &pxovTa «.
Autpwrhv. See ch. v. 31. 37.] See
ch, iii. 22, notes. Our text has probably
ABCD
EHNab
efgh
klmo
pls
d0—41.
s ¢ Se 38 7 » ’ e
WC Epe. OoUTOC EéOTLVY O
’ Jae. , t A ~ > , ~ ~ > i! >
Ev TH EONMW MéTa TOV ayyéXou TOU AaXovvroc auTW Ev
Se Vv ,
Tw opel TATEOWV
ooe
~ \ ~
Swa kat tov
~- aA - fe eee
yla "Covra * douvat a ieee
IIPAZ EIS AMOSTOAQN.
t , ’ ~
yevouevog ev TH
Vv, £ ~ a y
aa o¢
@ ovK n0éXnoay
77
u? , eg:
* s = ch. ili. 22,
ERKANTUG Teste i Be,
tch. ix. 19%.
xx.18. Mark
, xvi. 10.
Nos u=ch. xix. 82,
39, 41. see
notes. Deut.
Xxxii. 1
(xxxi. 30).
” edEaro *
a ee,
bale
yeveobat ol Tartéoec * nee, adda " amwoavro Kat Veorpae «seer
w = 2 Cor. vi.
gnoay év Talc Kagdtatc aut@y etc Atyuaroy, 40 eum ore 7 2 Reet
Heb. v. 12.
“Aapoy" Tlomooy 7 nu Oeove ot * mpowopebaovrat nO" 0 1 Pet.iv. 11
'M \ g fer Ai axis 2inAl:
yap Wwuonc obroc, 9¢ e&nyayev Nac EK ya yor eee
5) 4 f \ Heb. iv. 12.
TOU, OUK OloapEY TL " eyévero aury. Kal -f406Xomol- x. 20. 1 Pet.
1. 23. see Ps.
= re anc \ exviii. 50.
ee Ev Be nueoatc Ekelvaic Kal ) aviyyayov * Ouaiav TW aS rer 8 ch
~ Xiu. Zl al.
BOwAW, Kal ” evppalvovro éy TOLC " Ep-youc TWY " yEtowy Bak, xx. 1
a2 Cor. ii. 9. Phil. ii. 8 only. Prov. iv. 3.
b ver. 27. Jer. ii. 37. c Matt. xviii. 3.
1 Kings x.6. Lam. i. 2U. see ver. 42. d Exon. xxxii. J. e Luke i. 76 only. Exod.
xiv. 1% Josh. x. 13. feonstr., Rev. ii. 26. iii. 12. g see ver. 56. h Matt.
viii. 18. 1 Mace. iv. 27. ihereonlyt. Exon. xxxii. 8 j= here pei 3 Kings fe
16 al. k abs., Matt. ix.13. Heb. viii. 3al. Gen. xlvi. 1. 11 Cor. x. 19 refi m ch. i
26. Luke xii. 19. Rom. xv. 10. 2 Cor. ii. 2. Gal. iv. 27. w. ev, Rey. xviii. 20. 1 Kings ii.
n (Heb. i. lu only, from Ps. ci. 25.) Ps. cxxxiv. 15. Isa. xxxvii. 19.
38. om 2nd tov D!: ins D*. vueoy X: om e. for ede&., eteActato B.
vuw &.
89. for w, or: D-gr. [aAAa, so A(not B: see table) CDEHN k o. | amreoTp.
D mn. aft eorp. ins ka X'(but corrd). rec om ev, with DEH rel vulg Chr,
(ic Thl Iren-int :
40. e:ravtes D.
ins ABCN 36. 40 Did-e.
(ec Thl Iren-int : txt ABCDE p 36. 40 vulg Syr xth-rom.
aft ouvros ins 0 avOpwmos XN.
Ty kapdia H rel syr copt zth-pl Chr,
om avtewyv D.
o etayaywv KH. rec
yeyovev (corrn to xx, Exod xxxii. 1), with DEH p rel Chr ec Thi: txt ABCR
41. for avnyayor, arnyovto D!, avnyovro D-corr':
been altered to agree verbally with the
former citation. 38.] yivowat meta is
not a Hebraism, as Kuin.: see reff.
That Moses conversed with both the Angel
of the covenant and our fathers, implies
that he was the mediator between them,
as indeed és edeéatr. Ady. ¢. more plainly
declares. éxkAnotg, probably, the as-
sembly held (Exod. xix.) for the promul-
gation of the law at Mt. Sinai, not ‘the
church’**generally : but the article does not
determine this: it would be expressed,
whichever meaning we take. Wordsw. ob-
serves on the meaning which the words
nN ekkAnoia ev TH ephuw carry for the
student of Christian prophecy, Rey. xii.
1—6. Adyta Lavra] living, see reff.,
not = (worowtvTa (Grot., Kuin.), ‘life-
giving :’ still less to be understood ‘ given
vivd voce’ (Pisce. Alberti). So Soph. did.
Tyr. 482, ra pea dupara vas amovor pt Cov |
pmavreca’ Ta 8 aiel | (GvTa mepimotarau.
39.] Another instance, brought
home again by the words ot martépes
pov, of rejection of God's appointed
messenger and servant. eotpadycay |
they turned back in their heart to Egypt:
not, ‘ they wished to return to Egypt,’ of
which in Exod. xxxii. there is no trace (but
later, in Num. xiv. 4), and which would
txt D-corr.
hardly suit mpotopevoovtat; but ‘they
apostatized in heart to the Egyptian idola-
tries.’ The very title by which Aaron
proclaims his idol, is, ‘These be thy gods,
O Israel, which brought thee up out of
the land of Egypt,’ Exod. xxxii. 4. See
also Neh. ix. 18. 40. mpomrop.| As
God had done in the pillar of the cloud
and fire. The plural is not (as Kuin.) put
for 6edv, but is used categorically : not per-
haps without implying also, that the only
two religions were, the worship of Jeho-
vah, and that of idols, a multitude. The
plural is used by Aaron, see above.
In the ofros may be implied, as Meyer
suggests, ‘who was the strong opponent
of idolatry.’ 41. énooxotrotnoay |
apparently in imitation of Apis, a bull
worshipped at Memphis as the living sym-
bol of Osiris. Herod. iii. 28. Diod. Sic.
i. 21. Strabo, xvii. 805 (Winer, RWB.
‘Kalb’). | The ox wasa common symbolic
form of idols in the East; it was one of the
cherubie forms, Ezek. i. 10; and the most
recent discoveries at Nineveh have brought
to light colossal bulls. Sir Gardiner Wil-
kinson (second series, ii. 97, Winer) thinks
the golden calves of Israel to have been
imitations of Mnevis, a bull kept at Helio-
polis (Diod. Sic. i. 21. Strabo, xvii. 803)
78
42
© intrans.
(appy), here
onlyt. trans.,
Matt, v. 39.
>, ~
aQuTWD.
Rev. xi. 6
IIPAZEIS AMOSTOAQN.
WEE.
7 e \ ’ a
°gorpeyev dt o Oede Kat ® tapsdwKev avrove
~ a ~ ~ , ~ 4
‘\arpevav ty “orpatia tov * ovpavov, Kabwe yéiyoamtat
ga" ey BiBAw tov reopnrav My ‘ opaya Kai Ovaiac * wo0c-
pee
= Rom. i.
24, 26, 28.
Job xvi. 12.
constr., here
only. see ch.
43
xvi. 4. ~ ~e , ‘
q ver. 7. tov Jeov Pepay, rove %
r bake ii. 13 =e Ndisig oa
only. .
s3Kings xxii, @UTOLG 5 Kal UETOLKLYD
1¥. Jer. vii.
18. there only. Amos vy. 25.
v ch. ii. 36 reff.
l.c. only. Jos, Antt. i. 19.8, 10.
27. Hag. ii. 1y.
42. aft eorp. de ins avtous C sah.
u — ch. xxi. 26.
w = here only. (ch. xx. 13, 14. xxiii. 31. vy
xxi. 25. ch. xxvii. 20. Luke only, exc. Heb. xi. 12 (from Exod. x xxii. 13).
z ver. 4 refi.
, , ww a lS y ‘ 4 | rs )
nvéykaré mou ern TEsoEpAaKOVTA EV TH EON, ‘ olKoe Iooand,
\w? , s x ~- , ‘ Sx)
kat “ aveAaPere THY oKNKIY TOU Modoy, Kat ro * aotpov
, ~
, A ’
TUTOUC OVC ETONGAaTE TOOCKUVEL
c - > + =
vnac “eméxewa BaBvdAwvoc.
Heb. xi. 4. John xvi.2. Num. xxxi. 50.
Eph. vi. 13, 16, 2 Tim. iv. 11.) x Luke
y = here only. (ver. 4 al.)
a here only. = Isa. xviii. 1. of time, Lev. xxii.
om tay D. ev TN ep. otk. to. bef ern
Teo. A: ev Tn epnuwis in the margin of B(RI Mai: here, not in ver 30 as Tischdf): ev
ep. bef ern tec. a h.
at end ins Aeyer kupios C.
43. rec aft @eou ins vuwy (corrn to suit rxx), with ACER rel vulg syr copt; nuay al
1: om BE Syr sah arm Orig Iren-int Philas.
rec peppay, with rel Chr Thl-fin:
peugau D: poupa B: poupay &!: peupa p vulg-mss(Lachm): peda H: pepoa o:
peppavhk 1 (ec: papay 180 Just: txt (A)CE(X*) g 13. 36 syrr coptt Orig-ms Cyr Thdrt
Thl-sif Jer,-—paipay AX.
partem E-lat: txt D4.
as a living symbol of the sun. Jeroboam
afterwards set up golden calves at Bethel
and Dan, and with the same proclamation :
see 1 Kings xii. 28. 42. éxtperev |
neuter, changed,—turned, as dvacrpévw,
ch. xv. 16. No word, as éavtdéy, or thy
yraunv, or Td mpdswroy avtov, need be
supplied: nor must éotp. x. map. be ren-
dered ‘ again delivered them’ (Vitring., De
Dieu, al.), a Hebraism which has no place
in the N. T. (Mey.): nor must we under-
derstand adrov’s (as C in var. readd.),—
God turned them; for, though philolo-
gically there is no objection to this, the
sense requires that €otpevey should form
an introduction to mapéd5wxey—God, who
had hitherto watched over them for good,
now provoked by their rebellion, turned,
and delivered them up to their own ways.
mapéSwkev—not ‘suffered them to
fall into ? all these explainings away of the
strong expressions of Scripture belong tothe
rationalistic school of interpreters (which
is not modern merely: even Chrysostom
has here eYace): it was a judicial deliver-
ing up, not a mere letting alone, see reff.
N otp. T. ovp.| This fact is not
mentioned in the Pentateuch, but may
refer to the worship of Baal. In after-
times we have frequent traces of star-wor-
ship: see 2 Kings xvii. 16; xxi. 3,5; xxiii.
4, 5; Jer. xix. 13; Zeph. i. 5. See also
Deut. iv. 19; xvii. 3; Job xxxi. 26.
BBX. +r. rpod.| The book of the prophets,
regarded us a whole. The citation (ref.) is
from the LXX. pH oday. x. 6.) A
question usually preceding a negative an-
swer, see Matt. vii. 9; Rom. xi. 1; 1 Cor,
for emex., emt [ta pe |pn D'; in illas partes D-lat, in
ix. 8 al. : but not always: see Matt. xii. 23
(xxvi. 22); John iv. 29; viii. 22. Winer,
edn. 6, § 57. 3, b. There is no stress on
pol (‘Is it to Me that ye offered, &e. [i. e.
to me only ??] as Rosenm., Heinr., Olsh.,
Kuin., Stier: the position of wof in the sen-
tence will not allow of this). I should
take the question here according to the
usual construction, and understand it as
a reproach, implying that God does not
receive as offered to Him, sacrifices in
which He has been made to share with
idols :—it is not true that ye offered to
Me (but no stress on Me) sacrifices, &c. :
‘I regard it as never having happened.’
43.| The answer, by God Himself:
Yea, avekaBere, ye carried about with
you, (not My tabernacle as your sole or
chief holy place, but) the tabernacle (m20,
the portable tent for the image: Diod. Sic.
xx. 65, mentions the fepa oxnvh in the
Carthaginian camp) of M., &c. Stephen
was not the sole dishonourer, ¢f a dis-
honourer, of the holy place—their fathers
had done it before. ModAé6x]} So the
LXX: the Heb. has D229, ‘ of your king ;?
—the LXX probably followed another read-
ing (029 is actually found in 577 Kennicot
and 440! De Rossi), or perhaps explained
the expression by the cognate name of this
god. Moloch (Winer, RWB.) was the
Pheenician Saturn: his image was of brass
with the head of an ox, and outstretched
arms of « man, hollow; and human sacri-
fices (of children) were offered, by laying
them in these arms and heating the image
by a fire kindled within. The rigid prohi-
bitions of the worship of Moloch (Lev. xviii.
ABCD
EHNab
efgh
klmo
p13
42—45.
44° oKnVv}) TOU
> ‘ A .
autnv KaTa TOV
yov
h , = , - i,
KaTagyXéae TOY eOvev | wy
® SiadcSapevor ot © Tarépec
Phil. iii. 17 al.
h ver. 5ouly. Num. xxxii. 5.
Xkiv. 9. 1 ch.
v.41. Rev. xx. 11.
IIPAZ EIS AMOSTOAQN.
b
_hagruoiou my Toc * marpdow “pov ev
Zap (3 ‘
7H conuw, KaDd¢ ° Stera&aro 0 Aadwy rH Movoy trojoar fe
\ c
“rUmov Ov EwoaKet,
f =here only. Xen. Rep. Ath. ii. 3.
iattr., ch. i. 1 reff.
Num. xx.6. DevrT. xi. 25,
79
b Rev. xv. 5
only. Exod.
XXvii. 21 al.
ech. v. 30 reff.
a Nit tae i
> vy Kat * etenyan mth:
ork = a? ley ~~ TP Corvin.
nuwy peta Inoov ev Ty > mes at
je a e 6 x Bie Sew en nen a 5,
eSwoev O VEOE ATO = TOOC= © fom Exon.
xxv. 4.
g here only. 2 Chron. xxxi, 12.
k = here (ch. xxvii. 39, only. Jer.
44. rec ins ev bef ros, with D' E-gr k? 36 syr Thl-fin: om ABCD2N p rel am fuld
lux E-lat copt Chr Thi-sif.
6D. avT7n (sic)X.
kev DH, ewpaxey E 36.
45. uw. moovy D', ewm geswm D-lat.
kata To Tal. .
21; xx. 2—5) were openly transgressed by
Ahav, 2 Kings xvi. 3; by Manasseh, ib.
xxi. 6; see also xx. 10s) Jer. vil, Sil;
xxxii. 35. In the kingdom of Israel this
abomination had been long practised, see
2 Kings xvii. 17 ; Ezek. xxiii.37. We find
traces of it at Carthage (Diod. Sic. xx. 14),
among the Pheenicians (Q. Curt. iv. 3. 23.
Euseb. laud. Const. xiii. 4. Porphyr. de
Abstin. ii. 56),—among the Cretans and
Rhodians (Porphyr. ibid.), and the Assy-
rian colonists at Sepharvaim, 2 Kings xvii.
31. 7) Gotpov Tod 8. “Pedav |
Heb. j»2, Chitin ; but what the meaning of
either this or ‘Pa:pdy (LXX) is, we have
nothing but conjecture to inform us. The
principal opinions have been (1) that of
Kircher, who maintains “‘Pepay (‘Pnodav)
to be a Coptic word, signifying the planet
Saturn, and answering to the Arabic
‘Kewan? (2) that of Hengstenberg, Au-
thentie des Pentat. 110 ff, who entirely
repudiates Kircher’s interpretation, and
supposes ‘Pnpay to have arisen from a mis-
reading of yy» for jy. But Winer (RWB.)
prefers the former opinion, and supports it
by the authority of eminent modern Coptic
and Arabic scholars. De Wette and
Hengstenberg believe }») to be an appella-
tive noun, and would render it Geftell, the
carriage or frame, on which the star or
image was carried: ‘imaginem idolorwn
vestrorum, Vulg. Amos.1.¢c. Dr. Wordsw.
after Cyr. alex. in Catena, supposes pepav to
signify oxdtica, or blindness, and suggests
that the name may have been one given by
the Jews in contempt, like Beelzebub, to
the god of the Ekronites. BaBuA@vos |
AauacKkov, LXX and Heb. The fulfilment
of the prophecy would make it very natural
to substitute that name which had become
inseparably associated with the captivity.
44. 4 ox. T. papt.] In opposition
to the ox. just mentioned : but also in pur-
suance of one of the great aims of the
speech, fo shew that holiness is not con-
vuwoy Ago: omkm 13.
.|urov D!(? raparumoy): txt Dt.
om
eopa-
etatato &'.
etewoev EK X(but corrd) 5. 13. 180.
Jined to locality or building. This part of
his subject Stephen now enters on more
particularly. The words 7 ox. T. wapT.
are the LXX rendering of Ii 9978 (Num.
xvi. 18, 19 al.) ‘the tenes of the as-
sembly’ (or ‘congregation,’ E. V.). They
apparently derived the latter word from
ay, ‘testatus est,’ instead of 1, ‘con-
stituit.’ tUtov | (ref.) : another con-
trast, ef. tumous ods émoinoate, ver. 43.
45. eisyy.| absolute: introduced,
viz. eis Thy yijv:—not connected with év
TH Katacx.,—see below. Siadeé. |
Having inherited it, i. e. succeeded to its
custody and privileges. The sense of ‘ suc-
cessores,’ ‘qui majores exceperunt,’ is un-
grammatical ; as also is that of ‘ postea,’
‘ deinceps.’ év TH katacxéce| at
(or ‘in’) their taking possession. The
Vulg. rendering, ‘in possessionem gen-
tium,’ is philologically inadmissible; ‘in
terram a gentibus occupatam ’ (Calvin, De
Dieu, Grot., Kuin.) is still worse. The
passage of the LXX, Num. xxxii. 5, 5064Tw
1 Yi altn Tots oikéTals Gov év KaTacXeoel,
brought forward to justify these render-
ings, is directly against them. The word
is one of those examples of verbal nouns in
-o.s where the meaning hovers uncertainly
between the act of doing and the thing
done. Such is often the case with kavyn-
ois in St. Paul. Cf. for a very near ap-
proach to the concrete meaning of this
word, Num. xxvii. 4, 7. But, abstract or
concrete, it always, as might be expected
from the very composition of the word, is
used of that final and settled possession
which Israel took of the land, not of that
transitory possession from which the gentes
were driven out. So that Dr. Wordsw.’s
rendering, “the portion, or possession of
the Gentiles,” is out of the question.
The martyr combines rapidly a con-
siderable period, during which this xard-
oxeots and this expulsion was taking place
(for it was not complete till the time of
80
m = 2 Tim. i.
8
18.
n Luke i. 30.
Heb. iv. 16
only. Gen.
xxxiii. 10.
o constr. (but . w
not ellips.), ae
chit faye, OEY autw * olKov.
see Eccl. ii.
~ € ’
10. nro " Karotkel, KaNwc Oo ToopnTys AEyet,
PSA. CXxxi.
= 5. — Heb.
TIPAZEIS AMOSTOAQN.
worou Tay © tatépwv © Her,
mo 7 o , Le ~ - N gp) Pe P e
evoev " yaow evwmiov tov Deov Kat °ytnoaro ° evos
~ \ , 7
47 Sodouwy 8& "wKodoun- P13
> e a > t
48 adr’ ody 0 * VYtaToE Ev XEtpoTrot-
Yoxnvwna to *Oew “laxw[3
VIE
a
46 we rw nMEOwY Aaveld, oc :
~
49 ¥'O oveavoec
pot Opovoc, nN O& yn “ YroTdoLov TwY TOodwY ov’ * ToLOY
xii. 17. see
Hos. xi. 8. 5. og ri , , , = K ; y_?
Gaia t te Olay OLKOOOMNGETE [Ol, Ae yet Kuptoc, 1 TLC ~ TOTFOC
7.8. 1 ve , , Bs 9 tis eta ' , , -
rides. tHe” Katatavoewc pov; OVXLN * YEO pov ETOINoEV TaUTA
xxviii. 6,
51 b
Matt. vii. 24,
26. Luke vi.
48, 49 (but
oisiav).
4
TAVTA 4
6. vi. 35 only. Deut. xxxii. Sal.
Ivii. 15. v Isa. Ixvi. 1.
only. Exod. xxxiii 3, 5 al.
¢ here onty.
fhere only. Num. xxvii. 14.
Herodian vi. 3.
46. om nTncaTo N!.
rel 36 vulg Syr Chr Ec Thl.
47. cadwuwy AC: cadrouwy &.
Thl-sif.
48. o 5e vi. ov katoi. ev xeip. D: om ov D-lat.
, Ved
okXnporoaynAct kat
\ - > ’ c ~ STA = ,
Kat Tog © wolv, Vasic aE TH TrEDMATL TH ayly
tech. xvii. 21.
u of God, ch. xvii. 24. Matt xxiii. 21.
w ch. ii. 35 reff,
z Heb. iii. 11, 18. iv. 1, 3, &c., only. Deut. xii. 9. = Ps. cxxxi. 14.
oxnvoma bef evp. D.
o.xod. B'(sic: see table) D.
pee ’ wd. ,
ATEPLTMNTOL TH Kaoola
=e. 9 aS ’
avTimt-
Mark xiv. 48.
Eph. ii. 11. Heb. ix. 11, 24 only.
Eph. iii. 17 only. (see Eph. ii. 22.) Ps. ii. 8. Isa.
7 x ch. iv. 7 reff. y = ch. iv. 3).
a see ch. xi. 21 reff. b here
d Ezek. xliv.7. Jer. ix. 26. e Jer. vi. 10.
* » 1 3
olkKW BDHR!: @ew ACER
eautw CH
rec aft Yetpom. ins vaos (exr-
planatory gloss: or from ch xvii. 4), with H rel 36 Chr Thl Aug: om ABCDEN p
vulg syrr coptt 2th Pamph-int Fulg.
syr). okodounoate B 42.
D 13 Thdrt.
for tts, motos (as xxx) D.
for kaQws, ws D: Kadws kar E76 E-lat?.
49. for wot, wou D': txt D§: add eorw D.
kat 7 yn (as xx) B yss(not vulg
at end add eri
50. avra bef tavta (cf 1xx) ACDE 1m: txt BHN p rel.
51. for 7m kapdia, kapdiats (corrd to plur to suit the plur subject) ACD; rats kapS.icus
Nc vss Chr Jer: «apdias B(sic: see table) :
David) in order to arrive at the next
great event of his history, the substitution
of the temple of Solomon for the taber-
nacle. 46. qtjcaT0] asked permis-
sion, see 2 Sam. vii. 2 ff., in which this
request is made through Nathan the pro-
phet, and at first conceded by Nathan,
though afterwards, on a revelation made
from God, denied :—not ‘ wished’ (Grot.,
Kuin.: ‘desired, E. V.). The vow (a
species of prayer) here referred to, is de-
fined by the words etpetv oxryjvwpa, to be
that mentioned Ps. exxxi. 1—5 (LXX).
48.| But, though Solomon built
Him an house, we are not to suppose, for
all that, that He is confined to earthly
spots. Ka0as 6 mp. dX.) We have in
substance the same declaration by Solomon
himself at the dedication of his temple,
1 Kings viii. 27; see also the beautiful
prayer of David, 1 Chron. xxix. 10—19.
The citation is freely from the LXX.
The student will not fail to be interested in
observing the apparent reference to this de-
claration in Stephen’s apology, by St. Paul,
ch. xvii. 24. 51.) I donot think there
is any occasion to suppose an interruption
JSrom the audience to have occasioned this
outbreak of holy indignation. At each se-
txt EH p rel spee Syr coptt Ath Cyr-jer
parate recital (vv. 9, 25, 35, 39 ff.) he has
dwelt, with continually increasing fervour,
on the rebellions against and rejections of
God by His people. He has now brought
down the history to the establishment of
the temple worship. From Solomon’s time
to his own, he saw but a suecession of
apostasies, idolatries, rejection of God’s
prophets:—a dark and loathsome cata-
logue, terminated by the betrayal and=
murder of the Just One Himself. It is
not at all beyond probability, to believe
that the zeal of his fervent spirit was by
the view of this, the filling up of the mea-
sure of their iniquities, kindled into a flame
of inspired invective. I find that this is
also Neander’s view, in opposition to the
generality of Commentators (P.u. L.,p. 92),
as also that of Prof. Hackett, in his com-
mentary on the Acts: and I cannot but
think it far the most probable. évraid@a
Aomdy Katapopikas TE Adyw KEéxXpNTat.
TOAAH Hv mappnola meAAovTos ad’Tov dmo-
OvicKew* Kal yap Kal rodTo olua adtdy
eidévat, Chrysost. - oxAnp. «. atrep.]
Words and figures familiar to the prophets
in speaking of the rebellious Israel : see,
besides reff., Deut. ix. 6,13; Neh. ix. 16:—
Deut. x. 16; xxx. 6 Heb. See also Rom.
v cf
: kl
oe ULLOV
ec. AB
CDEHN
abfgh
klmo
pls
46—54.
g ¢ th , AREAS coreg Nine -
WTTETE, WC OL TATEDEC ULWY ~ Kat UEC.
pnteyv ouK Olweav ot
TIPAZ EIS AIOSTOAQN.
h ,
TATEPEC
81
52? ~ Matt. vi. 10.
TLVa TWY TOO- E Thucyd. viii.
he ~ : iy gD , Bs
UMWwY > KQ@l ATEKTELVAD Deh. iii. 25 reff.
i Matt. v. 10,
‘ k \ ~ , ~ =
TOUC TookatayyetAavrac TEOL TNC 'ehevoewe Tov ducalov, !+ chix. 4,
ee (ogee \ ~
ov vu vusic " mpoddrat Kal ° povetc eyévsabe,
V2XaBere TOV vomoy
t2 r nee
epudAasate.
18. seeJames v. 6.
ra s ‘ > f \
ELC dtatayac ayyéA\wy Kat ovK
54 "A , 8 ~ u , ~
KOUVOVTEC O& TaUTa Stem olovTo Talc
n Luke vi. 16.
5, xxii. 4,7,
5 A 8 al. ii
53 P ofrivec vat
ch. iii. 18
2 only t.
1 here only t.
m abs , = ch.
iii. 14. xxii.
14. 1 Pet. iii.
2 Tim. iii. 4 only ¢. 2 Macc. v.15. x. 13, 22 only.
o Ma't. xxii. 7. ch. iii, 14. xxviii. 4. 1 Pet. iv. 15. Rey. xxi. 8. xxii. 15 only. 4 Kingsix. 3lcompl. Wisd.
xii. 5 only. p = ch. x. 41 reff. = Jobn vii. 39. Rom. iv, ll al. Hos. xiii. 1.
r = ch, ii. 39. viii. 20. s Rom. xiii. 2 only. Ezra iy. 11 only. see Gal. iii. 19. t=ch.
xvi. 4 reff. uch. v.33 onlyt. 1 Chron, xx. 8 only.
Chr, Thdrt Thl.—add vue & o.
om kat vmets D.
52. for o: war. vu., exervor D!: txt D®.
m. €A. D!: so insge ts bef eA. D3.
for ws, Kadws D.
ins kat bef vzwy D!.
QMTEKT. QUTOUS TOUS TpoKaTayyEAAOVTAS
rec yeyernabe (corrn to appy more suitable
tense, see note), with H rel Chr Thl: txt ABCDEX k p Orig.
53. epvdateoGe A.
ii. 29. eoiv} I should hardly think
of any allusion to Ps. xl. 6,—because the
LXX have rendered ‘mine ears hast thou
opened’? by c@ua katnpticw mot. TO
mv. T. ay. avt.| Apparently a reference to
Isa. Ixiii. 10. The instances as yet had
been confined to of mat. tu.: now he has
arrived at their own times. The éwo are
taken up again in the next verse.
52. tiva tT. mpod.| See Matt. xxiii. 31 ff:
2 Chron. xxxvi. 16: where the same general
expressions are used of their persecuting
the prophets. Such sayings are not to be
pressed to the letter, but represent the
uniform attitude of disobedience and hos-
tility which they assumed to the messengers
of God. See also the parable, Matt. xxi.
35. tous mpox.]| Zhe office of all the
prophets, see ch. iii. 18. The assertion is
repeated, to connect them, by this title,
with Him, whom they announced.
Tov Stxatov| Schéttg. vol. ii. p. 18, has
shewn from the Rabbinical writings that
this name was used by the Jews to de-
signate the Messiah. See reff. and note on
James v. 6. mpoddtat| By Judas’s
treachery, of which the Sanhedrists had
been the accomplices ; Matt. xxvi. 14—16:
—oveis, by the hands of the Romans;
ch. ii. 23, note. éyéveoOe is preferable
not only on account of its MS. authority,
but as being the historical tense, like the
rest. It was probably altered to the per-
fect, as suiting the time then present,
better than the aorist. 53.] The use
of ottives, instead of of, so very frequent in
the Acts and Epistles, occurs when the
clause introduced by it contains a further
explanation of the position or classification
of the person or persons alluded to, and
not when the relative serves for simple
identification. See Rom, i. 25, 32.
cis Statayas ayyéAwv | Many explanations
Vou. II.
have been given. Chrys. diatax0évra
vémov Aéyel, Tov eyxeipicbevta adT@ Be
&yycdov toy bp0evta aiT@ ev TG Baty:
and (ic. véuov AaBdytas Siatdkeis Exov-
Ta, altives todyyeAov émolovy moATelay
éyew tovs tTeAovvtas avtéy. Heinsius
and Lightfoot understand by ayyéa. the
prophets: Grot., Caloy., and Krebs, *pre-
sentibus angelorum ordinibus, taking d1a-
Tayds = Siardéers in the sense of divi-
sions of an army (Judith viii. 36), in which
it never occurs,—not to say that eis will
not bear this: Beza, Caly., Pise., Elsn.,
Hamm., Kuin., &e., ‘ab angelis promul-
gatum, which eis will not bear (év):
Winer, Gr., edn. 6, § 32. 4, b, ‘as com-
mands of angels’ (but see below), which,
however, was not the fact (Mey., who
refers to Jos. Antt. xv. 5. 3, qu@v Ta KaA-
Aorta Tay Soyuarwy Kal Ta doLwTAaTA TaY
éy Tots véuos Sv ayyéAwy Tapa Tov Peod
padvrwy) :—the Syriac version, ‘ per man-
datum angeli:'—Vulg. and Caly., ‘im
dispositione (or -onibus) angelorum :’
Schittg., ‘per ministerium angelorum,
These three last are precluded by the fore-
going remarks, The key to the right ren-
dering seems to be the similar expression
in ref. Gal. 6 véuos Starayets 8 ay-
yédov. The law was given by God, but
announced by angels. The people received
God’s law then, eis Statayas ayyéAov,
at the injunction (a sense of dar. amply
justified, see Palm and Rost’s lex. diarakis,
and Polyb. iv. 19.10; 87.5: and preferred
by Winer in his last edn., ut supra) of
angels. So Matt. xii. 41, uerevonoar eis
TO Kypvypa “lava, ‘they repented at the
preaching of Jonas.’ The only other le-
gitimate rendering, ‘as the injunctions of
angels,’ comes under the objections made to
Wimer’s former view, above. 54— 60. |
EFFECT OF THE SPEECH: STONING OF
G
82
MNPAZEIS AMOZTOAQN
VII. 55— 60.
' peice TY igi sf ‘ >a7 we ? S. 2
tal ae Kapolatc auTWy Kal EBovyov Tove OduvTac “Ew auUTOV.
al sre Matt. 55 Cony, \ , , ee or z? ’
vil al OD * UTaoXwY ce) wAnone ¥ rvevpatog * aylov, “ atevioac
Toy tl ’ . ; ‘ 13 36 6 ~ \ T ~ e ~ a?
xxii. 24. gic TOY OVOaVOY ELoEY OCOGav Veov Kat lygovy toTWTa EK
Rev i 56
x ch. ii. 30 reff. deliv TOU Geov,
y Loke iv. 1.
ch. vi. 5. xi.
24 only.
ach. i. 10 reff.
a ch. ii. 25 reff. eoTWTa Tov
b = Mark v.16.
Ocov. 7 4
/
Johu ix. 8 al. et Sad & Ta aurav Kal
¢ Luke ii. 23
(from Exod.
Xiii. 12).
xxiv. 31 &c.
ch. xvi. 14. xvii. 3. L. only, exc. Mark xii. 34.
xix. 4, e = here only. Isa.lii.15.
(- AN ch. xiv. 5. -unua, Rev. xviii. 21.)
xiv. 40.
54, axovoaytes Se avtov D.
ins autwy Ek Syr sah eth.
&5. aft wAnpns ins mioTews rat N 0.
7. Ocov, avrov C 1 Thi-fin.
Se ’ ‘
Kat timev Loou
, \ . en ~ > ¢
* Sinvorypévouc, Kal TOV vVLOV TOU as
kpacavres oe 4
f Matt. viii. 32 f. ch. xix. 29 only.
gch. i. 14 reff.
i here bis. Matt. xxi. 35. xxiii. 37 J. (ohn viii. 5, vy. r.) ch. xiv.6, Heb, xii. 20 only, Exod. viii. 26 al.
om tauvta RN).
ina. Tov Kupiov ex Be. Tov O. eat. D.
P Qewow Tove ovpavouc
* EK deLiwy
pwn * weyary ° on
* womnoay * omodupadar er avrar,
58 Kal * exPBadovrec € tlw tne woAEwe | eAtModAouv. Kat ot
d Matt. xxvii. 50. ver. 60. Rev.vi.10al. 2 Kings
1 Kings xv.19. 2 Macc. x. 16.
h = Matt. xxi. 39 J. Luke iv. 29. Lev.
kat eBp. Te D!. aft 08.
for
56. rec avewypevous (corrn to more usual word), with D-corr! H rel 36 Epiph Chr
Constt Thdrt Th]: ynvewyy. D!:
Btly have div.)
STEPHEN. 54.] S.emp., see note on ref.
55.] Certainly, in so far as the vision
of Stephen was supernatural, it was not
necessary that the material heavens should
have been visible to him; but from the
words atevicas eig Tov ovpaydv it would
seem that they were. We are not told
where the Sanhedrim were assembled. It
does not seem as if they were convened in
the ordinary session room: it may have
been in one of the courts of the temple,
which would give room for more than the
members of the Sanhedrim to be present, as
seems to have been the case. éEgTora, |
A reason why the glorified Saviour was
seen standing, and not sitting, has been
pleasingly given by Chrysostom (in Cra-
mer’s Catena): tl oty éot@ra Kal ovx)
Kabijuevov ; tva Selkn thy aytlAnpw thy
eis Toy udpTupa* Kal yap wep) Tod marpds
Aéyerat “ avdora 6 O<ds.” Similarly Gre-
gory the Great, Hom. ii. 29, vol. i. p. 1572,
‘Stephanus stantem vidit, quem adjutorem
habuit.’ So also Arator, i. 611 ff. p. 124,
ed. Migne, ‘pro martyre surgit, Quem
tune stare videt ; confessio nostra seden-
tem Cum soleat celebrare magis.’ [See
also the collect for St. Stephen’s day.]
But not perhaps correctly : for ‘ help’ does
not seem here to be the applicable idea, but
the confirmation of his faith by the ecstatic
vision of the Saviour’s glory at God’s right
hand, I should be rather disposed to
think that there was reference in the vision
to that in Zech. iii, 1, where Zech. sees
Inooiv thy tepéa thy peéyar, éorata mpd
Tposwmov ayyeAou kuplov. Stephen, under
accusation of blaspheming the earthly
temple, is granted a sight of the heavenly
txt ABCN p Ath Cyr-jer. (dev. B Mai, but Rl Beh and
cor. bef ex 5e=. ACER! m vss Nyss Epiph, Cyr jer Chr, Aug.
58. aft exf. ins avtov A k 13 sah Thl-fin.
aft «A.@. ins avrov D Syr syr-w-ast
temple; being cited before the Sadducee
High Priest who believed neither angel
nor spirit, he is vouchsafed a vision of the
heavenly Hien Priest, standing and
ministering at the throne amidst the
angels and just men made perfect.
56.| This is the only time that our Lord
is by human lips called the Son oF Man
after His ascension (Rey. i. 13; xiv. 14,
are not instances). And why here? I
believe, for this reason. Stephen, full of
the Holy Ghost, speaking now not of
himself at all (ver. 55), but entirely by the
utterance of the Spirit, repeats the very
words, Matt. xxvi. 64, in which Jesus Him-
self, before this council, had foretold His
glorification ;—and assures them that that
exaltation of the Son of Man, which they
should hereafter witness to their dismay,
was already begun and actual. 58.
ew Tt. ao. | See Levit. xxiv. 14. * Locus
lapidationis erat extra urbem : omnes enim
civitates muris cinctz paritatem habent ad
eastra Israelis.” Babyl. Sanhedr. ad loc.
(Meyer.) Cf. also Heb. xiii. 12, 13.
€AvGoBdrovv | they stoned him: an an-
ticipation of the fact, the details of which
follow: not, ‘they prepared to stone him ?
nor ‘jam in itinere ad supplicii locum petu-
lanter eum lapidibus lacessebant’ (Heinr.):
nor need we conjecture éAdoAdyour with
Markland. Stoning was the punishment
of blaspheming, Levit. xxiv. 16. The ques-
tion whether this was a legal pr oceeding on
sentence, or a tumultuary one, is not easy
to answer. It would appear from John
xviii. 31, that the Jews had not legally the
power of putting any man to death (see
note there). Certainly, from the narrative
ABCDE
HNabf
gh kzl:
mop 13
d em-
KaXou-
Mevov...
ABCDE
HNabd
fghkl
mop 13
WALL. 1:
NIPAZEIS AMOSTOAQN.
83
k , 2 a) ey, et m x “ , Po
MQOTUOEC aATEVEVTQ TA LUATLA AUTWY Taoa TOUC Tooac Baer ae
"veaviov KaAdouuévov Lavrov, °9 Kat | eABodXouv Tov
Lrépavoy ° exicadovpevov Kal Aéyouvra Kvotg "Inoov déSar
oe % =
‘ yovara® exoaLlev * pwvy
‘
TO
Ss oN Ke Xf , iz , ‘ e ,
adh ai 4] to? Ln GTNHaNC autolt¢ TauTHY THY AuaoTlay,
VIIL. | SavrA0e 88 Hy
N u? ,
Kat tovro emwv “ exomnOn.
v } = eo
OUVEVOOKWV mH
46 Mt. J. Eccl. xii. 7.
3 Kings viii. 51. T as above (q).
t met., here only. propr., Matt. xxvi. 15? 2 Kings xiv. 26.
ff. w here only. Num. xi. 15.
v1 Cor. vii. 12, 13 reff.
coptt arm.
Cc Thl-fin.—eavt. B.
60. om de D!: ins D-corr!: Tee.
om N!. add Aeywy D am spec copt.
~ \
Parvevua pov. © Osic de ra *
w? , > ~ Sal f, A 2 ? ,
AVaLOEGEL QuTOU. EYEVETO Oe év EKELY)) TH)
qch. ix. 40. xx. 36. xxi.5, Mark xy. 19. Luke xxii. 41 only t. see
Rom. xi. 4 reff. Lukev. 8. Heb. xii. 12.
\_ 1 Matt. xii. 14.
Rom. xii. 12.
Eph. iv. 22,
26. Col. iii.
8 Heb. xii.
1. James i.
Ql. i Bet.
ii. 1 only.
= 2 Macc.
viii. 35.
m ch. iv. 35 reff.
nch. xx. 9 reff.
~ Acts only.
och. ii, 21 reff.
p = Luke xxii.
s ver. 57.
Zech. xi. 12. u = 1 Cor. vii. 39 reff.
om avtey Hab! f gh1m Thli-sif: ins ABCDEN p rel 36 vss Chr
aft veav. ins rwos D Syr arm: tov fh 13 Chr, Thi-sif.
59. aft ino. ins xpiote C d 40 Chr Thadrt.
govnv weyadrnv D': pevny meyadyn C'p:
otynces D! d 180: txt D*. ree THv
au. bef tavt., with EHX rel syr copt Chr, Thdrt Chron: txt ABCD vulg spec Syr
sah eth Petr Iren-int Cypr.
before us, and from the fact of a bloody
persecution having taken place soon after
it, it seems that the Jews did, by connivance
of, or in the absence of the Procurator,
administer summary punishments of this
kind. But here no sentence is recorded :
and perhaps the very violence and zelotic
character of the execution might constitute
it, not an encroachment on the power of
the Procurator, as it would have been if
strictly in form of law, but a mere out-
break, and as such it might be allowed to
pass unnoticed. That they observed the
forms of their own law, in the place and
manner of the stoning, is no objection to
this view. ot paptupes|] See ref.
They disencumbered themselves of their
loose outer garments, ste elvat rovpor
Ka) amapamddioTo1 cis Td ALBoBoActy. Theo-
phyl. amé8evto | to keep them.
Such notices are deeply interesting, when
we recollect by whom they were in all
probability carefully inserted. See ch. xxii.
19, 20, and note on ch. xxvi. 10:—from
which it appears that Saul can certainly
not have been less than ¢hirty at this time.
He was a member of the Sanhedrim, and
soon after was despatched on an important
mission with their authority. 59.] The
attempt to escape from this direct prayer
to the Saviour by making *Inood the geni-
tive, and supposing it addressed to the
Father,—in the face of the ever-recurring
words xipios *Incods (see Rev. xxii. 20
especially), and the utter absence of any
instance or analogy to justify it,—is only
characteristic of the school to which it
belongs. Yet in this case it has been fa-
voured even by Bentley and Valcknaer, who
supposed #edv to have been omitted in the
text, being absorbed by the preceding -ov.
But if any such accus. had been used, it
would certainly have been tov 6edv.
SéEar +S mv. p.] The same prayer in sub-
stance had been made by our Lord on the
cross (ref. Luke) to His Father. To Him
was now committed the key of David.
Similarly, the young man Saul, in after
years: mémeiouat Sri Suvatds eorw Thy
mapabjkny gov puddiar eis exelyny Thy
nuepavy, 2 Tim. 1. 12. 60.] The
more accurate philological Commentators,
De Wette and Meyer, deny that orjons
here can, as ordinarily explained, refer to
weighing (ref. Matt.; Jer. xxxix. [xxxii. ]
10), since not the six, but the punish-
ment, would be the thing weighed out,—
and it would be harsh to take the one
for the other, in a sentence of this kind.
Meyer would understand fotdya: as op-
posed to apiévar, Thy aucptiav, ‘Fix not
this sin upon them:’ but De Wette, as
seems to me more probably, renders it
Reckon not this sin to them (‘lay not this
sin to their charge,’ E. V.), supporting this
by Rom. x. 3. This again was some-
what similar (though not exactly, see note
there) to our Lord’s prayer, Luke xxiii. 34.
cowry | Not a Christian expres-
sion only: Wetstein, on Matt. xxvii. 52,
cites Jewish examples: and we have in
the Anthology, iii. 1. 10, rij5e Sdov 6
Alwvos *Akdv@ios iepdy tarvov | Komma-
rat’ Ovhokew ph A€ye TOUS ayabovs. But
it became the usual Christian term for
death. Its use here, when the circum-
stances, and the actors in them, are re-
membered, is singularly touching, from
the contrast.
Cuap. VIII. 1—3.] PERSECUTION OF
THE CHURCH BY SAUL, CONSEQUENT ON
THE DEATH OF STEPHEN. 1. cvvevd. |
G 2
84
x 2 Cor, xii. 10
ref.
ych. xiii. 50. —
“ver. 4. ch. xi.
19 only.
Ezek. xxii.
16
a plur., Luke
xxi. 21.
John iv. 35.
James v.4
only. Exvk,
xii, 15,
b here only t.
Job v. 26
only. Soph.
Ajax, 1047.
cch. ii. 5 reff. d here only. Gen. 1.10.
Ps. Ixxix. 13. f = Luke xiii. 22.
xxi. 8. ch. xiv.19. xvii. 6.
xxii.4. 2Cor iv. lial.
, '
ékKAnotay
Rey. xii. d only.
Isa. xxxiv. 2 al, fr.
Cuap. VIII. 1. & 0 join cavaos..
D sah.
wth.
3. o deo. D.
tous bef avépas &!(N3 disapproving).
See reff. : and compare his own confession,
ch. xxvi.9—11. From this time, the nar-
rative takes up Saul, and, at first with con-
siderable interruptions (ch. viii. x. xi. xii.),
but after ch. xiii. 1 entirely, follows his
history. év é«. T. Hp. can hardly mean,
as some (Dr. Burton, De Wette, Meyer,
Stier) would render it, on that very day,
viz. when Stephen was stoned. For what
follows, mdvtes 5& dieomdpnoay .. cannot
have happened on the same day, but would
take some little time: and it is hardly al-
lowable to render éyévero ‘broke out.’ We
have ev ex. 7. 7uépa used indefinitely, Luke
vi. 23; John xiv. 20 ; xvi. 28, 26. In Luke
xvii. 31 it has direct reference to a juépa
just mentioned. mavres | Not per-
haps /iterally,—or some of them soon
returned: see ch. ix. 26—30. It may
describe the general dispersion, without
meaning that every individual fled.
LYapapelas | Connected with ver. 4: this
word is not without importance, as intro-
ducing the next step in the dissemination
of the Gospel, according to our Lord’s
command in ch. i. 8. aw TOV
aétrooté\wv} Perhaps, from their exalted
position of veneration by the people, the
persecution did not extend to them: per-
haps they remained, as possessed of supe-
rior firmness and devotion. But this latter
reason is hardly applicable, after the com-
mand of our Lord, ‘When they persecute
you in one city, flee to another.’ Matt.
x. 23. Stier (Reden d. Apostel, i. 253)
refers their remaining to an intimation of
the Spirit, to stay and strengthen those
who were left (érépous yevéoOat Opdcous
atriot, Chrys.). Mr. Humphry (Comm.
on Acts) cites an ancient tradition, men-
tioned by Clem. Alex., Strom. vi. 5, end, p.
TIPAZEIS AIOSTOAQN.
’ / \ if ‘ ~ > -
lovdalac Kal Lapaoeiag awAnv TiwV amtoarToAw?.
‘ y [Wee , ae
4 komerov Meyav €7 auTwW.
£ ‘ ‘ 7
KaTa TOUVC OLKOUC
. avrou to ch vii.
rec maytes te, With Ak o Syr eth: om de 8! 18.47: kar mavres R*: txt
BCDEH p rel vulg syr coptt Ps-Eus Isid Chr, Thl.
aft amoo. add o: ewervay ev tepovaaAnu D! sah Aug.
2. cuveomoavres D-gr: cuvexoucavto bo: txt D*.
rec eromoaryto, with EH rel Chr, Gc Thl: txt ABCDN k p Chr, Thdrt.
eAvunvato H-gr eth-rom.
WITT.
€ , x ‘ , y , \ ‘ , Y ' ‘ ’ | Z
nuepa Sw y1L0¢ peyac * emt thv exkAnotav tHv ev lepo
aoXvmotc’ Tavtec be * dteoTapnaav Kata Tac “ Xwoac THE
b
2 Ouv-
‘ ww > = , Ven d ,
exoutsay Oe TOY Lrépavov avdpec °evAaBEte Kal Eroincay
3 SavAoe Oe © EAupaivero tH
, ’ hors
® ecTropevomevoc | cupwY
re avooag Kal yuvatkag ' Tapeoloou ec * pudakny.
Micah i. 8,
ix. 6. viii. 1.
2 Kings ee 13.
e here only. — 2 Chron. xvi. 10. and constr,
gch. iii. 2. Mark i. 21 al. h John
i constr., Luke xxi, 12. xxiv. 7. ch.
ch. v.19 reff. 2 Kings xx. 3.
aft weyas ins kat OAenbers
om tns D!: ins D?.
for Se, re DS E-gr D-lat
mapedi:5ous(sic) D!. ins
762 P, from the Pradicatio Petri (and by
Euseb. H. E. v.18), that the Apostles were
ordered by our Lord to remain at Jerusa-
lem twelve years: pnoly 6 Térpos cipynre-
vat Tov KUptoy Tots amroaTdAols "Eay wey ovy
Tis OeAhon Tod “IopahA peTavojoa dia
Tov dvéuatds pov miotevew em) Toy Bedy,
apeOhoovra avTe ai apaptiar peta 5w-
dexa Ern ebéABeTE cis THY KdoMoY, Mh TLS
elrn Odw axnkdauer. But this could not
be the case, as we have Peter and John
going down to Samaria, ver. 14.
2. avdp. evAaBets| Whether Jews or
Christians is not certain. Ananias is so
called, ch. xxii. 12 (not in rec.), and he
was a Christian. At all events, there is
no contrast implied in the dé (as Mey.),
‘Yet, notwithstanding the persecution and
dispersion, pious men were found who,
&e. :’ the 5€ is merely the transitional par-
ticle,—and, so far from its being any un-
usual thing to bury an executed person, it
was commanded among the Jews. Olshau-
sen thinks that, if they had been Chris-
tians, the term &deAdof would have been
used: but this does not seem by any means
certain : we can hardly reason so minutely
from the diction of one section in the nar-
rative to that of another, especially in the
case of a section so distinct and peculiar as
this one. [{ Besides, adeAmof in this sense
does not occur till ch. ix. 30: see reff.
there.] Probably they were pious Jews,
not yet converts, but hearers and admirers
of Stephen. 3. é\upatvero| Properly
used of wild beasts, or of hostile armies,
devastating and ravaging. (Seeexamples in
Kuin.) Kata Tods olkovs, entering
(the houses) from house to house,—a
pregnant construction. avpwy}| So
Philo, in Place. 9, vol. ii. p. 526, cvpdmevor
ABCD
EHNab
dfghk
lmop
13
—
eect
2—8.
4 OL piv ovv | diaomapevtec ™ dinAPov * evayyeAdtZopevor
5 Dikurmoc St °KareAOev sic TOAW Te
rov : Adyov.
a) ’ pila q > ‘ ,
Sapapetac? exnovooev " avrotc Tov yproTov.
Ot com >» = nf / € x - ’ s ¢
ot OyXot TOIG AeyouEVvoLg VTO TOU ®iAtrrov * onobupa-
‘ fe La > , ’ ‘ \ , ‘ - a
cov, ‘ev Tw akoVELY aUTOUC Kal BAérev Ta onueta a
, Ler \ N ~ > , , a 0
érotee’ 7 woXXot yao Tw “ EXOVTWY 'Y rvevpata " aKka-
+f \ \
* eEnoyorro, moAAol oF
w -* = ,
Oapra Bowrra porn peyady
7 mapadedvpevot Kal . Xwrol eOcoarevOnoav" 8 eyévero oe
22) only.
ch. ix. 20 reff. K. Xp. ina, 2 Cor. iv 6. see 2 Cor i. 1.
vv. 10, Ll. ch. xvi. 14.
15, 2 Cor. in. 13.
Heb. ii, J. vii. 13. 2 Pet. i. 19 only.
u Mark iii. 80 only. v ch. v. 16 reff.
x — Matt. xii. 43. xvii. 18. ch. xvi. $ al.
1 Mace. 1x. 54,
(Sur. Xvill. 19.)
4. ndPov &!.
5. xadeXwv D!-gr: txt D.
art is not needed, see note) ABN m.
r= and constr,
TIPAZEIS ANMOSTOAQN.
p = with ace, of person, 1 Cor. i. 23. Phil. i. 15.
Psa. y. 2.
s Matt. xi. 5. ch. iil. 2.
ins tnv bef moa. (exegetical addition.
Katoapias N?.
85
1 ver. 1.
m abs., ver. 40.
ch, x. 88.
xiii 14.
xvii. 23.
xx. 25. Luke
v. 15 only.
1 Kings xxvi.
66 =
7 OOCELXOV
81. ix. 37.
ch. ix. 82 al.
(Luke only,
exc. James
iii. 15.) 2
Mace. xi, 20
(Wisd. xi.
K. tT) XP-) L.P. Ke Te (NT ey
qsoch.xx.2. Matt. iv. 23, Luke iv.
1 Tim. i. 4. iii, 8. iv. 1,18. Tit. i. 14.
sch, i. 14 reff. tch, ix. 3 ref.
w Luke xviii. 7, 88. ch. xvii. Gal. Gen. xxxix. 14,
y Luke v. 18, 24. ch. ix, 33, Luke only, exe. Heb, xii, 12.
Lev. xxi. 18, a Matt. iv, 23, Xvil. 18 ft.
The
6. rec for de, Te, with E-gr H rel wth-pl: txt ABCD’ a h p 36 vulg E-lat syr coptt
Eus.—os 3e nkovoy may o: oxAot mposerx. Tos Acy. D!: corrd to txt by D8 and-corr.
om rov D' f: ins D*.
for ouo0., [.....] ovTo or
-re D!: txt D*.
avrov N!(perhaps: s added or renewed by X°).
7. rec moAAwv (alteration to avoid the difficulty : see note.
Meyer’s account, that
etnpxeto was first altered to -ovto to suit mvevnata [the converse is much more pro-
bable|, and then moddwv to -o1 to furnish a plur nom to e&npxovTo, seems to me very
unlikely), with H rel copt Chr ec Thi:
DS: txt ABCER p 36 vulg syrr sah.
txt ABCDEHR rel vulg syrr Chr Thl.
Thi-sif: txt ABCDEN k p Thl-fin.
om ka D! m: ins D’.
Kk. matovmevor Sid THs méAews amdons
eLavardbnoa. mapedidov] viz. to the
gaolers—so mapadidovs eis pudakds, ch.
Xxil. 4°
4—18.] PREACHING OF THE GOSPEL
IN SAMARIA BY PHILIP. 4.] pév ovv
resumes the subject dropped at the end of
ver. 1, and determines this verse to be the
opening of a new section, not the close of
the former. SrAAO.] See reff. — evayy.
+. My. ] Here first we become acquainted
with the missionary language so frequent
in the rest of the book : and we have tév
Aéyov, an expression very familiar among
Christians when the book was written, for
T. A. TOU Oeod. 5. Pidummos | The
deacon ; not, as apparently implied in the
citation from Polycrates in Eus. H. E. iii.
31, v. 24, one of the twelve: this is pre-
cluded by vy. 1 and 14. And it is pro-
bable, that the persecution should have
been directed especially against the col-
leagues of Stephen. Philip is mentioned
again as 5 evayyedrorhs,—probably from
his having been the first recorded who
ednyyedlcaro Tov Adyov,—in ch. xxi. 8,—
as married, and having four daughters,
virgins, who prophesied. wow T.
Yap.] Verbatim as John iv. 5, in which
[..-](Lap]a)? moddos D': aro moddois
rec ney. bef pwvn, with (none of our mss) coptt :
ree efnpxero (see above), with H rel Chr
aft woAA. de ins eat E 13 syr Chr.
eOeparevovto D 13.
8. ree xa ey., With EH rel syrr Thl-sif: xapa 7. Mey. ey: D-gr:
txt ABC p copt
case it is specified as being Sychar (Sichem).
As the words stand here (réAw = thy
wéduw, after eis, compare also 2 Pet. ii. 6),
seeing that Saudpea (vv. 9, 14; ch. ix.
31; xv. 3) signifies the district, I should
be inclined to believe that Sychem is here
also intended. It was a place of rising
importance, and in after-times eclipsed the
fame of its neighbour Samaria, which latter
had been, on its presentation by Augustus
to Herod the Great, re-fortified and called
Sebaste, Jos. Antt. xv. 7. 3, and 8. 5. It
still, however, bore the name of Samaria,
Jos. xx. 6. 2,—where, from the context,
the district can hardly be intended.
avtois | The inhabitants, implied in wOALS.
6. mposetxov. . .] If this place
was Sychem, the narrative in John iv. will
fully account for the readiness with which
these people received the xhpuyua Tod
xpiarov— the proclamation of the Christ.
7.] According to the reading in the
text, which is too strongly upheld by MS.
authority to be rejected for the easier ordi-
nary one, woAAol is a ‘nominativus pen-
dens’ (compare ch. vii. 40; Rey. iii. 12.
Winer, edn. 6, § 29. 1), For in the case
of many «who had unclean spirits, they
crying out with a loud voice, came out:
86
NPAZEIS AMOSTOAQN.
Viti
9
es b] a , ’ ,
ge ang TodAy Xapa ev ™ TWoAkt € _EKELY. avo 6é 7 ovomate
Job xhi. 17 b :
(only), ; Simo dif ulin Se ey TH woNke © paryevov Kal * etora-
c here only ;
Gea. VOY to “ébvog rn¢ Lapapsiac, Aéyor eivat ' ria EavTov
~yera, ver. 11.)
Abyi 1, vty 8’ olvos tkéotno€ pe.
adj., Heb, x. 27.
Thi-fin.
eth.
9. mpovrapxwy D-gr.
d -Gvwy here only.
e = Matt. xxi. 44. ch. vii. 7. x. 22.
puPepov 7 Yeapa, Lucian, Philopat. 8.
rec x. weyadn, with DEH rel vss Chr Thl: txt ABCX p am demid fuld
om kat D!:
trans., Luke xxiv. 22 only. Eur. Frag.
f with
see Job xii. 17.
ins D?, rec efiorwy, with D?EH rel
Chr Thl: seducens vulg Iren-int: suadens E-lat: mentem auferens D-lat: e&e{... -]
(ckeotavey Wetst) D!: txt ABC p.
é=ypxovto being plur., as often when the
neuter plural betokens living agents ; see
Winer, edn. 6, § 58. 3, a. B. qoAXol
has probably been altered to roAA@y, to
agree with tay éxdvtwy, on the difficulty
being perceived. 9. Sipwv]| Neander,
in the course of some excellent remarks on
this whole history (see further on ver. 14),
identifies, and I believe with reason, this
Simon with one mentioned as living from
ten to twenty years alter this by Josephus,
Antt. xx. 7. 2, xa@ dv Kaipby Tis “lovdatas
émetpomevoe PHA, Oeacduevos TaiTny
(Drusilla)... . . AauwBaver THs yuvands
emOuuiay, kal Sluwva ovduati, Tay éavT@
play, lovdatov, Kumpiov 5€ yévos, pmd-yov
elvat oxynntduevov, meuTwy mpos avThy
émeibe Toy kvipa Katadimovcay ab’T@ yh-
poc@at. The only difficulty seems to he,
that Simon is stated by Justin Martyr,
himself a Samaritan, to have been Sapa-
péa, ard Kéuns Acyouevns Tittav. But it
has struck me that either Justin, or per-
haps more probably Josephus, may have
confounded Ghittim with Chittim, i. e.
Citium in Cyprus. This conjecture I also
find mentioned in the Dict. of Biography
and Mythology, sub voce. The account
in Josephus is quite in character with
what we here read of Simon: not incon-
sistent (Meyer) with ver. 24, which appears
to have been uttered under terror occa-
sioned by the solemn denunciation of Peter.
Justin goes on to relate that he was
worshipped as a God at Rome in the time of
Claudius Cesar, on account of his magical
powers, and had a statue on the island in
the Tiber, inscribed ‘Simoni Deo Sancto.’
Singularly enough, in the year 1574, a
stone was found in the Tiber (or standing
on the island in the year 1662, according
to the Dict. of Biogr. and: Myth.), with
the inscription SEMONI SANCO DEO
FIDIO SACRVM, i. e. to the God Semo
Sancus, the $ Sabine Hercules, which makes
it probable that Justin may have been
misled. The history of Simon is full
of legend and fable. The chief’ sources of
it are the Recognitiones and Glementina
of the pseudo-Clemens. He is there said
om to EH.
e0os B?.
to have studied at Alexandria, and to have
been, with the heresiarch Dositheus, a dis-
ciple of John the Baptist. Of Dositheus
he became first the disciple, and then the
successor. Origen (in Matt. Comm. § 33,
p- 851) makes Dositheus also a Samaritan :
so also contra Cels. i. 57, p. 8372, and Hom.
xxv. in Lue. p. 962. His own especial
followers (Simoniani) had dwindled so
much in the time of Origen, that he says
vuvt 5€ Tos mavTas ev TH oikoupérn ove
éoTt Syuwviavods ebpeiy Toy apiOudy ota
TpiakovTa. Kal Taxa TAclovas elmoy Tay
évtwy, contra Cels. ubi supra; see also ib.
vi. 11, p. 6388, and wept apx@y, iv. 17,
176. In the Recognitiones and the Cle-
mentina are long reports: of subsequent
controversies between Simon Magus and
Peter, of which the scene is laid at Caesarea.
According to Arnobius (adv. Gentes, ii. 12,
p- 828 ed. Migne), the Constt. Apostol.
(ii. 14, p. 620; vi. 9, p. 932 ed. Migne),
and Cyril of Jerusalem, he met with his
death at Rome, having, during an en-
counter with Peter, raised himself into the
air by the aid of evil spirits, and being pre-
cipitated thence at the prayer of Peter and
Paul. The fathers generally regard him
as the founder of Gnosticism: this may be
in some sense true : but, from the very little
authentic information we possess, it is im-
possible to ascertain how far he was identi-
fied with their tenets. Origen (contra Cels.
v. 62, p. 625) distinctly denies that his fol-
lowers were Christians in any sense: Aay-
Odver Tov KéAgoy, itt ovdaunas Tov *Incotv
dpmodoyovaw vidby Bcod Siuwviavol, AAG Bv-
vauy Geod A€youst Toy Sluwva. pa-
yevov | Not to be joined with rpotripxev
(as in E. V. and Kuin.), which belongs to
év méAci :— exercising magic arts, such as
then were very common in the East and
found wide acceptance ; impostors taking
advantage of the very general expectation
of a Deliverer at this time, to set them-
selves up by means of such trickeries as
“some great ones.’ We have other exam-
ples in Elymas (ch. xiii.) : Apollonius of
Tyana ; and somewhat later, Alexander of
Abonoteichos: see these latter in Dict.
ABCD
EHNab
dfghk
lmop
13
L pus
TOVsee
ABCDE
HLNab
dfghk
lmop
13
9—13. IIPAZEIS AMOZTOAQN. 87
Enéyav' 1 3 t A ‘amo ee See ee
Bt y @ 7 OOCELYOV TAVTEC avo ALKpovu EWC 32. vii. i. ’
€ ix. 48. ch.
* weyadou AE yourTEc Obroe éotw 7 * Sbvapte tov Qcov 1 xix. 27.
E \ ' ay 1 aaa - 8: a SN Sue a As
KaAoupevyn peyaay. TOOCELYOV € auTw ola TO LKaYW § 21, Xi.
1 , Ce +} , n? , ? en Bi eats
Xpovm Tat payelatc eGcoTaKkevat auTOUCc OTE OF h ter. Grell.
Cea = 7 p.? , NE eng i Heb. viii. 11,
ETLOTEVGAY TW Dirir7w evayyeriCouevy TEepl THC Pa- Se
’ - ~ \ = 2 , - ID SAsah
otAstac tou ° Peov Kat TOU OvomaToc Incov yptortou, éBan- « Rom 116.
17 ” 8 \ ~ 13 ¢ \ I \ > A 1 Cor. i. 18,
TILOVTO AVODEC TE KAL YUVALKEC. O 6& Liuwy Kal avrog | 44
S ’ \ \ = ; ay = uke Viil. .
ETIOTEVOEV, KAL Barrisbetc "yy ° mpocKapTEOWY TY Did-) 227 ee,
- $only. see
Ul t 0 ~ ‘ou 8 , eX ee
LTT W, EWOWV TE Onmsia Kal UVABLELC peya ac yivo- ch. ix. 23, 43.
dat. of dura-
tion, Luke viii. 29. Rom. xvi. 25. m here only t. see ver. 9. n 2 Cor, v. 13 refi.
perf., here only. o — Matt. xxi. 254. John v.24. 1John v.10 al. Gen. xv. 6. p w.
mept, here only. see ch. vii. 52. q ch. xix. 8 reff. r constr., ch. ii. 5 reif. 8—ch.
i. 14 rett. t ch. vii. 56 reff. a = Matt. xi. 20, 21, 23 and j. Mark vi. 2. ch. ii. 22.
1 Cor. xii. 10. Gal. iii. 52.
10. mposerxav X. om wayres H rel xeth-pl Gc Thi Iren-int: ins ABCDEN k p
13 vss Chr. rec om KaAouuern (as appearing unnecessary, and being difficult, see
note), with HL rel Syr sah zth-pl Chr : ins ABCDEN p 13 vulg syr copt eth-rom arm
Orig, Iren-int.
Hy payias A B(Tischdf) CDEH® f 13. efuctaxevat ACEH k m o: txt BDLX&
rel.
12. rou pidurmov evayyeArCouevov R!. rec ins ra bef wept, with HL rel Chr:
om ABCDER® p 36 vulg syrr eth. for Ocov, ku Nt. rec ins tov bef ina., with
(13) al: om ABCDEHLR rel Chr Thl.—om ia. 18. om te A lect-12 vss(some).
18. ins ca bef mposk. D!. Ocopwr(sic) &. for re, ta B. transp dur.
and onu. EHL rel syr Chr Gc Thi: txt ABCDR k m p 18. 36 vulg Syr coptt eth.—
peyada Eo syr-w-ast eth-pl: om HL rel: txt ABCDEN km p 18 vulg Syr coptt
zeth-rom Chr. ywoueva EHL rel Chr We Thi: om C 126. 180 lect-25: txt ABD
km p 1s.
of Biogr. and Myth. Tia peyav|] be designated as 7 Suv. T. 0. 7 KaAoUmEYN
Probably not in such definite terms as his peyaAn. kahoupévy rests on such
followers later are represented as putting strong MS. authority, and is so unlikely
into his mouth: ‘Ego sum sermo Dei _ to have been inserted (the idea of a scho-
. . . ego paracletus, ego omnipotens, ego lium to indicate the force of the art.
omnia Dei.’ Jerome on Matt. xxiv. 5, p. [Bloomf.] is quite out of the question,
193. 10. 4 Suv. 7. 6. 4 Kaovpévy no such scholium being here needed), that
peyadn | Neander (1. c.) and Meyer think both on external and internal grounds it
that they must have referred to the Adyos, must form part of the text. The lit. ren-
the creating and governing manifestation dering will be, This man is the power of
of God so much spoken of in the Alexan- God which is called great: the sense,
drine philosophy (see extracts from Philo +n «This man is that power of God (see above)
note on John i. 1. The term, but by no which we know as the great one.’
means with the same idea, was adopted by Aeyouévn, found in a few later mss., is an
the Spirit, speaking by John, as belonging explanation of kaA. by a more usual word.
to the Son of God: see the same note, end), 11.] éEeotaxévat can hardly be as
and must have regarded Simon as an in- E.V., transitive, “he had bewitched them :”
carnation of the Adyos (the wntpémoAts Ta- there appears to be no example of the per-
cav Tay duvdewy Tod Ge00, Philo), so that fect being thus used. 13.] ‘ Simon saw
their erroneous belief would form some pre- _ his followers dropping off, and was hin-
paration for the great truth of an incar- _ self astounded at the miracles wrought by
nate Messiah, preached by Philip. But Philip: he therefore thought it best himself
to this De W. well replies, that we can also to acknowledge this superior power. .
hardly suppose the Alexandrine philosophy Heattached himself to Philip, and was bap-
to have been so familiar to the mass of the tized like the rest: but we are not, as the
people, and refers the expression to their sequel shews, to understand that the preach-
popular belief of a great angel (Chron. ing of the Gospel had made any impression
Sam. 10), who might, as the angels were on his heart, but that he accounted for what
called by the Samaritans the powers of he saw in his own fashion. He was con-
God (for which he refers to Reland, de vinced, from the works which Philip did,
Samar. § 7. Gesen. Theol. Samar. p. 21 1), that he was in league with some powerful
88
v mid., Matt.
au? > , \ c ’ € ,
ety hy pévac ‘ e€toraro. 14 ’"Axovoavrec S& ob Ev TepocoAtporg ABCD
famine. 5 > EHLN a
s ~
vi5l. Luke @OoTOAOL OTL “*OeoEKTAat 1) Lapapeta tov *Aoyov Tov batgh
ij. 47. ch. ii.
7,12. ix. Qlonly. Gen. xliii. 33. w Luke ix. 53. 2 Cor. xi. 4. = Lake vili38. ch. xi, = Tha
y ch. xi. ] reff.
TIPAZEIS AIOZTOAQN. VILLE
xvii. ll. 1 Thess. i. 6. ii. 13. Prov. iv. 10.
eticravto C!D'R}.
14. tepovcadAnu D. for Beov, xv Nt.
(c Thl: om ABCDEN o p 13 Eus Chry.
spirit : he viewed baptism as the initiation
into communion with that spirit, and ex-
pected that he should be able to make use
of the higher power thus gained for his own
purposes, and unite this new magical power
to hisown. All were baptized who pro-
fessed belief in Jesus as the Messiah : there
was therefore no reason for rejecting Simon,
considering besides, that from the nature
of the case he would for the time have given
up his magical practices.’ Neander, Pfl. u.
Leit. p. 102. ‘Hoe Simonis exemplo
clare patet, non conferri omnibus indifferen-
ter in Baptismo gratiam, queeillic figuratur.
Papistarum dogma est, Nisi quis ponat obi-
cem peccati mortalis, onines cum signis reci-
pere veritatem et effectum. Ita magicam
vim tribuunt Sacramentis, quasi absque fide
prosint. Nos autem sciamus offerri nobis
a Domino per Sacramenta quicquid sonant
annexe promissiones, et non frustra nec
inaniter offerri, modo fide ad Christum di-
recti ab ipso petamus quicquid Sacramenta
promittunt. Quamyvis autem nihil illi tune
profuerit Baptismi receptio, si tamen con-
versio postea secuta est, ut nonnulli conji-
ciunt, non extincta fuit nec abolita utilitas.
Swpe enim fit, ut post longum tempus
demum operetur Spiritus Dei, quo effica-
ciam suam Sacramenta proferre incipiant.’
Calvin in loc.
14—24.] Mission or PETER AND
JOHN TO Samarra. A question arises
on this procedure of the Apostles :—whe-
ther it was as a matter of course, that the
newly baptized should, by the laying on of
hands subsequently, receive the Holy Ghost,
—or whether there was in the case of these
Samaritans any thing peculiar,which caused
the Apostles to go down to them and per-
form this act. (1) The only analogous
case is ch. xix. 5, 6: in using which we
must observe that there it is distinctly
asserted that the miraculous gifts of the
Spirit followed the laying on of Paul’s
hands ; and that by the expression idév
in ver. 18, which must be taken literally,
the same is implied here. And on this
point the remarks of Calvin are too im-
portant to be omitted: ‘Hie occurrit
questio. Dicit enim tantum /uisse bap-
tizatos in nomine Christi, atque ideo non-
dum fuisse Spiritus participes. Atqui vel
inanem et omni virtute et gratia carere
Baptismum oportet, aut a Spiritu sancto
habere quicquid efficaciee habet. In Bap-
rec ins toy bef merp., with HL rel
tismo abluimura peccatis: atquilavacrum
nostrum Spiritus sancti opus esse docet
Paulus (Tit. iii. 5). Aqua Baptismi san-
guinis Christi symbolum est: atqui Petrus
Spiritum esse preedicat, a quo irrigamur
Christi sanguine (1 Pet. i. 2). In Baptis-
mo crucifigitur vetus noster homo, ut sus-
citemur in vite novitatem (Rom. vi. 6) :
unde autem hoe totum, nisi ex sanctifica-
tione Spiritus? Denique Baptismo nihil
reliquum fiet, sia Spiritu separetur. Ergo
Samaritanos, qui vere Christum in Bap-
tismo induerant, Spiritu quoque vestitos
fuisse negandum non est (Gal. iii. 27).
Et sane Lucas hie non de communi Spiri-
tus gratia loquitur, qua nos sibi Deus in
filios regenerat, sed de singularibus illis
donis, quibus Dominus initio Evangelii
quosdam esse praeditos voluit ad ornandum
Christi regnum.’ And a little after: ....
‘ Papiste, dum ficticiam suam confirmatio-
nem extollere volunt, in hane sacrilegam
vocem prorumpere non dubitant, semi-
christianos esse, quibus manus nondum
fuerunt imposite. (See this asserted by
Dr. Wordsworth, in loc. p. 40, col. 2,
bottom.) Hoc jam tolerabile non est,
quod quum symbolum hoc temporale esset,
ipsi perpetuam legem finxerunt in Ee-
clesia. .. . . Atqui fateri coguntur ipsi
quoque, Ecclesiam nonnisi ad tempus donis
istis fuisse ornatam. Unde sequitur, im-
positionem manuum, qua usi sunt Apostoli,
finem habuisse, quum effectus cessavit’ (in
loc.). And yet after this, Dr. Wordsw.
refers to “ Calvin here,” ‘in whose opi-
nion,” says R. Nelson, “this passage in
the Acts shews that Confirmation was in-
stituted by the Apostles.’ 'This example
may serve to suggest extreme caution in
trusting to Dr. W.’s reports of the opi-
nions of the Fathers and _ ecclesiastical
writers. The English church, in retaining
the rite of confirmation, has not grounded
it on any institution by the Apostles, but
merely declared the laying on of hands on
the candidates, to certify them (by this
sign) of God’s favour and goodness towards
them, to be ‘ after the example of the holy
Apostles.’ Nor is there any trace in the
oftice, of the conferring of the Holy Ghost
by confirmation ;—buta distinetrecognition
of the former reception of the Holy Spirit
(at Baptism), and a prayer for the increase
of His influence, proportioned to the ma-
turer life now opening on the newly con-
14—18.
~ ’ ‘ ’ ,
*Ocov, atécretAay mooc avtove THétpov kat Iwavyny,
NIPAZEIS AIOSTOAQN.
89
15 9%_ ach. xxiv.1
ot 22. Gen. y
xiii. 3.
z , a ’ sul Se b ,
TLVEC katapavrec mpocnugavro “TEOL AUTWY OT WC “haPw- a Lake vi. 28.
be = ce .
Olv TVvEvUa aylov
we RT Ey ~ ! ’ ~
TO ovoya TOU Kuplou Incov.
i cad sey kcal NU beeen 2 be = be
KEloac é7 aduTouc, Kal eA auPavov TVEVLA aytoyv. bis.
18 iow 82 Lg fi eo A - k > , ~ ~
towy d& 0 Linwy ort da tHe § EemBicewe THY YELOWY TwY
c here 3ce.
12s ich. Xiil. WUoexkix. 17,
Mark vy. 36 al.
ch. x. 48. £1 Cor. x. 2.
dJamesii. 15. 2 Pet.i.8. ii. 19 iii. 11.
ix. 18. ch. vi. 6. ix. 12,17. xiii. 3 al.
2 Chron. xxv. 27.
15. mposevé. B.
Rey. xi. 11 only.
16. om vv. 16, 17 13 (similarity of endgs).
txt ABCDEN® p 36 Did Chr.
D!': txt D*? eBamrtionu. NR}.
aft kv ww ins xpv D.
’ , A Ss ? ’ . A , ~
16 OvesTrw yao QY &7 OVOEVE aUTWY S
d? , e , 3: fg , hpcee fie?
ETLTETTTWKOC, MOVOY O& BeBamtiopévor uTmNo0Xov ELC
ch. (ii. 38) x. 47. xix. 2. John xx. 22.
Gen. xv. 12. see Rom. xv. 3.
f Matt. xxviii. 19. ch. xix. 5. (Rom. vi. 3.) 1 Cor.i 13,15. w.ém¢, ch. ii. 38. ép,
Gal. iii. 27.
w. pait., ch. a 36 only
for er, er: D!: ey E!: txt D-corr!.
for xup., xpeorov HLadef gh] He Thi-sif :
Col. i. 3. iv.
1 Thess
. 25;
2 Thess.i. 11.
iii. 1. Heb.
17 , i? ’ ‘ xiii. 18 only.
TOTE eet iVecav Tac | Ps. |xxi. 15.
b John vii. 39.
Rom. viii. 15
1 Cor.
~ ii. 12. 2 Cor.
xi-4. Gal.
iii. 2.
dof the Spirit, ch. x. 44. xi. 15 only, < Lukei.
e Matt. viii. 8.
h Luke xi. 13. xvi. 14. ch. ii. 30. Rom.iv. 19 al.
i Num. xxvii. 18. Matt.
1 Tim. iv.14. 2Tim.i.6. Heb. vi. 2onlyt. see
rec ovrw, with HL rel (ec Thi:
ovdeva
17. rec ereri@ouv, with D!EHI rel Chr Thi: txt A B(-@ocav) C(-Geroav) D-corr!°r? &
o p 36 Eus Did Cyr-jer.
18. rec (for dav) Peavauevos, with HL rel Thl: txt ABCDEN b'dko p 13. 36 Constt
firmed. (2) If then we have here no in-
stitution of a perpetual ordinance, some-
thing peculiar to the case before us must
have prompted this journey. And here
again we havea question: Was that moving
cause in the Samaritans, or in Philip?
I believe the true answer to the question
will be found by combining both. Our
Lord’s command (ch. i. 8) had removed all
doubt as to Samaria being a legitimate field
for preaching, and Samaritan converts being
admissible. (So also with regard to Gen-
tile converts,—see ch. x., notes: but, as
the church at this time believed, they
must be circumcised, which the Samaritans
already were,—and keep the law, which
after their manner the Samaritans did.)
The sudden appearance, however, of a body
of baptized believers in Samaria, by the
agency of one who was not one of the
Apostles,—while it would excite in them
every feeling of thankfulness and joy,
would require their presence and power, as
Apostles, to perform their especial part
as the divinely appointed Founders of the
Chureh. Add to this, that the Samaritans
appear to have been credulous, and easily
moved to attach themselves to individuals,
whether it were Simon, or Philip; which
might make the Apostles desirous to be pre-
sent in person, and examine, and strengthen
their faith. Another reason may have been
not without itsinfluence: the Jewish church
at Jerusalem would naturally for the most
part be alienated in mind from this new
body of believers. The hatred between
Jews and Samaritans was excessive and
unrelenting. It would therefore be in the
highest degree important that it should be
shewn to the church at Jerusalem, that
these Samaritans, by the agency of the
same Apostles, were partakers of the same
visibly testified gifts of the one Spirit. The
use of this argument, which was afterwards
applied by Peter in the case of the Gen-
tiles, unexpected even by himself, ch. xi.
17,—was probably no small part of the
purpose of this journey to Samaria.
14. Ilér. «. “Iwav.] Perhaps two, in ac-
cordance with the dvo dvo of their first
missionary journey (Mark vi. 7): so Paul
and Barnabas afterwards (ch. xiii. 2): and
the same principle seems to have been
adhered to even when these last separated :
Paul chose Silas, Barnabas took Mark.
PETER,—because to him belonged, in this
early part of the Gospel, in a remarkable
manner, the first establishing of the church ;
it was the fulfilment of the promise ém
TavTn TH Wétpa oikodounow jou THY EK-
KAnolay. It was he who had (in common
with all the Apostles, it is true, but in
this early period more especially com-
mitted to him) tas KAeidas Tis BaciAclas
Tv ovpavGy,—who opened the door to the
3000 on the day of Pentecost, now (as a
formal and ratifying act) to the Samaritans,
and in ch. x. to the Gentiles. So far, is
plain truth of Scripture history. The mon-
strous fiction begins, when to Peter is at-
tributed a fixed diocese and successors, and
to those successors a delegated power more
like that ascribed to Simon Magus than
that promised to Peter. This is the last
time that Jon appears in the Acts. He
is only once more mentioned in the N. T.
(except in the Revelation), viz., as having
been present in Jerusalem at Paul’s visit,
Gal. ii. 9. 15. mposnvé.] So laying
on of hands is preceded by prayer, ch. vi. 6 ;
90 IIPAZEIS AIMOSTOAQN. VIRB
> , l ! ‘ ~
Ipres., eb. xvi. a@erocroduw |” MiSovravce S mveupa, * mMoocnvEeykKEv auroic ABCDE
el.
Pe Xphmara 19 Aéyww Dione xapol THY » ebouaiav rabrny, afgh«
ch. v. 82. XV. * i 06. ej Bi be de p
8. 1 Ti aw € ‘emul @ Ta a a ’ , ayo,
i g (1 John iva @ éay ¢ “xelpa c* Nan gs * mvevpa one
iy. 13)
ie Herpoe oe ei elev moe
aurov To a apyipioy GOvU ou cot
20. 2 Kings qr a‘ t 5 0
xvi. 29. etm “ete “SamwAgav, ore THY wpedy tov Oeov °° Evoutcac
Oe ne The oo 21 Pe ee
p Soitatt x1 ta ° ypnuarwy “” kraoOat. OUK ori oot ** peptic ouce
wate 2 L = ’ oe (4 , A , >
Wace. £15, ¥’ kAnpoe gv TW *“Noyw TOUTW n yap ” Kapdla Gov OUK
q=ch. ii. 39. yy be On @ dw - 29 e , . gg BPS
r Matt. vii. 13. Egryy © eyOeta “ Evavte tov Oeov. lETAVONOOV OVVY aTO
ae ix. 22. t ; a f i : i
im. vi. 9. = U , -
Heb x 3). THE Kaklac cov tauTnc, Kat SenOnre Tov Kuotov, * et * apa
Rev. xvii. 8,
Jl, Isa. xxxii. 2,
Wisd, xiii. 2 al. vconstr., 1 Cor, vii. 36.
x Luke x. 42. ch. xvi. 12. 2 Cor. vi. 15.
lvii. 6. see Col. i. 12
only. Ps, \xxvii. 37.
d Luke i. S only. Exod. xxviii. 34 (38) al. fr.
Rev. ii, 21 al4, é7é, 2 Cor. xii. 21.)
Bas Chr, Damase Taras.
8 2 Pet. ii. 1 &c. iii. 7, 16.
2 Macc. vii. 19. Ps. xlix. 13 Symm.
Col. i. 12 only L.P.
z2=ch.i.17, 26. xxvi 18.
ce Luke iii. 4 J, 5
_ _ f = 1Cor. xiv. 20 reff.
Mark xi. 13 only. Ken. Mem. ii. 2.2. Anab. iii. 2. 22.
t =ch. ii. 38 reff. a Matt. x. 3d al.t
w ch. xxii. 28 reff.
y Deut. xii. 12. xiv. 27. xviii. 1. Isa.
a= Luke iv. 3, ch. xv. 6. b bere
(from Isa. 31. 3, 4). ch. ix. 11. xiii. 10. 2 Pet. ii. 15 only.
ehereonly. Jer. viii. 6 only, see Heb. vi. 1. (— u. ex,
g ch. [vii. 1] xvii. 27.
rec aft mv. ins To ayov (common addition, and suspicious
wherever there is any variation in MSS), with ACDEHL rel 36 vss Chr: om BX sah
Constt. mposnveycay D': txt Dt.
19. ins rapaxadAwy Ka bef Aey. D.
Cyr-jer Chr Taras :
Steph av, with DH ab? gh 1m o 36 Constt
txt ABCELX® rel (&c Thl.
aft em@w ins kayw D.
20. avrovs XN}. om to and gov D': ins D'. [N.B. D-lat is wanting from ro
apyupioy cov to ci x. 4. ]
21. wepos E 1. om yap D'177': txt D3. rec evwmioy (corrn to more usual
word), with EHL rel Constt Ath Taras Thl:
ABDR 36.
evaytioy Ch p13 Bas Chr Damase: txt
22. rec for kup., Qeov (corrn from ver 21: or doctrinal ?), with HL rel vulg Syr
Taras Thl: txt ABCDEN'k 0 p 18 syr coptt arm Constt Ath Bas Chr Ambr.
abnonoera cov D'1': txt D’.
xiii. 3. 18. i8ov] Its effects were
therefore visible (see above), and conse-
quently the effect of the laying on of the
Apostles’ hands was not the znward but
the outward mir aculous gifts of the Spirit.
thy natural corrupt one : as being bound in
the otvdeouos tis adixlas. The expression
of Peter, 1 Pet. i. 7, xpuctov tod amoddv-
Hevou, is remarkably parallel with this (see
too 1 Pet. i. 18). évopioas | aor. thou
™Tposyv. avt. xpypata| De W.ex- thoughtest: not ‘thou hast thought, as
cellently remarks, ‘ He regarded the capa- E.V. The historic force of the tense is to
bility of imparting the Holy Spirit,—
rightly, as htc nine conferred, as a de-
rived power (see ref. Matt.), but wrongly,
as one to be obtained by an external
method, without an inward disposition :
and, since in external commerce every
thing may be had for gold, he wanted to
buy it. ‘This is the essence of the sin of
Simony, which is intimately connected with
unbelief in the power and signification of
the Spirit, and with materialism.’
Clearly, from the narrative, Simon himself
did not receive the Spirit by the laying on
of hands. His nefarious attempt to treat
with the Apostles was before he himself had
been presented to them for this purpose.
20.| The solemn denunciation of Peter,
like the declaration of Paul, 1 Cor. vi. 13,
has reference to the perishableness of all
worldly good, and of those with it, whose
chief end is the use of it (see Col. ii. 22),
“Thy gold and thou are equally on the way
to corruption :’ thy gold, as its nature is:
thou with it, as having no higher life than
be kept here : the Apostle uses it as looking
forward to the day of amdéaAea, ‘ Let thy
lot be am., and that because thou thought-
est,’ &e. Krao0.] to acquire, not pass.
as E. V., ungrammatically. 21. pepis
. . . KA#pos} synonymous: the first lit.,
the second fig. (see reff.), but not without
reference perhaps to the KAnpovoula of the
kingdom of God, the ka. Lpbapros, 1 Pet.
i 4 T® Aéy. Todt.| The matter
now spoken of,—‘to which I now allude.’
ev0eia} Hardly, ‘right before God,’
E. V., but thy heart is not right,—sin-
cere, single- -meaning,—in God’s presence,
‘as God sees it:’ i.e., ‘seen as it really is,
by God, is not in earnest in its seeking
after the gospel, but seeks it with un-
worthy ends in view.’ 22.) «i dpa,
if perhaps (not ‘ut sane,’ which it will
not bear: see on its meaning, “if, which
none can say,” Hartung, Partikellehre, i
440): and the uncertainty refers, not to
the doubt whether Simon would repent
or not (see below on ydp): but as to
19—26.
h? , U oh eee - U a
apeOnaerat col n eEmivota THC Kapoiac oou
jm A ‘ mo , \ op , x p 5 ’
oxo Hv TLKOLaAC Kal Gvuvorouov a iKtac OOW
MPAZEIS ANOZTOAQN.
91
PRY as yp h=Rom. i
: mic ya she i 2
- i (=) here only.
Of OVTA. “Ger xx. 10°
~ only) Sir.
> ‘ \ € ’ = , c - © \ ’
24 anoxplec ot 0 Limwv eiurev Aen Onre UmElG UTED EMO , xI2 Al
‘ tn) , a de ree? EXO , > » ‘ ot , ,
moog TOV KUOLOY, OTWE pndeY ' EWEADY Ew ELE WY ELPTIKATE.
25 ‘ \ * s 8 , Vent ,
Oi péev ovy *Crapaprupapevoe Kat AaAnoavtec Tov
k = ver. 20.
1 Matt. xsvii.
34 only.
. m Deut. xxix.
18 vat. Lam.
iii, 15.
t , - ’ u ¢ / 2 € 7 , % ass
{oe Adyov Tav Kuplov, “ UTETTPEOY ELC IepocdAupa, moAXag " fom Pe, ix.7
4 , - - w.? ' - 26 * (27). Eph.
KLNab te \ KwWUaG TWY Sauaoettrwv ~ ev eAtCovTo ayyeAoc iv. 31. Heb
edfgh Boe ae WY C pe: ¢ xii. 15 only.
klmo o Eph. iv. 3. Col. ii. 19. iii 14 only. L.P. p here only. Isa, lviii. 6. rch. xiii. 40 reff.
p 13 s Luke xvi. 28. ch. ii. 40 al7.. 1 Thess. iv. 6. Heb. ii. 6. L.P.H. Jer. vi. 10. t =ch. xi. 19 reff.
n Luke i. 56al. fr. Luke only, exc. (Mark xiv. 40 rec.) Gal. i. 17. Heb vii.1l. 2 Pet. ii. 21. Gen. xliii. 10.
y Matt. ix. 35. Luke ix. 62al. fr.
Isa. xl. 9(?).
Josh, xiii. 80.
w constr., Luke ifi. 18. ch. xiv. 15, 21. xvi. 10.
23. nv (= ev?) yap mpias XoAN K. TvvdETHM D!: es yap mikpiay XoAnS K. TvvBeT HOV
D2. for opw, Aewpw DE Constt Chr.
24. om o EH.
dend. D 137. 180 syr-w-ast Constt.
mept D' 96: txt D’.
(but kupioy syr-marg) eth.
twv kaxwy bef wy D.
aft eumev ins mpos avrouvs D (zth).
D! has altered SenOnre to SenOntt.
for kup., Ocov (see above, ver 22) Dk mo 13 demid fuld syrr
for ew eue, wor D: cuore: om em C.
for wy, ov D!: ws L: txt D?.
ins wapakadw bef
for u7ep,
ins TovTwY
aft esp. ins kakov HE:
pot D, addg also os moAAa KAaiwy ov SteAvmTaver D! syr-marg.
25. Siauaptupouevoe LN d flo Thi sif.
wth Thl-sif-comm: om T. k. 3. 41. 65.
to common form, see ver
txt ABCDEN ck 0 p 13. 36 Chr.
whether or not his sin may not have come
under the awful category of those unpar-
donable ones specified by our Lord, Matt.
xii. 31, to which words the form ape8joerar
seems to havea tacit reference. Peter does
not pronounce his sin to have been such,
but throws in this doubt, to increase the
motive to repent, and the earnestness of his
repentance. This verse is important, taken
in connexion with John xx. 23, as shewing
how completely the Apostles themselves re-
ferred the forgiveness of sins to, and left
it in, the sovereign power of God, and not
to their own delegated power of absolution.
23.] yap gives the reasons, not why
it would be difficult for forgiveness to take
place, but why he had such extreme need
of repentance and prayer, as being tied
and bound by the chain of sin. ovTa
eis] a pregnant construction — having
fallen into and abiding in: not to be taken
(as Kuin., &e.) as ‘ amounting to, —‘ totus
quantus es, nil nisi venenum amarum es et
colligatio iniquitatis,’ which is very harsh,
and improbable: nor (as Stier) is it pro-
phetic, as to what would be the conse-
quence, if he did not repent : ‘ I see that
thou wilt come to, &e. Least of all must
it be said, here or any where else, that eis
is put for év. 1 cannot too often remind
my younger readers, that it is a funda-
tense), with CEHL rel vss Thi: txt ABD p 36 vulg Aug.
for kup., 6cov A 68 demid syrr copt
rec vrectpepay (alteration to historic
rec repovoadnm (corrn
26. It has been suggested that -codvpa occurs here as
belonging to a narrative in which this form has been the one used, see VV 1, 14;
whereas in the follg narrative, -cadnu is used, vv 26, 27), with HL rel vulg He Thi:
for Te, 5e D.
on vreotp.), With HL rel E-lat copt Chr Thl:
rec euvnyyeAioayto (see above,
txt ABCD E-gr & p 36 vulg sah Aug.
mental maxim of all sound scholarship,
that no word is ever put for another.
XoA. mikp.] see reff. ‘the gall which is
the very seat and essence of bitterness ’—
a very gall of bitterness. The poison of
serpents was considered to be seated in
their gall: so xoA} aomidos ev yaoTph
avtod, Job xx. 14. See Plin. H. N. xi. 37.
24.] Simon speaks here much as
Pharaoh, Exod. (viii. 28; ix. 28) x. 17,—
who yet hardened his heart afterwards
(Stier). It is observable also that he
wishes merely for the averting of the
punishment. The words drws pndev én-
éXOn em cue Gv ecipfkare seem remark-
ably to set forth the mere terror of the
carnal man, without any idea of the eué
becoming another man in thoughts and
aims.
25—40.] ConvERSION OF THE ATHIO-
PIAN EUNUCH BY PHILIP'S TEACHING.
25.] pév odv indicates (sce note on
ver. 4) that the paragraph should begin
here, not at ver. 26 as commonly.
kopas T. Lap.] It is interesting to recall
Luke ix. 52, where on their entering into
a kounv Sap., the same John wishes to
call down fire from heaven, kal avad@oat
adtovs. On constr. (edayy. Ww. accus.), see
reff. The gradual sowing of the seed
further and further from Jerusalem is
$3 IIPAZEIS AMOSTOAQN. Vit;
= Matt.ix. S$ 4 aes ‘ 1 , x? ,
x5 Matix, O& Kuolov éXaAnoev mooc Pitutmov Aéywy *Avacrnht
iv. 29. ch. \ , y \2 ’ Jes! eee eae \ 4 Ww
v. 6, 17. Kal TOpEVOU * KaTa peonuPotav ETL TV OOOY THY KaTa
Jonah iii. 2. , > we . , , v e , \ bv es
ripg Batvovoay aro Tepovoadnp sic VaZav* avrn éoriv ° Eon
(xPnil, iii’ 14. Josh. v. 7. zch. xxii. 6 only, Gen. xviii, 1. a here only. see Matt. vii. 13, 14.
Prov. Vii. 27. b = here only?
26. mopevOnr. CD.—avacoras op. D 40. for kata, mpos E 130. 180 Chr.
for em, ets H: om p. aft 2nd rny ins kaAoupevny X(N? disapproving). om
eoTlv p.
advancing: not only is this eunuch to carry
it to a far distant land, but Philip is sent
to a desert road, away from town or vil-
lage, to seek him. The imperfects (altered
in the rec., see var. readd., into aorists)
are significant. They were on their way
back to Jerusalem, and were evangelizing
the Samaritan villages, when the angel
spake (aor.) to Philip. 26.] An angel,
visibly appearing: not in a dream,—which
is not, as some suppose, implied by avd-
771, see reff. The ministration of angels
introduces and brings about several occur-
rences in the beginning of the church, see
ch. y. 19; x. 3; xii. 7 (xxvii. 23). The
appearance seems to have taken place in
Samaria, after the departure of Peter and
John ; see above, on the imperfects.
He would reach the place appointed by
a shorter way than through Jerusalem :
he would probably follow the high road
(of the itineraries, see map in Conybeare
and Howson’s St. Paul) as far as Gophna,
and thence strike across the country south-
westward te join, at some point to which
he would be guided, the road leading from
Jerusalem to Gaza. Tafav] The south-
ernmost city of Canaan (Gen. x. 19), in
the portion of Judah (Josh. xv. 47), but
soon taken from that tribe by the Philis-
tines, and always spoken of as a Philistian
city (1 Sam. vi.17 ; 2 Kings xviii. 8 ; Amos
i. 6—8; Zeph. ii. 4; Zech. ix.5). In Jer.
xlvii. 1, we have ‘ before Pharaoh (Necho ?)
smote Gaza,’—implying that at one time
it was under Egypt. Alexander the Great
took it after a siege of five months (Q. Curt.
iv. 6,7. Arrian, Alex. ii. 26), but did not
destroy it (as Strabo relates in error, xvi.
759, see below in this note), for we find it
a strong place in the subsequent Syrian
wars, see 1 Mace. (ix. 52) xi. 61, f.; xiii.
43 (xiv. 7; xv. 28; xvi.1); Jos. Antt. xiii.
5.5; 13.3 al. It was destroyed by the
Jewish king Alexander Jannzus (96 A.C.),
Jos. Antt. xiii. 13. 3, after a siege of a year,
but rebuilt again by the Roman general
Gabinius (Antt. xiv. 5. 3),—afterwards
given by Augustus to Herod (xv. 7.3), and
tinally after his death attached to the pro-
vince of Syria (xvii. 11.4). Mela, in the
time of Clandius, calls it ‘ ingens urbs et
munita admodum,’ with which agree Euse-
bius and Jerome. At present it is a large
town by the same name, with from 15,000
to 16,000 inhabitants (Robinson, ii. 640).
The above chronological notices shew that
it cannot have been épnuos at this time:
see below. avty éotiv épynpos | The
words, I believe, of the angel, not of Luke.
There appear to have been two (if not more)
ways from Jerusalem to Gaza. The Anto-
nine itinerary passes from Jerus. to Eleu-
theropolis—Askalon—Gaza. The Peutin-
ger Table, Jerus.—Ceperaria—Eleuthero-
polis—Askalon— Gaza. But Robinson (ii.
748. Winer, RWB.) found an ancient road
leading direct from Jerusalem to Gaza,
through the, Wadi Musurr, and over the
Beit Jiibrin, which certainly at present is
épnuos, without towns or villages. Thus
the words will refer to the way : and denote
the way of whichI speak to thee is desert
(Schéttg. cites from Arrian, iii. p. 211,
epjunv 5€ elvar thy dddv 5? ayvdpiav).
Besides the above objection to applying
épnuos to Gaza, there could be no possible
reason for adding such a specification here,
seeing that Gaza had nothing to do with
the object of the journey, and the road
would be designated the road from Jeru-
salem to Gaza, whether the latter city was
inhabited, or in ruins. Those who apply
€pnuos to Gaza, have various ways of re-
conciling the apparent discrepancy with
history : most of them follow Bede’s ex-
planation, that the ancient city was Epnuos,
and that the Gaza of this day was another
town nearer the sea. But how this helps
the matter I cannot perceive, unless we
are to suppose that the deserted Gaza and
the inhabited Gaza were so far apart that
it was necessary to specify which was
meant, because there would be from Jeru-
salem two different roads,—of which no
trace is found, nor could it well be. Some
again suppose (Hug, al.) that the Acts were
written after the second Gaza was de-
stroyed (Jos. B. J. ii. 18. 1), just before the
destruction of Jerusalem, and that Luke
inserts this notice: but to what purpose ?
and why xo more such notices? In the
passage of Strabo, commonly cited to sup-
port the application of &%pnuos to Gaza,
ABCDE
HLN ab
edfgh
klmo
pl3
27, 28.
foc. 7 Kal *avacrac Erooev0n,
e EVYOVXOC 1 Suvaorne Kavdakne
oc nV
eRe at , 5
KUVNowY ELC IgpovoaAny, 28 Vv TE ‘ UmosTpepwn Kat ka-
NMEVO’
XViii.7 only. Jer. XXxvVi. (xxix.) 2.
g here only. Ezra vii. 21. Esth. iv. 7.
xii. 20. ch. xxiv. 11. Jer. xxxiii. (xxvi.) 2.
Kxiii. 2al. l here &c., 3ce.
iii, 2,15. 4 Kings xix. 14.
IIPAZEIS AIOZLTOAQN.
*Bactrisong Abwrwr,
‘emi maone tne ® yalne autne, oc éEAnrAvOa * mpoc= 4 buke i. 62.
see Luke xxi. | |.
Rey. ix. Yonly. 4 Kings x. 15.
93
he A ‘ 9?
Kal woov avyno Adio ore ke. |
Matt. xix.
12(3ce) only.
Esth. ii. 14 al.
1 Tim. vi. 16
only. =Levit.
xix. 15. Sir.
Viii. 1.
Le coed a 2 Mi inn 2 ‘ \ yy € Matt. xii, 42
él TOV GouaTog auTOU Kal aveytywoKkev TOV © Hit
Rev.
f =ch. xii. 20. Rom.ix. 5. Eph.iv.6. 4 Kings x. 6.
John viii. 20. h abs., John iy. 20.
i ver. 25 reff. k = Matt. xix. 28.
m ch. xy. 21. 2 Cor.
27. rec ins tns bef Bac. (corvn), with HL rel Chr Thl: om ABCDEX p.—D! adds
avtov D!: txt D?.
Ttvos.
om 2nd os AC'D'XN! vulg sah Ge (corrn for
constr sake, to prevent avnp being pendent, and make it the nom to eAndvOet): ins
BC?D? EHLN3 rel syrr copt eth Chr Thl: @s 13.
28. for re, de BC H-lat syr coptt Chr.
40 vulg copt : ins D?. om Tou C,
om avtov D!: ins D?.
13 (not Ist x. as Sz) (adopted by Lachm and Tischdf 1849.
om eis D!: ev D?L.
om Ist ra: (as unnecessary to the constr) D'
om 2nd ka: DR! acef
The omissions in this case
seem to me very like attempts to escape from the repetitions of kat, which however are
characteristic of this section, see v 27, vv 36, 38, 39.
The te in A may have the same
source).—avayiwwoxov D vulg(but retains xa:) sah.—for nt. avey., avey. Te A; avey.
évdotés mote yevouevn, Kateoracnern ©
td "AAetdvdpov (the Great, according to
Strabo, which it was not) Kat pévovoca
épnuos, the last three words are wanting in
some edd. and are supposed to have been @
gloss from the Acts. Others suppose &p7-
fos to signify ‘ wnfortified,’ which standing
alone it cannot. Besides, this notice would
be wholly irrelevant ;—and would probably
not have been true,—see Mela above. The
objection of Meyer to the interpretation
given above, that if épnu. referred to 7 65¢ds,
the article would be expressed, is not valid:
the emphasis is on attn; ‘that way, of
which I speak, is desert :’ not, ‘is the desert
one:’ no reference is made to the other.
27. evvodxos] The very general use
of eunuchs in the East for filling offices of
confidence, and the fact that this man was
minister to a female sovereign, makes it
probable that he was literally an eunuch.
If not so, the word would hardly have been
expressed. No difficulty arises from Deut.
xxiii. 1, for no inference can be drawn from
the history further than that he may have
been a proselyte of the gate, in whose case
the prohibition would not apply. Nay, the
whole occurrence seems to have had one
design, connected with this fact. The walls
of partition were one after another being
thrown down: the Samaritans were already
in full possession of the Gospel: it was
next to be shewn that none of those physical
incapacities which excluded from the con-
gregation of the Lord under the old cove-
nant, formed any bar to Christian baptism
and the inheritance among believers; and
thus the way gradually paved for the great
and as yet incomprehensible truth of Gal.
iii. 28. Kavddxys | As Pharaoh among
the Egyptians was the customary name of
kings, so Candice of the queens among the
Aithiopians in upper Egypt (Ai@lomes irép
Aiytrtov oikovytes, Dio Cass. liv. 5),—in
the island of Meroe, Plin. vi. 29, where he
says, ‘Ipsum oppidum Meroen ab introitu
insula abesse LXX m. pass..... Regnare
feeminam Candacen, quod nomen multis
jam annis ad reginas transiit..... Ceete-
rum cum potirentur rerum Aithiopes, in-
sula ea magne claritatis fuit.’ yatns]
A Persian term. Q. Curt. iii. 13. 5, ‘ pe-
cuniam regiam, quam gazam Perse vocant.’
See Virg. Ain. i.119. Ss EAmAVBer.. . |
This did not only Jews and proselytes, but
also those pious Gentiles who adhered to
Judaism,—the proselytes of the gate, see
John xii. 20. Euseb. i. 1, prope fin.,
speaking of this eunuch says, dv mp@tov
e§ eOvav mpbs Tod SiAlwrov BV éemipavelas
Ta ToD Belov Adyou bpyia meTaTXOVTA, TOY
Te dvd Thy oikoumevny TicTay a&mrapyyy
yevouevoy x.T.A., taking for granted that
he was a Gentile. There were (see below,
ch. xi. 21) cases of Gentile conversion
before that of Cornelius ; and the stress of
the narrative in ch. x. consists in the mis-
cellaneous admission of all the Gentile
company of Cornelius, and their official
reception into the church by that Apostle
to whom was especially given the power.
We may remark, that if even the plain
revelation by which the reception of Cor-
nelius and his company was commanded
failed finally to convince Peter, so that
long after this he vacillated (Gal. ii. 11, 12),
it is no argument for the eunuch not being
a Gentile, that his conversion and baptism
did not remove the prejudices of the Jewish
Christians. 28. aveyivwoxev | aloud,
94
n absol., ch. x.
19 reff.
o = Luke xv.
15. 2 Kings
xx. 2. (ch.
v. 13 reff.
L.P., exc.
Matt. xix. 4.
Rev. xviii. 6.)
Pp Mark ix. 15. gq, »
x. 17 only.
Gen. xviii. 2 aaa
Toopnrny “Hoalay.
TIPAZEIS AMOSTOAQN.
29
I pocerbe Kat ° KoAAnOnre Tw ‘ appare TOUTY.
doapwv oe 0 Pikirmoe HKovoev avtov ™ avayiwwsKoytoc
‘Hoatay tov Toopntny, Kal elev 1" Apa a
wooksc; *! 6 8& eirev Tae yap av duvaiuny, €av
VIII.
7 vee ~ ~ '
ELTTEV de TO ” vevpa TQ) Dirtrrw
30 p 7 poc-
q r A
YE yuwoKkegoa
n
, e , ae ls , , ‘ , u?
sft E ionerce: ° oonynoy mes © magekaXeaéy te tov DilitTov “ ava-
only, see
Luke xviii. 8.
r = Mark iv.
13. Luke
xviii. 34 al.
Dan. ix. 25.
8 Matt. xv.
14. Luke vi.
39. John
xvi. 13. Rev.
vii. 7 only.
Ps, xxiv. 6.
tconstr., Mark
vy. 17. Luke viii. 4).
xix. 24. Ps. xxx. 21. (-éxe«v, ch. xxiii. 25.)
Mark vi. 34. ISA. liii. 7. yR
a John i. 2%, 36. 1 Pet. i. Yonly. Exod. xxix. 38 al. fr.
1 Cor. xi. 6 bis only. Gen. xxxi. 19.
iv. 19. 2 Macc. iii. 29 only.
iii. 21. Jamesi, 10 only. Gen. xvi. 11.
Joho i. 29 al. i = Matt. xi. 16 al.
de 40.
, / ‘ , =
Bavra Kabicat Ouv auTwW,.
z» \ « a? ‘
nx On, Kal WC auvoc
” e 5) e? ’ Xe , ,
apwvoc, OUTWC OUK avolyel TO oTOoua avuTou.
f , > ce ' ’ -h» ) . 8 i ‘
TATELVWOEL AUTOU KPLoLc auToOu no nH, THY [ é | yetveav
u = Luke vy. 19. xix. 4al.
om. vili. 36 reff.
e = here only. (ver. 35.) Ps. xx xviii. 9.
g = James ii. 13.
32 68” TEOLOX?) tne “ yoapne
! e ¢ , \ .s
nv ™ aveyivwoKev nv autn Qe * mposaroy ext * opayny
bi U ata ' Tide®
EvayvTlov TOU KELOaVTOC auTOv
3. Bev rg
vy here onlyt. 4 Kings
x Matt. x. 16.
3 Kings xii. 18.
w = Rom. ix. 17 reff.
zch. v. 2]. xxv. 6, 23. Dan. iii. 13.
b ch. vii. 10 reff. ech. xviii. 18.
d = 1 Cor. sii. 2. (xiv. 10.) 2 Pet. ii. 16 only. Isa. l.c. Wisd.
f Lakei. 48. Phil.
2 Pet. ii. 1). bh = ch. xxii. 22.
no. bef t. mpop. C m vulg(not am fuld demid).
30. rec tov mp. bef no. (corrn to same order as previously), with EHL p rel syr copt
Thl: txt ABCN 13 vulg sah Chr.
31. om yap E 0 105 sah.
for re, de E coptt.
om ay A.
He bef 05. C. (oSnynoe B'CR.)
32. rec Keipovtos (so Lxx-B), with B p rel Orig Cyr-jer Thl: txt (so rxx-A) ACEHLN
fk 1! m o! 36 Ign Chron.
83. om Ist avrov (corrn to rxx) ABN vulg.
see next verse. Schéttg. quotes from the
Rabbis: ‘Qui in itinere constitutus est,
neque comitem habet, is studeat in Lege.’
He probably read in the LXX, the
use of which was almost universal in Egypt.
The word zepioxh below (see on ver. 32)
is not decisive (Olsh.) against this (as if
there were repioxal only in the Hebrew,
not in the LXX), as it would naturally be
used as well of one as the other by those
cognizant of the term. Besides, must
there not have been repioxaf in the copies
of the LXX read in the synagogues ?
29.| This is the first mention of that ianer
prompting of the Spirit referred to again,
probably ch. xiii. 2, but certainly ch. x.
19; xvi. 6, 7. Chrysostom understands
the words of the appearance of an angel,
but the text hardly allows it. KoAA. |
no stress—attach thyself to. 30.] dpa
we — va, but. .°.; gq. d.. Tt is; well,
thou art wellemployed: but...? Onthe
force of dpa, used “ ubi responsio expecta-
tur negans id de quo erat interrogatum,”
see Hermann on Viger, p. 821. The ye
strengthens the dpa, implying the passing
over of all other considerations, and select-
ing this as the most important: see Har-
tung, Partikellehre, i. 376 f. It assumes,
modestly, that he did not understand what
he was reading. yoo. & avay. |
ovtos HL f m? 0 18.
om Se (corrn to xx) ABC vulg syr
So 2 Cor. iii. 2. So too Cato (Wetst.),
‘Legere et non intelligere nec legere est.’
**Valck. compares the celebrated parono-
masia of Julian the Apostate, avéyvwr,
éyvwv, Karéyvevy, and the courageous
reply of the Christian Bishop to him,
avéyvws, GAN ovKk eyyws* ei yap %yvas,
ovn by Katéyvws.” Wordsw. 31. |
yap gives the reason of the negative which
is understood. The answer expresses at
once humility and docility. 32.] Per-
haps it is best to render, The contents of
the (passage of) Scripture which he was
reading were as follows: see mepiéxe:,
1 Pet. ii. 6. Cicero indeed appears to use
mepioxh in the sense of a ‘ paragraph,’ or
‘chapter ;’? ad Attic. iii. 25, ‘At ego ne
Tironi quidem dictavi, qui totas repioxds
persequi solet, sed Spintharo syllabatim.’
The citation is from the LXX alex., with
only the variation of adtod inserted after
Tamewooe {and 5€ before yevedy }.
33. év Ty Tawevooet avTod H Kpiots avr.
7p | Heb. ‘He was taken away by dis-
tress and judgment :’ i. e. as Lowth, ‘ by
an oppressive judgment.’ —-yeveavavTot |
i. e., the age in which He shall live— the
wickedness of his contemporaries.’ The
fathers, and Bede (and so Dr. Wordsw.),
explain ‘His generation’ of His eternal
Sonship and His miraculous Incarnation.
“see Pthew=
mw VD.
ABCEIL
LNabe
dfghk
lmop
13
29—38. NIPAZEIS AMOSTOAQN. 95
> - na *& , 5. 0! h > ‘ - fod e ‘
auTov TiC durynoerat 9 OTL alorérat avo THC yue y Cwn k constr., here
only. (Mark
Sot > \ A BS nee ~ ' % i :
avrov. 4 atoKkokic os 0 cuvovyog tw Dirtrm@ etev Fii39 n°
m , om \ ’ ¢€ , , ~ P \ 10.) 1 Chron,
Asgouat ™ cov, wept Tivog O ToOPyTHG AEyEL TOUTO 5 TEpL Xvi, 9. see
35 1 Joel i. 3.
‘avoigac 8& 6 Didtwmoc ; 22s ey
e ~ \ ey , i
EAUTOU 7) TEOL ETEOOU TIVOC ,
m absol., Luke
<n , ? ~ No 2.2 eS Oy - , bs
TO " oToma auTov Kat ° aogapevog aro THE yeapne raurng © viii. 28. ch.
> ’ ae X > ~ € Ree as > XXi. 39.
1 eunyyeAtoaro avtw tov Inoovr. 36 we Oé ETopevovto Pay iv- 12
n = Matt. v. 2.
Riii. 35, from
r ‘ BY a ee a Olt / ¢ ’ a oe ~
Kata TyvV odor, nA Pov Smear ‘ vdwo, Kal pnow O éUVvOU- ae
s. xxvii. 2.
, ret x ’ , = A hg Bee ;
Koc dod vowp TL KWAVEL ME BarrisOnvat 3 38 kat EKé= oleate
Job iii. 1. see Eph. vi. 19. och. i. 22 reff. p ch. i. 16 reff. q constr.,
ch. xi, 20 reff. r ver. 26 reff. s = John iii. 23.
sah: ins EHL p 13 rel tol copt Chr Thi Iren-int.
34. om tovro B-txt: ins B'-marg. for eav., avrov H. twos bef
eTepou KH.
35. om o E c 137.
36. vdwp (2nd) RX}.
[87. rec inserts eve 5€ 0 PiAuwros et mioTvers ef OANS THS Kapdias ekeoTLW amoKpLOELs
de elme TigTEvw TOV vioy Tov Oeou eELvat Toy inoovy xpioTov, with (KE) and 10 others
specified by Scholz(addg “ alii permulti ”) am? demid syr-w-ast arm Iren-gr(and lat) (Ee
Thl-fin-txt Cypr Jer Aug Preedest Pacian—aft Se ins avtrw E al—om o iA. 36 syr—for e1,
eavy K—aft rapd. ins cov KE Cypr Praedest—for efeoriv, cwOnoer E; alii aliter—aft
mot. EH has e:s tov xp. Tov viov tT. 86.—spec reads the whole thus et respondens spado
ait Credo filium dei esse Chr Jes.——: om ABCHLN 138(sic) rel and 44: others speci-
fied by Scholz(adding “alii plurimi”’?) am! fuld syrr coptt zth Chr, @ic-ms Thl-sif Bede.
(The insertion appears to have been made to suit the formularies of the baptismal litur-
gies, tt being considered strange that the eunuch should have been baptized without
aft tavrys ins kat X1(88 glisapproving).
some such confession.) |
But the Heb. does not seem to bear this
out. See the meaning discussed at length,
and another interpretation defended in
Stier, Jesaias, &c., pp. 466—470. Cf.
also Gesenius’ Thesaurus under >)7.
34. amoxpieis | to the passage of Scrip-
ture, considered as the question pro-
posed: not, to the question in ver. 30.
We can hardly suppose any immediate re-
ference in érépov tivds to Christ.
36. ti tSwp] In the scholia to Jerome’s
Epitaph of Paulla (not in Jerome himself)
on the words, ‘A Bethsur venit,’ we have,
‘hee etate Hieronymi vocabatur Beth-
sura: vicus est in tribu Juda, obvius vige-
simo lapide euntibus ab Hierosolyma Che-
bron. Juxta hune fons est ad radices
montis ebulliens, qui ab eadem in qua
gignitur humo sorbetur. In hoc fonte
putant eunuchum Candacis Regine bapti-
zatum fuisse.’ Jerome’s own words [Ep.
108 (27) ad Eustochium, 11, p. 700] are:
‘cepit per viam veterem pergere que
ducit Gazam.... et tacita secum volvere,
quomodo Eunuchus Athiops, gentium po-
pulos preefigurans, mutaverit pellem suam,
et dum vetus relegit instrumentum, fontem
reperit Evangelii. Atque inde ad dex-
teram transit. A Bethsur venit Escol’...
where no reference is made to the tradition,
save what may be inferred from the men-
tion of Bethsur. Eusebius also (zrep) 7d-
“mev) states it to be twenty miles south of
Jerusalem in the direction of Hebron : and
so it is set down in the Jerus. Itin. and the
Peutinger Tab. (Howson’s map.) Pocock
found there a fountain built over, and a
village called Betur on the left. Fabri
describes the fountain as the head of a con-
siderable brook, and found near it the ruins
of a Christian church. There is no impro-
bability in the tradition except that, even
supposing a way going across from Hebron
straight to Gaza to be called %pnuos, this
would not be on that portion of it, but on
the high road (Winer, RWB.). at
keA. p. Baw.] There is no reason for sup-
posing Philip to have preached to him the
necessity of baptism: his own acquaintance
with Jewish practices, and perhaps his
knowledge of the progress of the new faith
in Jerusalem, would account for the pro-
position. [$7.] The authorities against
this verse are too strong to permit its in-
sertion. It appears to have been one of
those remarkable additions to the text of
the Acts, common in D (which is here
deficient) and its cognates: few of which,
however, have found their way into the
received text. This was made very early,
as Ireneus has it. The MSS. which con-
tain it vary exceedingly : another strong
MPAZEIS AIOSTOAQN.
96 VIII. 39, 40.
t — Matt. xx.
32. idee ' ‘ Pa 4 =A
i. 14. ° ‘
e218. TO Vowo, O Te Didmo Kal O
4 Kings xiii. sie
18. auTOv.
t is Au 1 \y , 4 , ,
Aevoev “ ornvat TO “dona, Kat KaréBnoay auporEpot ELC
. ad \ , ,
' evvovyxoc, Kal ePamtioev
¢ \ , , , - e ~
39 Gre O8 * avéBnoav éK TOU vVoaToC, * mvEvMA
y = Joh 7. 2 / a ‘ Uj \ ’ = ’ ‘
wai “Kuptou ¥ nowasev tov @idimmov, Kal ovK eidey avroy
ae Gen. a: Ay ine Me ie Zz? , ‘ ‘ z¢ § ‘ > ~
xii. 2.
x Luke iv. 18. ere t0) Rae ne egress eee TYHV 10) oa hg
aiWen Be a ,
mee iii. 17. Xalowr. MirtrToe oe evoedn ELC A@wrev, Kal Steo-
3 Kings xviii. ea i
12. y =—John vi. 15, 2 Cor. xii. 2,4. Rev. xii.5. npwalev 0 motapcds, Xen, Anab. iv. 3.6. Judg.
xi 21° zhereonly. Josh. iii. 4. a=ch. ii. 27. xx.14. Matt. ii. 23. Luke xi. 7 al. see
ver. 20 reff. b absol., ver. 4 reff.
38. eis To vdwp bef aupotepa E c h 37. 180 syr copt Chr.
39. for ex, aro E c f 0 137. 177. 180. ayyeAos Kuplov npTacev Tov diAimTmov
aryyeAos Se kuptov Al: mvevya ayiov emenecev Ent Tov evyovxov aryyeAos Se (see note)
A-corr! 15. 18. 27. 29. 36. 60. 100 syr-w-ast(but for ay., kupiov) arm: Jerome’s tes-
timony is doubtful. On Isa Ixiii. 14, p. 754, “ Spiritus Domini ductor ejus fuit,’ he
says, id est, gregis Domini, Spiritum autem hie Angelum debemus intelligere, qui
ductor fuit populi Israel, juxta illud quod scriptum est [Ps civ. 4, Hebi. 14]. Con-
sideremus illud quod in Act. Ap. scribitur, “ Spiritus Domini rapuit Philippum, et non
vidit eum ultra eunuchus,” an super Angelo debeamus accipere. Sunt qui Angelum in
Spiritu sancto hee fecisse testentur. But in Dial. adv. Lucif. 9, p. 182, he says Inde
venit ut sine chrismate et episcopi jussione, neque presbyter, neque diaconus jus habeant
baptizandi. .. Ut enim accipit quis, ita et dare potest : nisi forte eanuchus a Philippo
diacono baptizatus sine Spiritu sancto fuissse credendus est, de quo scriptura ita
loquitur “ Et descenderunt ambo . .et quum abscederent ab aqua, Spiritus sanctus
venit in Eunuchum.”
Si autem illud objiciendum putas quia “ Cum audivissent .. «
[vv 14—17]” —: txt is supported by Chr(who says ob«éts &yyeAos GAAG Td TredUa
avTov aprdacer) and by Did(who explains spiritus domini by angelus domini).
avtov bef tny odov B.
mark of spuriousness in a disputed passage.
See var. readd. Dr. Wordsw. retains it,
citing Bornemann as doing the same ; but
it is Bornemann’s principle that all these
insertions of D and its cognates formed
part of the original text: so that his an-
thority goes for nothing. Dr.W. also states
that it is found in the codex amiatinus
of the vulgate, which i¢ is not, except as
a correction a secunda manu.] 38.
éxéA.] viz. the eunuch. * 89. av.
kup. 7pm. T. ®.] The reading, ‘the Spirit
fell on the Eunuch, and an angel of the
Lord caught away Philip, is curious, and
has probably arisen from a desire to con-
form the results of the eunuch’s baptism
to the usual method of the divine pro-
cedure, and the snatching away ef Philip to
his commission, ver. 26. But the Spirit
did not fall on the Samaritans after baptism
by Philip. The text clearly relates a
supernatural disappearance of Philip : com-
pare uhmore jpev adtdy mveiua Kuplov, 4
Kings ii. 16; no interpretation (as Kich-
horn, Kuin., Olsh., Meyer) of his being sud-
denly hurried away by the prompting of the
Spirit, will satisfy the analogy of the above
cited passage, and of (see below) a parallel
one in Luke’s own Gospel. ‘The apracew
of ref. John, which Meyer cites to justify
his view, tells in my mind the other way ;
the fear was lest the multitude should come
and carry Him off to make Him a King:
and in the reff. I have therefore marked
the two as bearing the same meaning.
ovK eldev adTov ovKéTt| Not ‘never saw
him from that day,’ though (see below)
that meaning may be indirectly included :—
but as Luke xxiv. 31, adtds &davtos éye-
veto am avTayv, and as in the strictly
parallel words of 4 Kings ii. 12, od« efSev
avrdy &r1,—after the going up of Elijah.
These last words in my view decide the
question, that the departure of Philip was
miraculous. yap] refers to what
follows (. 88 edp.). Philip was found at
Azotus : if the eunuch had gone that way,
he might have met with him again: but
he did not, for he went from the fountain
on his own way, which did not Jead through
Azotus. 40. evp. eis ”AL.] A constr.
pregnans,—was borne to, and found at.
The word etpé6m again appears to refer to
4 Kings ii. 17. Azorus or ASHDOD
(Josh, xiii. 3; 1 Sam. v. 5 al.) was one of
the five principal cities of the Philistines,
never, though nominally in Judah, tho-
roughly subjugated by the Jews:—it was
taken by Tartan the Assyrian general (Isa.
xx. 1),—again by Psammetichus, Herod. ii.
157 ; Jer. xxv. 20,—again by Judas Mac-
cabzeus (1 Mace. v. 68) and Jonathan (ib.
x. 84), and by the latter destroyed ;—re-
built by Gabinius (Jos. Antt. xiv. 5. 3.
ABCEH
LNabe
dfghk
lmop
13
97
Ex I, 2. HIPASZEIS AMOSTOAQN.
dv y c consfr., ver
nstr., ver.
EWC TOU OF reff
d constr., here
only. 3 Kings
Xxii. 27. vat.
F (not A).
, chs t Q , ,
Xouevog “eunyyerilZero tac mode wacac,
eADety avrov ete Katsaoeav.
e ~ a fend
IX. !°O 8 SavAoe ert “sumvewy ‘ameAne Kal povov P(aok A.
4} al. fr. :
£ > iN 0 ‘ - , h A eats ~
€&i¢ TOUC paUyntac TOV KUOLoU, mooceADwv TW AOXLEDEL eo here only.
Josh. x. 40
2 I ? , i > > ~ k ’ ‘ l ? . ‘\ Q
yTy0aTo Tap auTouv emistoAac ELC Aapackov TpPoc vat faa
constr.
(-vevors, Ps. xvii. 15.) fch.iv.[17] 29. Eph. vi. 9 only. Job xxiii. 6. gch. xxiii.
30. Rom. viii. 7 al. h = Matt. xxvii. 58 L. John xii. 21. ch. xxiii. 14 al. 3 Kings xxi.
=ch.
(xx.) 13. ich.iii.2. Johniv.%. Jamesi. 6. 1 John v.15 only. Deut. x. 12.
1 constr., here
kv. 20. xxiii. 25, 33. Rom. xvi. 22 al. L.P., exc. 2 Pet. iii. 1, 16. Neb.1i.7.
only. see 2 Cor. iii. 1.
40. ras mod. ma. bef ev. A. [ms 13 is very much defaced from viii. 30 to ix. 1,
but the words kwAvet we Batic Onvar ka can be read, thus shewing the omn of ver 37 ;
again, in ver. 39, almost the only syllables legible are mvevua kupiov npm, thus shewing
that cod. colb. does not here, as frequently elsw, agree with A’s peculiar reading. Such
are the results in two verses alone of Dr. Tregelles’ painstaking collation of the
mutilated parts of this important ms. |
Crap. IX. 1. for ert, or: B': om N! 1 24, 26. 78. 126 sah.
2. emioToAas bef map avtou &.
B. J.i. 7.7), and belonged to the kingdom
of Herod, who left it in his will to his sister
Salome (Antt. xvii. 8.1; 11.5). At pre-
sent, it is a small village, retaining the name
Esdud, but no remains. (Robinson, ii. 629 ;
iii. 1, 232. Winer, RWB.) Tas 1é-
ets waoas] viz. Ekron, Jamnia, Joppa,
Apollonia, on the direct road: or, if he
deviated somewhat for the purpose, Lydda
also (which seems implied ch. ix. 32).
Katodpetav| See note, ch. x. 1.
Cuap. IX. 1—80.] Conversion oF
SAUL. 1.] The narrative is taken up
from ch. viii. 3, but probably with some in-
terval, sufficient perhaps to cover the events
of ch. viii. épmvewv | Meyer charges
the ordinary interpretation, ‘ breathing,’
i.e. asin E.V., ‘breathing out, with an
arbitrary neglect of the composition of the
word. He would render it ‘¢xhaling,’ with
the partitive genitives signifying the ele-
ment. But the sense would thus be flat;
and there seems to be no need for pressing
the sense of the compound verb. We should
perhaps hardly render it breathing owt,—
but breathing; his ‘spiritus,’ inhaled or
exhaled, being a@reiA} Kk. pdvos. So &
aivatéevtos avamvelwy Opuuaydod, QQ.
Calaber, xiv. 72, and mvéwy Oupod, Aristeen.
T. ep. 5 (Kuin.). éutvéwv, mposehOor |
As gol miorevoas, metavactas, Mid. Col.
172, where Hermann remarks, ‘Si recte
observavi, ea est hujus constructionis ratio,
ut preecedat illud participium, quod, sepa-
ratim enunciata sententia, indicativus esse
verbi debet : ut hoe loco sensus sit, éT1 cod
erlarevoa, meTavacTds.’ TO apxtepel |
See table in Prolegg. to Acts ;—it would
be Theophilus,—brother and successor to
Jonathan, who succeeded Caiaphas, Jos.
Antt. xvili. 5. 3. 2. ématohas | of
authorization: written by the high priest
ROT. Le
(in this case, but not always, president of
the Sanhedrim) in the name of way 7d
mpeoButépiov, ch. xxii. 5. els Aa-
paokév] Damascus is probably the oldest
existing city in the world. We read of it
in Abraham’s time (Gen. xiv. 15; xv. 2):
then no more till David subdued it (2 Sam.
viii. 6) : it became independent again under
Solomon (1 Kings xi. 24 ff.), and from that
time was the residence of the kings of Syria
(1 Kings xv. 18; xx. 1 ff.), who were long
at war with Israel and Judah, and at last
were permitted to prevail considerably over
Israel (2 Kings x. 32; Amos i. 3, 4) and to
exact tribute from Judah (2 Kings xii. 17,
18, see also 2 Kings xiii. 3, 22, 25). Da-
mascus was recovered to Israel by Jero-
boam II. (cir. 825 a.c. 2 Kings xiv. 28).
Not long after we find Rezin, king of
Syria, in league with Pekah, king of Israel,
against Ahaz (2 Kings xv. 37). Ahaz in-
vited to his assistance Tiglath-pileser, king
of Assyria, who took Damascus and slew
Rezin, and led the people captive (2 Kings
xvi. 5—9; Isa. viii. 4). From this time
we find it subject to Assyria (Isa. ix. 11;
x. 9; xvii. 1), then to Babylon (2 Kings
xxiv. 2; Jer. xxxv. 11),—Persia (Arrian.
Alex. ii. 11, Aapetos t&v ypnu. TH OAKS
.. ee. Wenduet els Aauackdy, Strabo, xvi.
756; Q. Curt. iii. 12. 27),—the Syrian
Seleucid (1 Mace. xi. 62; xii. 32),—and
from the time of Pompey (64 A.c.), to the
Romans, and attached to the province of
Syria (Jos. Antt. xiv. 4.5; 9.5). Many
Jews were settled there, and the majority of
the wives of the citizens were proselytes,
Jos. B. J. ii. 20. 2. On its subjection to
Aretas, see below, ver. 24, note. It was
later the residence of the Ommiad Caliphs,
and the metropolis of the Mahommedan
world. (Conybeare and Howson, edn. 2,
H
98 TIPAZEIZ AIIOXZTOAQN. IK
+ aS z tu 27 er ~ m a oe SE
m=ch. xviii. Tac GuUvaYyWYaC, OTWC Eav TLVaC EVO} TNC OCoUV OVTAC
26. xix.9, A J a uf She ;
oe ii. / & aN) /
fain 14,32. avopac TE Kal yuvaikac, OLOEMEVOUC ayayy eC Iepovcadnpm.
n Matt. xii. 4, 3n
b |
25. ch. iii. 26.
’ \ - , ree 5)
Ev Oe TW topsveaOat EyEVvETO auTOv
P eyytZew 7 Aa-
viii. 6 al.
. ix. & “ 7 U ’ ‘ r , ~ * > ‘
9 ewe packw, TeCaipyncg TE avTov mEpmotpavey pwo *a7ro
iv. 5 reff. - > ~ 4 \ ‘ es | x - sv ‘
pant. Luke TOU OVPAVON, ~ Kal TEOWY ETL THY YynV NKOVaEY pwvyy
RA ah > . , , Fe 2 3 \
25.ch- 9 Néyouoay auT@ Daovd SaovrdA, ri pe tdwxec; ° eiwev de
Exod. xxxii. aes, , , £ kg ph yi ’ ~ a N ts ,
1. Tic et [ov], kor; 0 d& Eyw aut Inoove, ov cu dwxetc.
q Mark xiii. 36.
Loke ii. 13. ix. 39.
ch. xxii. 6only. Prov. xxiv. 22.
¥. xxvi. 14.
rch, xxii. 6 only t.
John iii. 8. Rev. v. ll al. Exod. xxxii. 18.
8 w. acc., ch, xxii.
t =ch. vii. 52 reff.
for cay, av &. ovt. bef rns 0d. AN p: om ort. 13.
3. rec kat etarpv., with EHL rel Chr: txt ABCN p. rec tepinotpayey bef
avtov, with EHL 13 rel vss Chr: txt (A)BCR m p.—avut. dos 7. A.—mepiorp. C!:
mepieotp. C3 m; so, appy, but perh wepiaotp. Al. ik (corrn from ch xxii. 6?)
ABCLX dp sah Thl-fin, de vulg E-lat: aro EH 13 rel Chr Thl-sif.
got mpos Kevtpa AaxtiCer (from ch xxvi. 14) E 180 am? Syr.
5. rec om (as ||) ov, with ABEHLN® rel: ins C. rec aft o Se ins Kuptos evev
(xupios appears to have been an insertion to avoid the apparent insufficiency of 0 Be ;—
evmev, from ch xxvi. 15), with HL 13 rel syrr Chr Thl; kupios pos avroy E o 11.
27. 29. 662; kvpios 100 Hil; ecmev Nk p!3 43. 105. 137 copt wth arm: om ABC p?
add oxAnpov
36 vulg.
Hil Aug Ambr,.
aft imo. add 0 NaCwpaos (from ch xxii. 8) ACE Syr syr-w-ast copt eth
5, 6. rec aft diwx. (omg adda) adds oxAnpov cor mpos KevTpa AakTICELY TpEMwY TE Kat
vol. i. p. 106.) At present it is a large
city, with (Burckhardt) 250,000 inha-
bitants, nearly 70,000 of whom are Chris-
tians. It is situated most beautifully, in
a large and well-watered plain, on the river
Chrysorrhoas (Barrada), which divides
into many streams (see 2 Kings v. 12), and
fertilizes the plain (Strabo, xvi. 756, 7
Aauacknv)) xapa Siapepdytws emawwov-
pévn),—bounded on all sides by the desert.
See Winer, RWB., from which the above
is mainly taken: Vitringa in Jesaiam, p.
650 ff. (Notitia Damasci et Regni Dama-
sceni), and a vivid description in C.and H.,
pp- 104—108. mpos T. ovv.| i.e. to
the presidents of thesynagogues, who would
acknowledge the orders of the Sanhedrim,
and could, under the authority of the Eth-
narch, carry them out. THs 6300] Not
‘this way,’ E. V., which rendering should
be kept for the places where the pronoun is
expressed, as ch. xxii. 4,—but the way,
viz. of ‘salvation,’ ch. xvi. 17, or ‘of the
Lord,’ ch. xviii. 25. (The genitive, as rijs
yvéuns elvat, see 1 Cor. i. 12.) The ex-
pression ‘THE WAY’ had evidently become
a well-known one among Christians (see
reff.) ; and it only was necessary to prefix
the pronoun when strangers wereaddressed.
The special journey to Damascus
presupposes the existence of Christians
there, and in some numbers. This would
be accounted for by the return of many
who may have been converted at the Pen-
tecostal effusion of the Spirit, and perhaps
also by some of the fugitives from the per-
secution having settled there. This latter
is rendered probable by Ananias’s jjkovca
amd ToAAGY Tep) TOD avdpds TobTOU, ver. 13.
3.] The journey from Jerusalem was
probably made on the Roman road, i.e.
that of the Itineraries, by Neapolis (Sichem)
and Seythopolis, crossing the Jordan S.
of the lake Tiberias,—Gadara, and so to
Damascus. Or he might have joined,—
either the Petra road, by Jericho and Hesh-
bon, and so by Botsrah to D.,—or the
Egyptian caravan-track, which passes to
the north of the lake of Tiberias, and near
ABCEH
LNabe
dfghk
lmop
13
Ceesarea Philippi. In either case the jour- ©
ney would oceupy from five to six days, the
distance being 130 to 150 miles.
mepiyortp. K.7.A.] It was (ch. xxii. 6) mepl
peonuRptavy,—and from ch. xxvi.-13, the
light was itp thy Aaurpérnra Tod 7Alov.
These details at once cut away all ground
from the absurd rationalistic attempt to
explain away the appearance as having been
lightning. Unquestionably, the inference
is, that it was a bright noon, and the full
splendour of the oriental sun was shining.
His companions saw the light, and
were also cast to the ground, ch. xxvi.
13, 14; xxii. 9, see below on ver. 7. 4.
Aé€yourav avt.| 7H ‘ESpatd: diadéxT, ch.
xxvi.14. Andit isa remarkable undesigned
coincidence, that the form YaovaA should
have been preserved in this account, and
rendered in Greek in the translation of
Paul’s speech in ch. xxii. In ch. xxvi.,
3—7. TIPAZEIS ATIOSTOAQN. 99
6 >? ‘ aD ae \ ” ? ‘ , \ aie
ad\a : avaarnOe kat eiceABe ate thy ToAw, Kat" Markix. 27.
v t ON = e Sie £ v.26. ver.
AaAnOjoerai cor O te oe Set Tote. 7 ot be avdpeg Ol 24. cho xii. 7
“ guvodevovTEe UTW €laTN pa Pee ne. nts Sy SENS
. 1. .
OOEVOVTEC aUTW ELATHKELTaY “EVEoL, UKOvVOVTEG meV , 2% *8t)7;
w here onlyt. Wisd. vi. 23 (25) only. (-devecv, Luke
Tsa.lvi. 10. Ep. Jer. 41 only.
1 Cor. xiv. 3. Ezek. iii. 22.
x hereouly. Prov. xvii. 28.
xxii. 10.
ii. 44.)
OapBwy eve Kupte TL Me GeAELS TOLNTaL Kat Oo KUpLos mpos auvToyv (from ch xxvi. 14, and
xxii. 10. Inserted by Erasmus from the Latin: in his annotations on “ Durum est
tibi” he says “In grecis codicibus id non additur hoc loco, cum mox sequatur, Surge ;
sed aliquanto inferius, cum narratur hee res.” See Treg on the Printed Txt p. 23),
with no Greek manuscript as far as Griesbach (“ codices graeci, quantum scimus, nulli’’),
Scholz (repeating Gb’s words), and Tischdf are aware—vulg(demid fuld) syr-w-ast
wth(but varies) arm(ed-zoh: but addg adda) (c-ed-txt Thl-ed-fin-txt Hil(rpeu. to
mot., omg the former part): aAAqa is inserted and the rec omitted by all our manuscripts,
by 23 others which Scholz specifies, by am! tol(Tischdf) Syr coptt Chr Cic-ms.
6. e:stO: B.
Se: bef oe E-gr: om oe k.
7. rec evveot, with L rel: txt ABCEHN ab! hm p 138.
where he was speaking in Greek before
Festus, he inserts the words 77 ‘Efp. d:aa.,
to account for the use of the form Saova :
or perhaps he spoke the solemn words, in-
effaceable from his memory, as they were
uttered, in Hebrew, for King Agrippa.
(See note on Saova, ver. 17.) Tl pe
di@kers ;] A remarkable illustration of
Matt. xxv. 45. The we is not emphatic
[agst Wordsw.]; but the very lack of
emphasis, assuming the awful fact, gives
more solemnity to the question. ~
5. 6 8€] That Saul saw, as well as heard,
Him who spoke with him, is certain from
Ananias’s speech, ver. 17, and ch. xxii.
14, that of Barnabas, ver. 27,—from ch.
xxvi. 16 (@p@yv oo), and from the re-
ferences by Paul himself to his having
seen the Lord, 1 Cor. ix. 1; xv. 8. These
last I unhesitatingly refer to this occasion,
and not to any subsequent one, when he
saw the Lord év éxordoe:, ch. xxii. 17.
Such appearances could hardly form the
subject of autoptic testimony which should
rank with that of the other apostles : this,
on the contrary, was no ekoracts, but the
real bodily appearance of the risen Jesus :
so that it might be adduced as the ground
of testimony to His Resurrection. On
the words excluded from our text, as having
been interpolated from ch. xxvi. 14, and
xxii. 10, see note at xxvi. 14. It is natural
that the account of the historian should be
less precise than that of the person con-
cerned, relating his own history. In ch.
xxvi. 15—18, very much more is related to
have been said by the Lord: but perhaps
he there, as he omits the subsequent par-
ticulars, includes the revelations made to
him during the three days, and in the mes-
sage of Ananias. (Galen chs xoxi16, 9:
of d€ abv euod bytes TH pev Gs COedcayToO
[x. apoB eyevoyto], thy 5 pwvhy ovk
rec om 6, with EHL 13. 36 rel Chr Thl: ins ABCX p Cyr.
for wey, Se (omg de
hKovcay Tov AaAdovyTés wot. Two accounts
seemingly (and certainly, in the /etter)
discrepant ; but exceedingly instructive
when their spirit is compared,—the fact
being this: that the companions of Saul
saw and were struck to the ground by the
light, but saw ovdéva, no person :—that
they stood (or ‘ were fixed:’ but I should
acknowledge the discrepancy here, and re-
cognize the more accurate detail of ch. xxvi.
14, that they fell to the ground) mute, hear-
ing Tis pwrijs, the sound of the voice, but
not Thy dwyv}y Tod AadovyTés mo, the
words spoken and their meaning. Compare
John xii. 29, note. (Only no stress must
be laid on the difference between the gen.
and ace. government of @wvy, nor indeed
on the mere verbal difference of the two
expressions ;—but their spirit considered,
in the possible reference which they might
have to one and the same fact.) Two
classes of readers only will stumble at this
difference of the forms of narration ; those
who from enmity to the faith are striving to
create ormagnify discrepancies,—and those
who, by the suicidal theory of verbal inspi-
ration, are effectually doing the work of the
former. The devout and intelligent student
of Seripture will see in such examples a
convincing proof of the simple truth of the
narrative,—the absence of all endeavour to
pare away apparent inconsistencies or revise
them into conformity,—the bond fide work
of holy truthful men, bearing each his testi-
mony to things seen and heard under the
guidance, not of the spirit of bondage, but
of that Spirit of whom it is said, od rd
mvevua Kuplov, eAcevbepla. I should not
too hastily determine that this account
has not come from Saul himself, on ac-
count of the above differences: they are
no more than might arise in narrations at
different times by the same person.
H 2
100
y ch. vii. 56
reff.
w ch, xxii. 11
only. Jndg.
xvi. 26 F
only.
ach, xxiii. 12.
Esth, iv. 16.
b ear. 9 | OKOV.
reff. esa #
c= Heb ii.13 Quo * ELEY.
only. 1 Kings
iii, 4 d
ach. viii. 26
reff.
’
vaviac.
Luke xiv. 21.
ch, xii. 10
ouly. Isa.
xv. 3.
follg) p.
Bcopouvtes N*: opwytes RN’.
8. rec ins o bef cavAos, with HL rel: om ABCEN b! p.
rel: txt (A)CE(X) p.—nvory. A: nyvy. R'.
eth arm Chr Thl.
TIPAZEIS AMOSTOAQN.
Tne pwrnc, pndeva oe * Oewoorvrec.
, ‘ ~ ~ , , © o. ’ ~~ , - > /
aTo THE ye, NvEepypévwn O& TeV OpMaAnwy avtov ovdEéva
EBArerev’ * yetpaywyourtec b& adtov eicnyayor ec Aapa-
- . aw
Kal WV nuéoac ToELG BN PAETwv, Kat ovK * Epayev
‘ <f 4 ) ‘
Kal €l7TEV 7po0¢ auTov
, ’ e Tis ’ STINE ,
eMatt.vi-e. “Avavta. 0 oe etrev © [dou eyw, KUptE.
IX.
8 nyépOn ce SavAoe
lO" Hy &é tre palynrne Ev Aanasky Ovomatt
ey q ,
€v opapaTt oO KUOLOc
116 8 KvoLOE Toc
, . da? ‘ , , ‘ ‘ e *# ‘ x
aquTov Avaorae ropevOnrt emt THY puyeny THY KAAOU-
/ > a \. , , ASS; "| a Ss oy , ,
MEVYYV evOetarv, Kal Cytnoov €v OlKIa Ov0oa L2AaVAOV OVO-
rec avewy., with BHL
for 2nd Se, Te HL ab (ce?) dghklo
ovdev (ef ch xxii.) A'BN syrr vulg E-lat, non wth sah: txt
A?CEHL rel copt Chr Thl.—in & a seems to have been begun above the line, but is
left unfinished.
9. for ovde, kat ovk C.
10. rec o kup. bef ev op., with HL p rel vss Thl: txt ABCEN vulg ath-rom.
11. avagra B fuld syrr(but so also ch x. 13, 20) coptt; and, adding cou, vulg(not am)
wth(but so also elsw when there is no varn in the Greek).
ciotykeoav| It will be well to warn
younger readers against an error often
found in English Commentators (e.g. Dr.
Burton here),—that €ornKa is past, and
eiatqxewv pluperfect in signification,—
€ornka, ‘I have been standing,’ and eiorh-
keicav, ‘had been standing.’ This error
arises from forgetting the peculiar character
of the verb fornu: with regard to tran-
sitive and intransitive meanings. €oTnKa
is strictly present,—eiothxew imperfect :
as much so as sto and stabam. See Mat-
thie, § 206. And this accuracy is im-
portant here: they had nof ‘been stand-
ing,’ but had fallen. See ch. xxvi. 14,
mdvTwy TE KaTaTecdyTwY Huav els THY
viv. Dr. Wordsw.’s explanation, that eic-
THkewway refers to the standing still of the
cavaleade, not to the standing of Saul’s
companions, is untenable: for 1) the eveol,
which qualifies the eforjeioay, forbids it :
and 2) his justifying instances are all
aorists, Luke vii. 14; viii. 44; ch. viii. 38,
not perfect, which surely will not bear this
sense of mere arrestation in a course.
8.) On his eyes being opened (it would
seem that he had closed them on the first
disappearance of the vision), he saw no
one. He explains it, ch. xxii. 11, as 8e
obk évéBrerov ard tis Sdkns Tod pwtds
éxelvov. He had seen, what those with
him had not seen, the glorious Person of
the Lord Jesus. See below on ver. 18.
9.) Obs. ph BAérov, his personal subj.
state: od« &., the historical fact.
ovk ed. oS? Er.| There is no occasion to
soften these words: the effect produced on
him by the odpdvios értacla (ch. xxvi.
19), aided by his own deeply penitent and
remorseful state of mind, rendered him in-
different to all sustenance whatever.
10.] Paul adds, ch. xxii. 12, with par-
ticularity, as defending himself before the
Jews, that Ananias was avhp ebAaBis
Kata Tov vdmov paptupotmevos bd mdv-
Twv Tay KaToiKovyTwy “lovdalwy: saying
nothing of the command received by him,
nor that he was a disciple. In ch. xxvi.,
speaking before the Roman governor, he
does not mention him. Mr. Howson
(edn. 2, vol. i. p. 114) remarks on the close
analogy between the divine procedure by
visions here, and in ch. x. Here, Ana-
nias is prepared for his work, and Saul for
the reception of him as a messenger, each
by a vision : and similarly Peter and Corne-
lius in ch. x. I may add, that in ch. viii.,
where the preparation of heart was already
found in the eunuch, Philip only was super-
naturally prepared for the interview.
11.] “ Weare allowed to bear in mind that
the thoroughfares of Eastern cities do not
change, and to believe that the ‘straight
street,’ which still extends through Damas-
cus in long perspective from the eastern
gate, is the street where Ananias spoke to
Saul.” (C. and H., p. 115.) olxig
*fov8a| The houses of Ananias and Judas
are still shewn to travellers. Doubtless
they (or at least the former) would long be
remembered and pointed out by Christians ;
but, in the long degradation of Christianity
in the East, most such identities must have
been lost; and imposture is so easy, that
ABCEIL
Lrabe
dfghk
lmop
13
8—15.
arte Tapoéa.
"A ’ > , > x , \ g > , > ~ g
vavlavy OVOMAaTL ELCE Oovra kat ®exbéivra au7w ° xélpa
c h >? , 2 > ’ pts , , 1; 7
OT WC avaPrAepy. 13 amekown de Avaviac Kvor, ‘yKOvoa
i? ‘ No \ ~ ? 8 ‘ , @ k ‘ -
ato TOAAWwY TEPL TOV aVvOPOC TOUTOV, Oda KaKa TOIC
be. ’ ’ , e ,
ayloi¢ aou ETOLNOEV EV IcpovcaA np’
m 22 / \ ~ > , - 7, ‘ n?
eGoudlav TAOA TWY AOYXICOEWY oyoat Wavrac TOUG éETIKa-
r , es ,
OULMEVOUC TO OVOLA GOV.
oO a] , p - q? | -~ > 1 cd r ~
opevou, Ort * oKEvog © EKAOYNC EoTLVY POL OUTOG TOU
s (3 \ om” , {pe es 7 \ ,
Bacracat TO OvOLa [OU EVWTLOV evwv TE Kal Baottiwy
iv. 14.
Ps. xv. 3 and freq.)
iv. 4.) 2 Tim. ii (20) 21.
1 Cor. x. 13 reff.
(1 Pet. iii. 7.
s = here only t.
TIPAZEIS AIOZTOAQN.
5 8s ‘ 5. eek e ,
Elev OF TOOC AUTOV O KUPLOC
1 —here first. Acts, vv. 32, 41,and ch. xxvi. 10 only. Epp. passim,
m 1 Cor. vii. 37 reff.
o absol., Matt. ii. 8. ch. xxii. 2! al. fr. Jer. iii. 12.
Ps. xxx. 12.)
101
TORR SN A N of 4 ees as bsol.
Lov yap WoOCEVYETAal, Kal ELOED aveoa no nage
- g ch. viii. 17
reff.
h = Matt. xi. 5
al. in gospp.
Acts,heredce,
and ch. xxii.
13 bis only.
Isa. xii. 18.
(-yue. Isa.
Ixi. 1.)
i Luke xxii-71.
1 John i, 5.
k and constr.,
4 Kings viii.
12. W. TWpat-
Tew, ch.
xvi. 28. w.
évdeikvua-
Gac, 2 Tim.
(Matt. xxvii. 52.
nch. ii. 21 and Rom.’s. 13 reff.
p = Rom. ix. (21) 22, 23. 2 Cor. iv. 7. (1 Thess.
q Rom. ix. 11 reff. r constr.,
t =ch. ii. 26 reff.
14 Kal Woe
m ¥
EX El
12. rec aft e:dev ins ev opapar: (addition to complete sense, as is shewn by its various
position), with EHL 13. 36 rel; aft avdpa BC: om AN p vulg coptt eth.
rec ovo-
part bef avaviay, with HL 13 rel Thi-sif: om ov. sah «eth-rom Chr: txt ABCEX a hm
p vulg arm Thl-fin.
ras xeipas BEX? Anton : xe:pas ACN! p(appy) : txt HL 13
rel syrr(but Syr [Etheridge] has the sing in ver 17) sah zeth-pl Chr Ge Thl.
13. rec ins o bef avamas (with none of our mss): om ABCEHN (ec Thl.
rec
aknxoa (corrn to seemingly more appropriate tense), with HL 13 rel Chr: aknkoamev
lect-14: txt ABCEN p.
rec ero. bef r. aytois cou (alteration of characteristic
arrangement to more usual one), with HL 13 rel Chr (ic Thl: ev cep. bef exo. A:
txt BCEX m p am demid fuld.—om gov p.
15. ree uot bef eor., with EHL 18 rel cop
ins twy bef edvwy BC! Cyr.
m p vulg syrr Did-e.
tt Archel Thdrt Thl Iren-int: txt ABCN ¢
rec om Ist te, with HL
rel Chr Thdrt Thl-sif: ins ABCEN p 13. 36 Thl-fin.
it is hardly possible to cherish the thought
that the spots now pointed out can be the
true ones. And so of all cases, where we
have not unalterable or unaltered data to
go on. Still, true as this is, we have
sometimes proofs and illustrations unex-
pectedly appearing, as research goes on,
which identify as authentic, sites long
pointed out by tradition. So that our way
seems to be, to seek for all such elucida-
tions, and meantime to suspend our judg-
ment: but never to lose sight of, nor to
treat contemptuously a priori, a local belief.
Tapoéa| The first place where
he is so specified. Tarsus was the
capital of the province of Cilicia, a large
and populous city (ris Kia. wéAW MEeyarny
x. evdaluova, Xen. Anab. i. 2. 23) in a
fruitful plain on the river Cydnus, which
flowed through the midst of it (‘Cydnos,
Tarsum liberam urbem procul a mari se-
cans’ Plin. v. 27. Strabo, xiv. 673. Q.
Curt. iii. 5. 1), with a swift stream of re-
markably cold water. Strabo speaks most
highly of its eminence in schools of philo-
sophy: tocavrn Tots evOdbe avOpa@mois
orovd) mpds Te pidocoplay Kal Thy BAAnY
eyntkAtov &macay waidelay yeyover, bsP
jwepBéBAnvTa Kar -AOnvas kal “AAcEay-
Specay Kal ef tTiva BAdov TémoV duvardy
cireiv, ev @ cxoAal Kal SiatpiBal Tay pido-
cdpev kal Tav Adywr yeydvact. Fiapeper
5 tocovtov, Sti evTadba mev of piAopa-
Goovres emixdpior mdvres eiol, xiv. 674.
He enumerates many learned men who had
sprung from it. It was (see Plin. above)
an “ urbs libera,” i.e. one which, though
under Rome, lived under its own laws and
chose its own magistrates. This ‘libertas’
was granted to it by Antony (Appian. Civ.
v. 7): and much later we find it a Roman
colony. Asa free city, it had neither the
«jus coloniarum,’ nor the ‘jus civitatis
see ch. xxi. 39, also xxii. 28, and note. It
is now a town with about 20,000 inhabit-
ants, and is described as being a den of
poverty, filth, and ruins. There are many
remains of the old town (Winer, RWB.).
12. wposevxetat} This word would
set before Ananias more powerfully than
any other, the state of Saul. avdpa
*Ay. dv.] A man, whose name in the same
vision he knew to be Ananias. The sight
of the man and the knowledge of his name
were both granted him in his vision.
13. tots Gyiows cov] This is the first time
that this afterwards well-known appella-
tion occurs as applied to the believers in
Christ. 14.] It could hardly fail to
have been notified to the Christians at
Damascus by their brethren at Jerusalem,
that Saul was on his way to persecute
them. 15. ox. ékXoyns| A genit. of
quality : as we say, ‘ the man of his choice.’
102
uch. x. 36 reff. U
v and constr.,
Luke (iii. 7
| Mt.) vi. 47. auTrov
xii. 5. ch.
xx. 35 only.
Esth. v. ee
weh.v. 4.
26. xxi. i.
Ron. i.
3 John 7 a
x = ch. v. 26
refi.
y ch. Vili. 17
vio TE "Iopann 16
«ihe a La
aoe TOU
"Inavve o
BArebyc Kat
os ii. 3 reff.
a vers 12. f 5
beh. ii. 4reff. a
ohare ony: aveBrapey TE Kal
Job ee ti
= ch. ii. 3.
Matt. iii 16. ‘Toogny | ee
e here only. ,
Levit. xi. 9, pabyror ? nuépac ! Tivac,
12. (-milecv,
Tobit x1. 13.) f ch. viii. 26 reff.
only. petad. Tp, ch. ii. 46. xxvii, 33, 34. mposX. Tp., XxVil. 36.
trans , Luke xxii. 43 only. 2 Kings xxii. 4u.
17. for Se, re A.
coptt «th-rom (ec Thl.
ws (more usual word) ABN! p.
IIPAZEIS AMOSTOAQN.
eyo yap
ovowaroc oer maleiv.
> rrnoOne TVEUMLATOC ayiov.
ec? , ’ ~ > ‘ -~ > 5
amémecay avrov amo twv opfa\pyov
g = Jobn xix. 30. Mark xv. 23. 1 Tim. iv. 4.
tas x. bef em aut. C vss.
om 7 npxov X!: ins X-corr!.
18. [awewecay, so ABCEHN p Thl-sif.]
usual instead of more characteristic arrangement), with CEHL® rel:
IX.
* brodettw auTw baa él
ie * dr Nev Oe
pica Kat cn Ger et el¢ THY oixiay, kat ¥ exOete ex avrov
rag? ii bu elev DavvA adeA He, 0 0 KUptoc antoraAkev ME,
<
* op fic cou éy 7 080 MPXOv, Omwe “ ava-
1B at evlliwe
dwcet © Aeridec,
, \ h ‘
f dvactac EBarriabn, 19 kay 8 A\aBeov
éyévero de pera tov ev Aapacky
oOo Ss fn Ws ’ - -
20 Kal evOéwe €v Tate ovvaywyalc
bh here
i = here only. Gen. x\viii. 2.
jch. x. 48 reff.
om ino. HUbdghklm
rec am. T. of@. bef avr. (more
txt AB m.
for re, Se C?X al copt. rec aft Te
ins wopaxpnua (addition for precision), with EL rel syr: om ABC!HX d gl! m p 86
vulg Syr coptt arm.
19. evioxvOy BC!.
p vulg syrr copt «th arm Chr.
Thl-fin.
See Winer, edn. 6, § 34. 3, b. Paul
often uses this word cretos in a similar
meaning, see reff., especially Rom. ix., &e.,
where it is in illustrating God’s sovereign
power in election. Baoracat, per-
haps in reference to the metaphor in
oKevos. €0vav| This would hardly be
understood at the time: it was afterwards
on a remarkable occasion repeated to Paul
by the Lord in a vision (see ch. xxii. 21),
and was regarded by him as the specific
command which gave the direction to his
ministry, see Gal. ii. 7, 8. Back. |
Agrippa, and probably Nero. 16.
trodet~w | The fulfilment of this is testi-
fied by Paul himself, ch. xx. 23, 25: see
also xxi. 11. 17. ZaovA}| The He-
brew form of Saul’s name is only found
here, and in the report of our Lord’s pre-
vious address to him. K. TAnoOys
amv. ay.| I can hardly think, with De W.
and Meyer, that these words imply that
the Lord had said to Ananias more than
is above related: I would rather view them
as a natural inference from what was said
in ver. 15. In ch. xxii. 14, where the
command to Ananias is omitted, és speech
contains much of the reason given in the
command here. It is remarkable again
how Paul, speaking there to an infuriated
Jewish mob, gives the words spoken just
that form which would best gain him a
favourable hearing with them—e. g. 6 Meds
rec aft ey. Se ins 0 cavdos (commencement of an ecclesias-
tical portion: so lect-12 has eyev. evat Tov mavaAov), with HL rel Thi:
txt ABCEN e
ins ovtwy bef ev Sauackw HL bd gk mo Chr
Tay mwatépwy juav,—ideiy tov Slkarov
mdvras avOpwmous, avoiding as yet the
hateful word ¢@vn. He there too gives
dvactas Bdwticat kal amddovoa Tas amap-
thas gov, émikadeoduevos T) bvoma avToU
as part of the exhortation of Ananias.
18. dsel AewiSes | The recovery of
sight is plainly related as miraculous, the
consequence of the divinely-appoimted lay-
ing on of the hands of Ananias. And this
scaly substance which fell from his eyes
was thrown off in the process of the in-
stantaneous healing. eBamrioby | It
has been well remarked (Olsh.) that great
honour was here placed upon the sacra-
ment of baptism, inasmuch as not even
Saul, who had seen the Lord in special
revelation and was an clect vessel, was
permitted to dispense with this, the Lord’s
appointed way of admission into His
Church. 19. éviox. | intrans. see reff.
hp. Twas] A few days; of quiet,
and becoming acquainted with those as
brethren, whom he came to persecute as
infidels: but not to learn from them the
gospel (ov5é yap eyd mapa avOpadmov rap-
€AaBov aitd, otre &5:5dxOnv, Gal. i. 12),
nor was the time longer than to admit of
ev0éws being used, ver. 20,—and indeed
the same e%@éws of the whole space (in-
cluding his preaching in our vy. 20, 21)
preceding the journey to Arabia, in Gal. i.
16. Pearson places that journey before
7 ABCEH
LNabe
dfghk
lmop
13
Fr.Coisl.
contains
vv. 23,
24,
16—23.
| er a , - i 1 . Mes > e en ~- -
EKIJQUGOEY TOV Incovuv, OTt OvUTOC EGTLY O VLOC TOU Ocov.
Smee 8: UA « 23 , Ny) of >
e&toravTo € WavTec OL akOuvOVTEC Kal eAgyov Ovy
i aad ’ © ni , ee ‘ ‘
ouUTOC saTlv O Trop§ncac Ev TcoovoaAnu TOUC
‘
/
pévouc TO
”
oe D > N ie
tva dedeuevouc auTouc ayay"l
99 - \ ~ , ~
22 SavAoc Sé paddAov * eveduvapovto, Kal | cuvexuvVvEy TOUC
’ , N ~ , rate ay ,
lovSalove rovc Katotxouvtac ev Aapacky, ouuPiPaZwv
ud Vv ° , ’ e , 93 c \w? = x. © /
Ort” OUTOS EGTLV O YpLOTOS. we os" exAnpovvTo nuEoat
€ toy , e79 - z? - Gnas
ikavat, ¥ cuvePovAgbaavTo ot lovdatot * aveAc auTov
Marki. 38. r= Matt. x. 18 al.
of Paul, and Heb. xi. 34. Ps. li. 7.
v ver. 2U reff. w ch. vii. 23 reT.
y constr., Rey. iii. 18 only. 1 Macc. ix. 69.
w. O71, John xviii. 14 only.
MPAZEIS AIOZTOAQN.
t ch. ii. 6 reff.
103
k kn. +. ino,
ch. xix. 13.
2 Cor. xi. 4,
L.P.
Ke T XP»
°o >
éTLKaAOU- see ch. viii. 5
- \ , “ , j-
POvoma TOUTO; Kal de Tee tovTo TeAnAvbee, ¥er,22
ch. x. 36, 40.
1 John vy. 20
al. fr.
m ch. viii. 13
reff.
n Gal. i. 18, 23
onlyt.
o ver. 14.
p ch. v. 28 (iv.
12, Jamesii.
r ” \ ‘ > ~
ETL TOUGC APYXlEOELC.
‘
yeh
q John xviii. 87
only. see
s Rom, iv. 20 al5. Paul only, exc. here, which is
ul Cor. ii. 16 reff. Exod. xviii. 16.
x ver. 43. ch. xviii. 18. xxvii.7 L. see ch. viil. Ll.
see Dan. vi.7 Theod. w. fva, Matt. xxvi. 4. John xi. 53 only.
zch, v. 33 reff.
20. rec for ino., xpioTov (doctrinal alteration ? see note), with HL rel Chr: alii
aliter: txt ABCEN a c h p 13 vulg Syr Iren-int.
21. eficraTo N'(but corrd).
observing the force of the pluperf ?) E-gr HL p rel
36 H-lat.
22. aft eved. ins Tw Aoyw C, ev Tw A. HE,
excev E57. 667. 1387. 180 Thl-fin: esuvexuvev
23. ins ac bef nuepar H.
our éyévero 5é,—which however is mani-
festly against the sense of the text:—
Michaelis and Heinrichs, between vv. 19
and 20,—to which there is the same ob-
jection : Kuinoel and Olsh., after ver. 25,
—which the ed@éws of Gal. i. 16 will not
allow: Neander and Meyer, in the Hyeepat
ixavat of ver. 23, which time however in
our text is certainly allotted to the pro-
gress of his preaching in Damascus, and
the increase of the hostility of the Jews in
consequence. See below. 20. *In-
govv}| The alteration to xpiotdy has pro-
bably, as Meyer suggests, been made from
doctrinal considerations, to fix on 5 vids
tov Oc00 the theological sense,—that Christ
is the Son of God—instead of that which
it now bears,—that Jesus is the Son of
God, i.e. that Jesus of Nazareth as @
matter of fact, is the Son of God, i. e. the
Messiah expected under that appellation.
Be this as it may, the following 76 dvopa
rovto (ver. 21) is decisive for the reading
"Incoov, and obtds éotw 6 xpiords ver. 22
still more so. 21. wop§yaas | ‘ Mi-
litari verbo usus est,’ Erasm. So Aisch.
Choeph. 680, of *yé, Kat’ &xpas evOad ws
ropbovueda. See also Sept. c. Theb. 176
(194 Dind.). éAnAvOer| had come
here, implying the abandonment of the
purpose. 22.] I regard the paddov
évedvVap.oUTO, as the only words beneath
which can lie concealed the journey to
Arabia. Paul mentions this journey (Gal.
i. 17) with no obscure hint that to it was
for ev, evs AX.
ednavdev (alteration, not
vss Chr Gc Thi: txt ABC o (18)
rec cuvexuvev, with AHL rel: ovy-
13: txt B'ICR. om 1st tous BN'.
to be assigned the reception by him, in
full measure, of the Gospel which he
preached. And such a reception would
certainly give rise to the great accession
of power here recorded. I am the more
disposed to allot that journey this place,
from the following considerations. The
omission of any mention of it here can
arise only from one of two causes: (1)
whether Paul himself were the source of the
narrative, or some other narrator,—the in-
tentional passing over of it, as belonging
more to his personal history (which it was
his express purpose to relate in Gal. i.) than
to that of his ministry : (2) on the suppo-
sition of Paul not having been the source
of the narrative,—the narrator having not
been aware of it. In either case, this ex-
pression seems to me one very likely to
have been used :—(1) if the omission was
intentional,—to record a remarkable acces-
sion of power to Saul’s ministry, without
particularizing whence or how it came:
(2) if it was unintentional,—as a simple
record of that which was observed in him,
but of which the source was to the nar-
rator unknown. ovvexuvvev | Chry-
sostom strikingly says, @te vououal)s ay
eneatéucey avtovs Kal odK ela poeyye-
cea evdmioav arndAdAdxOat TIS év Tots
rowvTos Siadekews amaddayevtes STeE-
gdvov, Kal Srepdvov apodpétepoy eupoyv
érepov. (Cramer’s Catena.) 23.
Apépat ixavai | Zn Damascus, see above on
ver. 19. The whole time, from his con-
IX.
104 TIPASZ EIS AMOZTOAQN.
aconstr., Phil. 24 4 eyvwa0n de tw LavrAw > emiSovAn avrayv. * mapeTn-
ies Lev. iv. s 3} = “ ee ie 4 < 2
bch. xx. 3, 19. QOUYTO € Kal TaCGC TvuAac NMEOAC TE KAL VUKTOC OTWC
xxiii. 30
only. Esth.
only. avrov “avéiAwow® 2 ° AaBovree Se of palnrat avrov
ec mid, KS vi. 7. Xiv. 1. Gal. iv. 10. Ps. xxxvi.12. act., Mark iii.2. Luke xx. 20 only. ad gen., Luke
xviii. 7. Rev. iv. 8al4. Ps. i.2. ve K. mpsepas, Mark v.5. 1 Thess.ii.y al. Isa.xxxiv.10. acc., ch, xx. 31 refi.
e Matt. xxi. 35, 34. Gen. xii. 5.
24. rec mapetnpouy (mistake : see below), with HL 13 rel: txt ABCEN Fr-coisl p 36
Orig. rec for de «at, te (the -ro of mapetnpovyto being mistaken for te, no other
copula was wanted: and thus Se kat was struck out: thus also the ka in L fe as
unnecessary aft 5«), with H 13 rel Syr Chr Thl: 6¢ L 137. 180 syr coptt arm Thi: txt
ABCEX Fr-coisl p 36 vulg Orig. om re Ad fk Orig. for nu. to aveA., orws
TiATwolW avTov nu. Kat vuKT. A. aved. bef avroy &*.
25. rec avtoy o paénra, with EHL 13 rel syrr coptt xth-pl Chr-txt @e Thl:
avTov ot wad. avtou b: o: wadnrat avtoy m p(or p-corr! ?) : ot wabnra 36. 69 lect-12:
txt ABCN Fr-coisl p'(perhaps) am demid Orig(vol. ii. p. 394) Chr(émérpee tots wabntats
version to his journey to Jerusalem, was
three years, Gal. i. 18. avedetv avr. |
emt Toy igxupby audAdAoyioudy epxovTat
madw of “lovdato. odkéTi yap cuKopavTas
K. Katnyédpous Kk. wWevdouaprupas émi(y-
tovow, Chrys. Hom. xx. 24.| In
2 Cor. xi. 32, Paul writes, év Aauacka 6
eOvapxns “Apétra tod Bacirdcws eppovper
Thy TOAW Aaunacknvay, midoa we [ OeAwr |.
A somewhat difficult chronological ques-
tion arises respecting the subordination of
Damascus to this Aretas. The city, under
Augustus and Tiberius, was attached to
the province of Syria: and we have coins
of Damascus of both these emperors, and
again of Nero and his successors. But we
have none of Caligula and Claudius ; and
the following circumstances seem to point
to a change in the rulership of Damascus
at the death of Tiberius. There had been
for some time war between Aretas, king of
Arabia Nabatzea (whose capital was Petra),
and Herod Antipas, on account of the di-
vorce by Herod of Aretas’ daughter at the
instance of Herodias, and on account of
some disputes about their frontiers. <A
battle was fought, and Herod’s army en-
tirely destroyed (Jos. Antt. xviii. 5. 1).
On this Antipas, who was a favourite with
Tiberius, sent to Rome for help: and Vi-
tellius, the governor of Syria, was com-
missioned to march against Aretas, and
take him, dead or alive. While on his
march, he heard at Jerusalem of the death
of Tiberius (March 16, a.p. 37), and
mérEuov expepery odKel duolws Suvduevos
dia 7d eis Vdiov weramertwxévar Ta mpdy-
Hata (Antt. xviii. 5. 3), abandoned his
march, and sent his army into their win-
ter-quarters, himself returning to Antioch:
Antt. ibid. This weramerrwrévat 7d Tp.
brought about a great change in the situ-
ation of Antipas and his enemy. Antipas
was soon (A.D. 39) banished to Lyons, and
his kingdom given to Agrippa, his foe
(Antt. xviii. 7. 2), who had been living in
habits of intimacy with the new emperor
(xviii. 6. 5). It would be natural that
Aretas, who had been grossly injured by
Antipas, should, by this change of affairs,
be received into favour; and the more so,
as there was an old grudge between Vitel-
lius and Antipas, of which Jos. says (Antt.
Xvili. 4.5), Expumrev dpynyv, méexpe 5) Kar
peTHAGe, Tatov thy apxhv mapeAnpdtos.
Now in the year 38 Caligula made
several changes in the East, granting Itu-
rea to Sormus, Lesser Armenia and parts
of Arabia to Cotys, the territory of Cotys
to Rhemetalces,—and to Polemon, the
son of Polemon, his father’s government.
These facts, coupled with that of no Da-
mascene coins of Caligula and Claudius
existing (which might be fortuitous, but
acquires force when thus combined), make
it probable that about this time Damascus,
which belonged to the predecessors of Are-
tas (Jos. Antt. xiii. 5. 2), was granted to
Aretas by Caligula. This would at once
solve the difficulty. The other suppositions,
—that the Ethnarch was only visiting the
city (as if he could then have guarded the
city to prevent Paul’s escape),—or that
Aretas had seized Damascus on Vitellius
giving up the expedition against him (as if
a Roman governor of a province would,
while waiting for orders from a new em-
peror, quietly allow one of its chief cities to
be taken from him),—are in the highest
degree improbable. The above is taken in
substance from Wieseler, Chron. des Apost.
Zeitalters, pp. 167—175. His further ar-
gument from a coin BaotAéws *Apéera gid-
€AAnvos does not seem conclusive, as it
leaves the latter title altogether unae-
counted for. It probably (C. and H. i.
pp. 101 and 132) belongs to a former Are-
tas. On é@vdpxns see note, 2 Cor. xi.
32. 25.| The reading in the text, AaB.
ot padytal avrod, is ambiguous. Chrys.
(see in var. readd.), al. take it as if Saul had
disciples of his own who did this. The only
ABCEH
LNabe
dfghk
lmop
13
24—29.
IIPAZEIS AMOSTOAQN.
105
~ ,
vukroc ‘dia Tov ® retyouc cabincay avrov ‘ xadaaavrec ‘Bent xi.
: ! 96 1 5 ao
epi * oTuplou. 26 TAPUYEVOMEYOG oe ats ‘TepoucaAne © ean Ti
™ Erreloaro " coAAacOat rote palntaic? Kat TavTEc EpoPouvTo ke.
Rev. xxi. 12
(6 times)
only. Exod.
xiv,
oe: . 0 , ow p 7 0 , Dil B , 22,
auToV, 1) nes ae EOTLV la ei aovaPac bh Luke v. 19.
oe ewtha/Jopevor aurov nyayev _Tpoc Tove aTooro\ove,
kat
Kal Ort ehaXnoev avry, Kal
c— ]
as év TW ee ‘Tyoov.
’ eicmopevomevoc Kat
" qappnataZomevog é év TW Ovomare TOU Kupiou,
(John viii. 2.] ch. xiii. 14. xv. 4 only, else Xxiyv. 11.
(not A) only. noch. v. 13 r
Job xv. 31.
Prov. vii. 13.) gen., ch. xvii. 19 reff.
above (r).
XX. 20, (ch. xxii. 18.) Opav T. Key
1 Thess. ti. 2 only. L.P. Prov. xx. 9 al.
avTov' Kal yap uabnTtas elxev ev0ews).
* dinynoaro avrot | roe ev Ty odw | ELOEV TOV ‘Kbptov,
"Tac & Aauasky *
" exmopevopevoc
Pp pres., ch. Xvi. 38 reff.
Mark is. 9. Luke Vill. 39, ix. 10. ch. viii. 33.
1 Cor, ix. 1 reff.
chix ii:
xi. 5 only..
Exod. xvii
ll.
i Mark ii. 4.
Luke vy. 4, 5.
ch. xxvii. 17,
2 Cor.
98 , 30 :
- kat av eT autwy xi, 88 only.
eI
Emap
| ; An (xxxviii ) 6.
éoovuoa YM, k Matt. xv.
’ 37 ||. xvi.
29 eXadee TE 10
10 || only +.
] Matt. ii. 1.
mch. xxvi. 2l only. Prov. xxvi. 18 F
o John xiv. 10. Rom. x. 9. 1 Thess. iv. 14 al.
tconstr., ch, xvi 19. xvii. 17. (Luke Siv. 4.
rconstr, Mark v. 16. ch. xii. 17 only. sas
Heb. xi. 32 only. Josh. ii. 23.
uch. xiii. 46. xiv. 3 al3.
vhere only. Zech. viii. 10. sce ch. i 21.
rec kaOykav bef dia 7. TeLx., OME avToY
(correction apparently, for the sake of perspicuity, to prevent AaBovtes and dia Tov
tetxous being connected together), with HL (18) rel Chr:
Orig Petr-alex Jer.—om avrov EHL m rel:
txt ABC(E m) & Fr-coisl p
ins ABCN Fr-coisl p 13. opupidi &
26. rec aft wap. de ins o cavaos (insertion as in ver 19: further shewn by o mavaos
in K ge), with HL 13 rel syr eth-pl Chr-txt Thl :
for ess, ey EHL rel e-ed Thl-sif:
p vulg coptt wth Chr-comm Jer.
B(sic: see table) CR adf go
p(Treg expr, so also Scriv) 36.
om ABCR
txt A
emeipatey (corrn
o mavaos E 33. 34. 105:
to more usual form, see reff) ABCX p: txt EHL 13. 36 rel Chr Thl.
27. om 3rd kat &': ins N-corr!3.
kupiov, A 98-marg; tov kv ah k lect-12:
28. om ca ecm. HUbd fl mo Chr,
txt ABCELX p 13. 36 rel Chr, Ge Thl.
a prep that may apply to one or other of the participles :
have left exrop. ets together, and H which omits x. exm. reads ev.)
om ABCX p 13. 40 fuld ath-rom arm.
bef wapp., with EHL rel vss Chr Thl:
aft 7. kup. ins qoov, with HLN? 13 rel ath-pl Chr, :
om Tov m: om kup. ah:
80! Syr eth Chr, :
arm Jer.
escape from this inference is by supposing
an unusual government of a gen. by Aa-
Bévres, such as we sometimes find in Ho-
mer, @. g. ayKas AaBéTnv aAAHAwr, Ll. yp.
711; *Odvejos AdBe yovrwy, Od. x. 310:
see also Il. y. 369, 0. 871; Od. €. 428, 1.
480. So we have kpatjoas tis Xetpds
avtis, Luke viii. 54. But whether this is
justified in a case where the whole person
is concerned, as here, may be a question.
If it is, it must be because not the tabing
and bringing him to the spot, but the act
of laying “hold of him to put him into the
basket, is intended. Sia 7. telxous |
Further particularized by the addition of
dia Ovpidos, 2 Cor. xi. 33. Such windows
in the walls of ae are common in the
East: see Josh. 15,0 Sams xix: 12):
and an engraving had part of the present
wall of Damascus in C. and H. i, p. 124.
omvpid.] capyavn, 2 Cor. xi. 33.
See note there, and on Matt. xv. 37.
Thl-sif.
(Meyer holds that evs is owing to a wish to have
rec ins tov bef ino., with EHLN p 18 rel ;
om BC m o.
rec (for eis) ev, with Ha h Chr, :
but surely no corrector would
rec ins Kae
rec
for Tr. xv, ww C 3. 10. 14. 38. 672
txt ABEN! p 40 vulg syr coptt eth-rom
26. wapay.| Immediately: the purpose
of this journey was to become acquainted
with Peter, Gal. i. 18: a resolution pro-
bably taken during the conspiracy of the
Jews against him at Damascus, and in
furtherance of his announced mission to
the Gentiles: that, by conference with
the Apostles, his sphere of work might be
agreed on. And this purpose his escape
enabled him to effect. kat | Not dué:
the dé follows. 27.] It is very pro-
bable that Barnabas and Saul may have
been personally known to each other in
youth. ‘Cyprus is only a few hours’ sail
from Cilicia. ‘lhe schools of Tarsus may
naturally have attracted one who, though
a Levite, was a Hellenist: and there the
friendship may have begun, which lasted
through many vicissitudes, till it was
rudely interrupted in the dispute a An-
tioch (ch. xv. 39).” (C. and H., edn. 2, i. p.
127.) TOUS atrooT. | Only Peer and
106
NPAZEIS AMOXSTOAQN.
IX.
, A ‘ « , e \ , ’
wWMarki.27) Kat” GUvECHTEL “ qo0c Tuc : EAAnmarag. OL 0& * ereyeloouv
xxii. 23 - pray 7 ual Ug) ‘
only. see 7 aveAcw aurov. 30 @ emeyvoures 8s Pot adeA pot “ kat~
ch. vi. #.
Beets: nyayou auTov £tc Katoapeay kat ‘ ekaméorstAay avurov etc
y Luke i. 1. ch.
xix. 13 only. Tagoov.
f Esth. ix. 25. 3] « \ * A ’ a
» ras Gbe. H pey ni a eceAnota | Kal! ‘6Ane THe "Tou aac Kal
xiii. 12 only.
b = John xxi.
23 only in
Tadidaiag Kal Lapac petag
g
eLyev g clonvny, * otxodopou-
Fa ae ' ‘hae
ate nev Kal " Topevopevn TW pow TOV ~ KUOLOU, Kal TY
assim. 1 m2 Me ‘ ree
oa xxii. 16 mapakAnoe rou aytov mvevnatoc ™ exAnbuvero 2 eyé-
reff.
ath: vii. 12 reff. L.P.
ver. 42. ch. x. 37.
xiv. 4,17. 1 Thess v. 11.
w. év, Luke i. 6. 1 Pet. iv. 3. 2 Pet. ii. 1.
1 = Rom. xii. 8 reff. m ch. vi. 7 rett.
29. aft cvve¢. ins re (but corrd) N’.
e sing. w. two or more places adjoined, here only.
g John xvi. 33. Rom. v. 1 only.
iconstr., ch. xiv. 16.
Tosh. xxi. 5 F.
f Luke iv. 14. xxiii. 6.
h =ch. xx. 32. 1 Cor. viii. 1. x. 23.
Prov. xxviii 26. see ch. xxi. 21.
k 2 Cor. y. 1) only (Rom. iii. 18 reff.).
Jude 11 only.
cAAnvas A many vss(Gre@cos): vulg has
loquebatur quoque gentibus, et disputabat cum Grecis, but not am demid &e (corrn
JSrom ch xi. 20).
vss Chr.
80. for kato., teporoAuma A.
31. rec at ev ovy exxAnotar &e eryov
add d:a vurros E, vueros ¢ 180
om 2nd avtoy (as unnecessary) AK. a?
rec avtoy bef aveaA., with HL 13 rel Thl: txt ABCEN a h m p
Syr syr-w-ast sah.
h: ins BCHLX p rel syrr coptt Chr Thi.
. . olkodoMoupeEvat kK. Topevomevar Kc erANOvvOVTO
(see note), with EHL rel syr Chr ec Thl-sif: txt ABCR p 13 vulg Syr copt sah wth
arm Dion-alex Thl-fin.
James the Lord’s brother, Gal. i. 18, 19.
Probably there were no other Apostles
there at the time: if there were, it is
hardly conceivable that Saul should not
have seen them. On his second visit, he
saw John also (Gal. ii. 9). Perhaps he
never saw in the flesh any other of the
Apostles after his conversion. Sinyn-
garo | viz. Barnabas, not Saul. 29.
“EAAnviotas | See ch. vi. Land note. This
he did, partly, we may infer, to avoid the
extreme and violent opposition which he
would immediately encounter from the
Jews themselves,— but partly also, it may
well be believed, because he himself in the
synagogues of the Hellenists had opposed
“sae formerly. 30. émvyvovtes
8é....] There was also another reason.
He was praying in the temple, and saw
the Lord in a vision, who commanded him
to depart, for they would not receive his
testimony :—and sent him from thence to
the Gentiles: see ch. xxii. 17—21 and
notes. His stay in Jerusalem at this visit
was fifteen days, Gal. i. 18. eis Kat-
gdpevav] Irom the whole cast of the sen-
tence, the catiyyayov and éefaréare:Aay, we
should infer this to be Cxsarea Stratonis,
even if this were not determined by the
word Kaodpera used absolutely, which
always applies to this city, and not to
Cwesarea Philippi (which De Dieu, Olsh.,
and others believe to be meant). From
Gal. i. 21, it would appear that Saul about
this time traversed Syria (on his way to
Tarsus ?). If so, he probably went by sea
to Seleucia, and thence to Antioch. ‘The
etaméaretAay looks more like a ‘ sending
off’? by sea, than a mere ‘sending forward’
by land. eis Tapadv| towards, ‘for,’
Tarsus. He was not idle there, but cer-
tainly preached the Gospel, and in all pro-
bability was the founder of the churches
alluded to ch. xv. 23 and 41.
81.| FLOURISHING STATE OF THE
CHURCH IN PALESTINE AT THIS TIME.
Commencement of new section : compare
sev ovv, and note, ch. xi. 19. The reading
éxkAyota can hardly (as Meyer) be an
alteration to suit the idea of the unity of
the church, —as in that case we should have
similar alterations in ch. xv. 41; xvi. 5,
where no variations iia fod in the chief
MSS. More probably, it has been altered
here to conform it to those places. This
description probably embraces most of the
timesince the conversion of Saul. De Wette
observes, that the attention of the Jews was,
during much of this time, distracted from
the Christians, by the attempt of Caligula to
set up his image in the po ge at Jer usalem,
Jos. Antt. xviii. 8. 2— olxoSopov-
pevn | See Matt. xvi. 18. It probably re-
fers to both external and internal strength
and accession of grace. Paul commonly
uses it of spiritual building up: see reff.
mop. tT) 6B. | walking in the fear:
for construction see reff. :—not tt ing
after the fear’ (Winer, edn. 2, § 31.1;
not in edn. 6, see § 31. 9),—nor ‘ walk-
ing aecording to the fear’ as their rule
(Meyer),—nor ‘advancing in the fear’
(Beza, Wolf). K. T. Wapak\. T. ay.
amv. éwAn8.| And was multiplied (reff.)
ABCEH
LNabc
a
dfghk
lmop
13
—_
30—35.
vero be [érpov
IIPAZEIS AMOSTOAQN.
n 7, ‘ ,
Step y Omevor Sua TAVTWvV
107
° KareADety 2 v.34,
Matt. xii. 43.
cas ‘ - 1¢ 1
Kal TO0C TovC ® aylouc TOUS Ig¢arotkouvrac Avdda. > bor i 1.
33 ’ ait os Lev. xxvi. 5.
dgev CE EKEL avOownov Tia ovoware Awéav 7 é& troy Stier)
,’
OKTwW * KaTaKEmEvoV ETL ‘koaParrou, 0 o¢ ay i wapaheAv- eke
34 Vous 5) -~ oun 13.
pévoc. Kal elTEV auTw 0 [lézo0c Avéa, tarat os * ‘Incove 4 cons fy hei,
Wee @ NS os 35 r = Luke viii.
0 Xora oe" avaotnfe Kat * otowoov ceauTy. malt Se G
abs ¢ SN , ~ SvViii.
svléwe “ avéotn, Kal tloav auToY TayTee ol * KuTOLKOUYTEC Le ey
ch. xxviii. 8. Prov. vi. 9.
here (ch. v. 42 v. r.) only. (ch. xviii. 6.)
154 L. only. Jov xvii. 13. Ezek, xxiii. 41.
t ch. v. 15 reff.
constr., here ouly.
uch. viii. 7 reff. ving. 0 xp,
w = ver. 6 reff. x Mark xi. § bis || Mt. xiv.
Lsth. iv. 3.
82. rec Avddav (here and in ver 35 alteration to an inflected form from the original
Avdda:
cf ets Avdda mapeAdwy Jos. B J ii. 19. 1), with CEHL rel 36 Chr:
Avdavym 57:
txt ABN 13. 40. (13 def here.)—N has ev Avdda, but ev is marked for erasure by N! or
corr!,
33. rec av. bef ovou., with HL rel 36 Chr Thl-sif: om ovou. 13: txt ABCEX k m p
vulg Syr arm (coptt «th) Thl-fin.
ABC® p.—x«paBBar. B2(Mai); xpaBarr. AB'CEHLN3 :
rec kpaBBarw, with EHL 13 rel Thi:
kpaBakt. X!.
txt
34. ins a kup. bef inc. A 15. 18. 36. 40. 68 vulg sah zth arm Thl-fin Ambr Cassiod.
om 2nd o (alteration to the Name ino. xp-) B}(but “ superadditur”’) CX 0 18:
ins A B-corr'(appy) EHL p rel Chr.
by the exhortation of (i. e. inspired by)
the Holy Spirit. This is the only ren-
dering which suits the usage of the words.
Those of the Vulg. ‘ consolatione reple-
bantur,’—of Kuin. ., ‘adjumento abunda-
bant,’ are unexampled, see reff. Nei-
ther must 77) mapaxA. be coupled with 7¢
6B, as in E. V., and by Beza and Rosen-
miiller, which would leave ofxoSou. stand-
ing by itself, and render the sentence
totally unlike Luke’s usual manner of
writing.
32 —35.] Heating or ANEAS AT
Lyppa By Prrer. This and the following
miracle form the introduction to the very
important portion of Peter’s history which
follows in ch. x.,—by bringing him and his
work before usagain. 382. Svepydp. 8. 7. |
These words are aptly introduced by the
notice in ver. 31, which shews that Peter’s
journey was not an escape from persecution,
but undertaken at a time of peace, and for
the purpose of visiting the churches.
wavTwv may be neuter, ‘all parts’ but it
is probably masc. and ayfwy understood.
Wieseler (p. 145, note) doubts whether we
can say diepyecOat dia mdvTwy T. aylur,
—but see reff. The caf makes the mase.
more likely, as it presupposes some @ytor
in the mind of the writer before. As
I have implied on ver. 31, this journey of
Peter’s is not necessarily consecutive on
the events of vv. 1—30. But an alternative
presents itself here; either it took place
before the arrival of Saul in Jerusalem, or
after his departure: for Peter was there
during his visit (Gal. i. 18). It seems
most likely that it was before his arrival.
For (1) it is Luke’s manner in this first part
of the Acts, where he is carrying on several
histories together, to follow the one in
hand as far as some resting-point, and then
go back and take up another: see ch. viii. 2
thus taken up from a@va:péce: adTov, ver. 1:
ver. 4 going back to the d:acmapevtes :—
ch. ix. 1 taken up from viii. 3:—xi. 19,
from viii. 4 again:—and (2) the journey
of Peter to visit the churches which were
now resting after the perseention would
hardly be delayed so long as three whole
years. So that it is most natural to place
this section, viz. ch. ix. 32—xi. 18 (for all
this is continuous), before the visit of
Saul to Jerusalem, and during his stay
at Damascus or in Arabia. See further on
als ICE Av88a] Lod, Neh. vii. 37.
A large village near Joppa (ver. at. on the
Mediterranean (Jos. Antt. xx. 6. 2, kdéunv
twa Avddav Acyou., méAews TH pméeyebos
ovx amodéovcay), just one day’s journey
from Jerusalem (Lightf.,Cent. Chor. Matth.
prem. cxvi.). It afterwards became the
important town of Diospolis. 33.
Aivéav| Whether a believer or not, does
not appear; from Peter’s visit being to
the saints, it would seem that he was:
but perhaps the indefinite av0pemdy twa
may imply the contrary, as also Peter’s
words, announcing a free and unexpected
gift from One whom he knew not.
34. otpaa. ceavt.| Not ‘for the future ?
but ‘ immediately,’ as a proof of his sound-
ness. 85. wavtes .... oitives] Not
‘all, who had turned to the Lord, as Kuin.:
this would make the mention of the fact
unmeaning,—and surely more would see
108 MIPAZEIS AMOZTOAQN. IX. 36—43.
. ‘ ‘ Zz. ef =m. we ee Ia | ‘
yeoch.xxiv. AyOda Kal Tov Laowva, * vitweg * eweotoe~av “emt Tov
7 9 > > , = / > 4
oo. * KvoLOV, 36 "Ey lorry dé tie Hv “pabhrora ovopare
reff.
a here only ft.
e kD
dio Last. Tada, 2 ” deepunvevopévn © A€yerac Aopxac’ avrn aw
as ; - / | ee ~ a , ’
b 1Gor xi “ rAnpne ° ayabov “goywv Kat © eAenuoovvwy * wy Emolst.
80 reff.
37 > 4 i Ue ~ Cr. 37 , U | weg) i) , > ‘
see) ed EVyEVETO oe év Talc YPEOALC EKELVaLC AGVEVI]CAGCAV AUTIV
xxvi.3. Col. , att ag b ‘ BS ts ” ‘ cx ;
Aa oie og ATroUavE ”” Notoavtec 6& avTny e0nkav ev UTEDWYW,
, \ ” , ~ 9 a e ‘ , ,
38 eyyve O& ovenc Avédsac TH lorry OL nabyrat akovoav-
eee ? ALS Ins 7 ”
eoTlv EV auTy améoret\av dvo avopac
reff.
e Paul only
(Rom. ii. 7.
xiii. 3alll),
exc. here and
e U
tec ote Llerooe
Heb. xiii. 21. ‘
f plar., ch. x.
2, 4, 31
yen in ~ Sm 2 , o ~
mo0c avrov maoakaAouvrec Mi) " oxvnoye OteA ety
xxiv. 17 only. Dan, iv. 24 (27). see ch. iii. 2 reff. gattr., ch. i, 1 reff. h = Matt. x. Sal. 2
Kings xiii. 4 A Grint F). (Ps i 14).) i John xiii. 10. ch. xvi. 33. Heb. x. 22. 2 Pet. ii. 22. Rev.i.
5S only. Exod. ii. 4, keh. i. 13 reff. Actsonly. 3 Kings xvil. 1a. | pres., ch. xvi. 38 refi.
m = ch. xi. 23 al. fr. n here only. Nam. xxii. 16. ow. €@s, Luke ii. 15, ch. xi. 19, 22 only.
Gen. xxii. 5. =
35. [edav, so AB: eda C.] om Tov N}. Steph capwvrav (corrn with the
same view as Avddav: but seeing tov before it, the transcriber could not make it an
accus. fem., and has therefore made it a mase Srom capwvas, not seeing that it was
already an accus from capwv), with b' ck p 36: accapwray f: accapwra HL a b? gh
lo 13 Chr Thl-sif: txt A(appy) BCE d m (coptt) Thl-fin: cappwva X.
36. epy. bef ay. BCE m 18 vulg spec syrr coptt: txt AHLX rel Chr Thl.
37. <Onx. bef avr. AN' p 40: om aut. B: txt CEHLN® 13 rel Chr Thi.
ins Tw
bef umep. ACE ah o Orig Thl: om BHLN p rel Chry.
38. rec Avddys, with B7EHL rel 36: Avddas ANS (possibly the original as ABN agree
in dAvdsa vv 32, 35): txt BIC p. (13 def.)
(ie Thl-sif.
om vo avip. HL abd tg hilo Chr,
rec oxvngat 8. €. autwy (alteration to avoid the harshness of the direct
constr with mapox. Meyer thinks the direct constr has been written in the marg and
Sound its wa
coptt: txt ABC'EN p vulg spec. (oxvga[ . . |
him than the believers merely. The similar
use of ofrives in the ref. shews its meaning
to be commensurate with the preceding
mavres, and to gather them into a class, of
which that which follows is predicated. All
that dwelt in L. and S.saw him ;—which
also (i. e. and they) turned to the Lord.
A general conversion of the inhabitants to
the faith followed. Tov Ldpwva |
Perhaps not a village, but (and the art.
makes this probable) the celebrated plain
of that name, extending along the coast
from Cesarea to Joppa, see Isa. xxxiii. 9;
xxxv. 2; Ixv. 10; Cant. ii. 1; 1 Chron.
xxvii. 29; and Jerome on Isa. xxxiii. and
Ixv., pp. 436, 780. Mariti (Travels,
p- 350) mentions a village Saren between
Lydda and Arsuf (see Josh. xii. 18, marg.
K. V.): but more recent travellers do not
notice it. See Winer, RWB., where other
places of the same name are mentioned.
36—438.| Ratsina or TAaBITHA
FROM THE DEAD. 36. év “lowry |
Joppa was a very ancient Philistian city,
on the frontier of Dan, but not belonging
to that tribe, Josh. xix. 46; on the coast
(ch. x. 6), with a celebrated but not very
secure harbour (Jos. B. J. iil. 9.3: see
2 Chron. ii. 16; Ezra iii. 7; Jonah i. 3;
1 Mace. xiv. 5; 2 Mace. xii. 3),— situated
y into the text), with C3(appy) HL 13. 36 rel syrr Chr: oxynoa . . nuwv
p-)
in a plain (1 Mace. x. 75—77) near Lydda
(ver. 38), at the end of the mountain road
connecting Jerusalem with the sea. The
Maceabean generals, Jonathan and Simon,
took it from the Syrians and fortified it
(1 Mace. x. 74—76; xiv. 5,34. Jos. Antt.
xiii. 9. 2). Pompey joined it to the pro-
vince of Syria (Antt. xiv. 4. 4), but Caesar
restored it to Hyrcanus (xiv. 10. 6), and it
afterwards formed part of the kingdom of
Herod (xy. 7.3) and of Archelaus (xvii.
11. 4), after whose deposition it reverted
to the province of Syria, to which it be-
longed at the time of our narrative. It
was destroyed by C. Cestius (Jos. B. J. ii.
18. 10); but rebuilt, and became a nest
of Jewish pirates (Strabo, xvi. 759), in
consequence of which Vespasian levelled it
with the ground, and built a fort there
(B. J. iii. 9. 3, 4), which soon became the
nucleus of a new town. It is now called
Jaffa (Idpa, Anna Comnena. Alex. ii. p.
328), and has about 7000 inhabitants, half
of whom are Christians. (Winer, RWB.)
ToBi8a | xm, in Aramaic, answer-
ing to ‘22%, Heb., dopxds (1. Hist. An.
xiv. 14), a gazelle. It appears also in the
Rabbinical booksasa female name (Lightf.) :
the gazelle being in the East a favourite type
of beauty. See Cant-ii.9, 17; iv.5; vii. 3.
ABCEH
LNabe
dfghk
lmop
13
weet XN-
Me 1. MIPASZEIS AMOSTOAQN. 109
r absol., ch.
xvii. LO reff.
s = Luke iv. 5.
ch, xvi. 34.
40 ; uke ary,
’ ‘ Ut 7 e , \ exec. Matt. iv.
¥ exDadrov 8: e&w wavtag o Térpoc Kat 1. Rom.x.7,
% Heb. xiii. 20.)
t —ch.iv. 10
reff.
u Mark xii. 40.
Chives
1 Cor. vii. 8.
1 Tim. v. 3,
&c. Ps.
Ixxvii. 64.
v mid., here
only. 2Mace.
xv. 32. (ch.
xviii. 28.)
w Matt. v. 40al.
ects XXxXvil.
x = Matt. xvii.
17. John
xiv. Hal.
y Jolin vi. 37.
Rev. xi. 2.
2 Chron.
Xxiil. 14.
= ch. xvi. 18. w. 7p6s, Luke
c Acts, here only. = Malt. xxvii.
ever. Matt. ix. 30. 4 Kings iv. 35.
h trans., = hereonly. see ch. ii. 24
~ Ss
©gapa eimev Tal30a,
’ A , - \ , ~ x A ,
“opOadrpovg autne, Kat toovca tov Ilerpov F avexa0uoev.
A A (-g - ’ , j
41 8 Sone be auty © XxEloa > Gvéornaey avriy’ ' pwrnoac 8s
Na Jas ah \ ‘ u , k , re eS yo
TOuC ayiouc kat Tac Xnoac TAPEGTNHOEV auTv dwoav.
i x ars , } ’ a] ~ 77 \ ,
42 yvworov oe eyévero ™ cal’ ™OAne tic lormne, Kat” emi-
\ ‘ ,
arevoay woXAol “Ett TOV KUOLOV. > eyévero de ° nuépac
ot ‘ pq - IN ’ T 7 q le , Tr =
(Kavag || peivat QUTOV EV lowmy ‘rapa tu Viuwwve Bupoet.
? ‘ , >
De i Ayno oé Tic &V Katoapela Ovomate KopunAtoe, e Eka-
z ch, vii. 60 reff a abs., ver. 12.
xvii. 4, 2 Cor. iii.16. 1 Thess.i.9 Ezek. xlii. 18.
52, &c. |. Jude 9. Josh. viii. 29. d = ver. 54.
f Luke vii 15 only t. g hereonly. 4 Kings x. 15.
reff. jach.x 7. Johni. 49. ii.9 al. Tobit v. 8. j ver. 13. k ch. i. 3 reff.
Lch. i. 19 reff. m ver. 31 refi. neh. xi. 17 al2. Rom. iv. 5,24. L.P. Wisd. xii. 2. see
Heb. vi. l. o ver. 23 reff. p = John i. 39. ch. xvi. 15. Gen. xxiv, 95. q = ch. Xxi.
7, S ref. rch, x. 6, 82only t+. ( cu, Job xvi. 16.) s-xns, Matt. viii, 18. ch. xxiv. 23
al. -xos, Matt. viii. 5, &c. ch. xxvii. 6 al. Matt. Luke only. = Kertuptwy, Mark xy. 39, &c.
39. ins o bef metpos Cc 0 130.
Chr.
40. mavras bef etw C m vulg spec: om efw er
Chr Ge Thi-sif: ins ABCEX p copt Thl-fin.
bef Sovea eth-pl.
41. for Ist Se, re A c Syr eth.
42. om rns BC!: ins AC°ELX rel Chr.
vss Chr: txt ABCEX m p 40 vulg spec arm.
43. for ucavas, Tivas C 36. avtov bef nuepas ik. we AEN? ah p 40: om avr. BN!
b: txt CL 13. 36 rel Chr.
mepteotnoay avtov c vulg E-lat spee Bas
rec om Ist cat, with L 13 rel vss
ins rapaxpnua bef qvoitey E sah,
rec moAA. bef emort., with L 13. 36 rel
Crap. X.1. ree aft tis ins nv (corrn, see ch ix. 36; not observing that the constr is
carried on to e:dev, ver 3), with rel vss Thl: om ABCELN p 13. 36 E-lat Chr.
SPECIAL DIVINE PREARRANGEMENT) AND
BAPTISM OF THE GENTILE CORNELIUS AND
wis PARTY. We may remark, that the con-
version of the Gentiles was zo new idea to
Lightf. remarks, that she was probably a
Hellenist, and thus was known by both
names. 87. év twepgw | Noart., asin the
expressions eis olkov, on deck,’ &e., which
usually occur after prepositions, ef. Middl.
ch. vi. § 1. See 1 Kings xvii. 19.
39. wacat ai x.| The widows of the place,
for whom she made these garments.
érroter | ‘was making,’ i.e. used to make
(i.e. weave): not ‘had made.’ 40.
exBaddy] After the example of his divine
Master, see reff. 43. Bupoet| From
the extracts in Wetstein and Schéttgen, it
appears that the Jews regarded the occupa-
tion of a tanner as a half-unclean one. In
this case it would shew, as De W. observes,
that the stricter Jewish practices were ©
already disregarded by the Apostle. It also
would shew, in how little honour he and his
office were held by the Jews at Caesarea.
Cnap. X. 1—48.] Conversion (BY
Jews or Christians, but that it had been uni-
versally regarded as to take place by their
reception into Judaism. Of late, however,
since the Ascension, we see the truth that
the Gospel was to be a Gospel of the uncir-
cwncision, beginning to be recognized by
some. Stephen, carrying out the prin-
ciples of his own apology, could hardly
have failed to recognize it: and the Cyprian
and Cyrenwan missionaries of ch. xi. 20
preached the word mpbs tods “EAAnvas
(not -cords), certainly before the conver-
sion of Cornelius. This state of things
might have given rise to a permanent
schism in the infant church. The Hel-
lenists, and perhaps Saul, with his de-
finite mission to the Gentiles, might have
110
TIPAZEIS AMOSTOAQN.
X.
-. ‘ , t , ~ X , iT Xr ~ DY u ,
t lo TOVTaOYXNC EK GTEONC THC KaAovmEVHC ITAaALKC, éuU-
p\ .
John xviii. chy Ni ae / > A) S ‘ \ ke PLA
3,12. ch. otjnCc Kal po OUVMEVOC TOV €OV OUVY TaVTL TW OLKW
Xxi Bl. , ~ x ~ y , , ‘ ~ ~ \ zg s
alee l auTou, TOLWYV eAennocuvac moAAac TW aw Kal os0-
0 y T.
Judith xiv. J1. 2 Macc. viii. 23. xii. 20, 22 only. uver.7. 2 Pet. ii. 9only. Isa xxiv. 16. (see
ch. iii. 12 reff.) Vv = vv. 22, 35. ch. xiii. 16, 26 al. Prov. iii. 7. w=ch. vii. 10. xi. 14.
xvi. 15, 3l al. Gen. vii. 1. x = Matt. vi. 1, 2. ch. ix. 86. xxiv 17. Tobit xii. 9. y ch. ix.
36 reff. z absol. w. gen., hereomy. Jobv.8. seech.iv.31. 1 Thess. sii. 10.
om exatovtapx. L.
oreipas Ba b? g h! 1 o Chr.
2. rec aft wowy ins Te, with L 13 rel xth-pl @e Thl: om ABCEN p 40 vulg Syr
formed one party, and the Hebrews, with
Peter at their head, the other. But, as
Neander admirably observes (Pfl. u. Leit.
p- 111), ‘The pernicious influence with
which, from the first, the self-seeking
and one-sided prejudices of human nature
threatened the divine work, was counter-
acted by the superior influence of the
Holy Spirit, which did not allow the dif-
ferences of men to reach such a point of
antagonism, but enabled them to retain
unity in variety. We recognize the pre-
venting wisdom of God,—which, while
giving scope to the free agency of man,
knows how to interpose His immediate
revelation just at the moment when it is
requisite for the success of the divine work,
—by noticing, that when the Apostles
needed this wider development of their
Christian knowledge for the exercise of
their vocation, and when the lack of it
would have been exceedingly detrimental,
—at that very moment, by aremarkable co-
incidence of inward revelation with a chain
of outward circumstances, the illumination
hitherto wanting was imparted to them.’
1. Katoapeiq} As this town bears
an important part in early Christian his-
tory, it will be well to give here a full
account of it. Cmsarva (Palestine, Kat-
cdpeta Tis Madaortvns, called mapdaAsos,
Jos. B. J. ili. 9. 1; vii. 2 Antt. xiii.
11. 2, or 4 em) Oadarry K., Jos. B. J.
vii. 1.3; 2.1, or Stratonis (see below),—
distinguished from Czsarea Philippi, see
note Matt. xvi. 13) is between Joppa and
Dora, 68 Rom. miles from Jerusalem ac-
cording tothe Jerus. Itinerary, 75 according
to Josephus (i.e. 600stadia, Antt. xiii.11.2.
B. J. i. 3. 5),—36 miles (Abulfeda) from
Ptolemais (a day’s journey, ch. xxi. 8),—
30 from Joppa (Edrisi) ;—one of the largest
towns in Palestine (Jos. B. J. iii. 9.1), with
an excellent haven (Jos. Antt. xvii. 5. 1,
ZeBaords Amhv,—dv Karackevdoas ‘Hpd-
dns ToAA@Y Xpnudtwv em Tinh TH Kaloa-
pos kadet SeBaordv). It was, even before
the destruction of Jerusalem, the seat of the
Roman Procurators (see ch. xxiii. 23 ff. ;
xxiv. 27; xxv. 1), and called by Tacitus
(Hist. ii. 79) ‘Judee caput.’ It was chiefly
inhabited by Gentiles (Jos. B. J. iii. 9.1;
2.
“m5
ii.14. 4), but there were also many thousand
Jewish inhabitants (Jos. B. J. ii, 18. 1;
Antt. xx. 8.7; Life,11). It was built by
Herod the Great (Amm. Marcell. xiv. 8,
p- 29, Bipont. Beforetime there was only a
fort there, called Stpdtwvos mUpyos, Jos.
Antt. xv. 9. 6 al.; Strabo, xvi. 758; Plin.
v.14)—fortified, provided with a haven (see
ch. ix. 30; xviii. 22; Joseph. above), and in
honour of Cesar Augustus named Ceesarea
(at length Kawdpera S<Baorh, Jos. Antt.
xvi. 5. 1). Vespasian made it a Roman
colony (Plin. v. 13). Abulfeda (Syr. p. 80)
speaks of it as in ruins in his time (A.D.
1300). At present there are a few ruins
only, and some fishers’ huts. (From Winer,
RWB.) éxatovtapxys | The subordi-
nate officer commanding the sixth part of a
cohort = half amaniple. See Dict. of Gr.
and Roman Antt. om. T. KaX. “IraX. |
A cohort (on.) levied in Italy, not in Syria.
Mr. Hissmphry quotes from Gruter, Inser.
i. p. 434, ‘ Cohors militum Italicorum vo-
luntaria, quee est in Syria.’ Biscoe (Hist.
of the Acts, pp. 217—221) maintains that
this was an independent cohort, not* one
attached to a legion. The legio Italica
(Tacit. Hist. i. 59, 64; ii. 100; iii. 22)
was not raised till Nero’s time.
2. evo. x. doB. +r. 0.] i.e. he had aban-
doned polytheism, and was a worshipper of
the true God: whether a proselyte of the
gate, or not, seems uncertain. That he
may have been such, there is nothing in the
narrative to preclude: nor does Meyer's
objection apply, that it is not probable that,
among the many thousand converts, no
Greek proselyte had yet been admitted by
baptism into the church. Many such cases
may have occurred, and some no doubt had:
but the object of this providential interfer-
ence seems to have been, to give solemn
sanction to such reception, by the agency of
him who was both the chief of the Apostles,
and the strong upholder of pure Judaism.
It is hardly possible that paprupotuevos
bm) bAov Tod vous Tay “lovdalwy (ver.
22) should have been said of a Gentile not
in any way conformed to the Jewish faith
and worship. The great point (ch. xi. 3)
which made the present event so important,
was, that Cornelius was dv}p axpoBveriav
ABCE
LNabe
dfghk
lmop
13
2—7.
IIPAZEIS ATOSTOAQN.
La
- ~ ‘ , %. ? b ¢ 7 ~ -
pevoc tov Ocov * Bia mavroc, ? Eldev Ev opamarte “ paveowe, poy 23 re™
bch. vii. 31
reff.
d¢« \ Nef ¢ eat ~ fre , v ~ ~
WCEL TEL woav EvaTynv THC neEoac, ayyeXov TOU Neov c = here (Mark
,
, , ‘ ’ . \ , > = , e \
eicehPovra meoc avroy Kal ettovta avtw KoovnAte. * 0 8é
> , ee \ hor , ~ Fee
S arevioag avtw Kat "Eupofoc yevouevocg eimev Ti éorey, a.
i. 45. John
vii. 10)
only t.
d = Luke xxiii.
Judg.
iii. 29.
, ct pit 33 oS Ai i ! Ae as / eX e acc. (Ww.
Kuple 5 €LTEV OF auTWw t TOOCEV\ al oovu Kal al EAENMO-~
7
, ks Pe m ny oe
ovvat oovu avénoav ELC Uv UCoOUVOY eumpoo0ev TOU
mept), Matt.
xx.3, 5, 6,
Y, xxvii. 46
~ 5 \ I ’ ” ’ ty 0 , only ¢. (with-
Oeov. Kal vuv méeupov avooac €L¢ lowrany Kal MET a= = ia et
: ohn iv. 52.
ee : eg es * z ae Oa Rev. iii. 3 al.
meurpae alUwWVa Ttva oc emikaAgtrat Tlérooc OUTOC Took a 6.
q ' r , ’ s owe od Le ak s fch ii. 15
EeviZerat Tapa TIiVe Diuwvt Buposi, Ww EOTLY OLKIa 7Taoa only Nee
s 7h ha ae ¢ oo € = > ~ @. VUKTOS,
Bara av. € 18) OY ch. xvi. 33.
ooa WC 8 amnA0ev oO ayyeA CO Aare auTW, Lies
only t. g ch. iii. 12 reff. h Luke xxiv. 5,57. ch. (xxii. 9] xxiv. 25. Rev. xi. 13
only, 1 Mace. xiii. 2 vat. Sir. xix. 24 only. i plur., ch. ii. 42 al. + k = here only.
Exod. ii. 23. 1 Macc. v. 31. see ch. xxi. 31. 1 — ch. xix. 27. Rom. iy. 3, &c. (from Gen. xv.
6) al.
1 Thess. i. 3 al.
(1 Kings xviii. 13.)
Gen. xxvii. 45.
Num. xxiii. 7.
7, 6.
3 Kings iy. 29.
s ch. x. 43 ret.
eeth-rom Chr.
m Matt. xxvi. 134 Mkonly. Exod. xii. 14. Tobit xii. 12.
2 Mace. xv. 31 only.
32. ch. xxi. 16 (1 Pet. iv. 4, 12) only t. act., ver. 23 reff.
Y t Matt. xiii. 1.
for edev, wedev (but » marked for erasure) X1.
n = Luke x. 21.
0 vy. 22, 29, bis. ch. xi. 13, xxiv. 24, 26. xxv. 3 only.
p ch. i. 23 reff. q pass. = vv. 18,
r = Luke xi. 37. John. 40.
Mark v. 21. Heb. xi. 12 al.
ch. xxi.
Num. xiii. 30.
om ev &.
3. rec om mepi (as unnecessary ; thisis much more probable than Meyer’s suppn that
mept was a gloss On wser: comp Tept wp. exT., ver 9), with L rel (Chr) ic: ins ABCER
k 0 13. 36. 40 Damase Thl-fin.—7epi, omg wset, ¢ d 3. 65. 67 (sah arm ?).— os X 36. 40
Damase Thl-fin. rec evvatny, with L 13 rel: txt ABCENabghkI1m p.
4. om 2nd a Cad! m p. om els pynuocuvoy &!. rec evwmiov (substitution
Sor the less usual eurpocéev), with CEL 13 rel Sevrn Chr: txt ABN p 36. 40.
5. rec es wom. bef avdp., with L 13. 36 rel Chr: txt ABCEN m p vulg D-lat syrr
coptt arm. rec om tiva (corrn from respect to the Apostle. This is much more prob
than Meyer’s supposn, that twa was inserted to conform the first om. to the other.
The same considerations have led to the var read in ver 32), with ELN 13 rel demid
D-lat Syr sah Orig Chr Thl Iven-int: ins ABC p 36 vulg syr-marg copt arm. Tov
emikadounevoy metpov (corrn from ch xi. 13? or origl, and os emtkadertat a corrn from
ver 32? the mss authority must decide) EL 13 rel Ke Thi: txt ABCN a h p 36 Chr,.
6. cyuwyt bef tr1vx C m vss: om tun D-lat. ins 7 bef orca C lect-12.
rec aft @ad. adds ovros AaAnoe: co Tt oe Set Torey (interpolation from ver 32, and ch
ix. 6, combined: see also ch xi. 14), with (86?) demid xth-rom Thl-fin ; os AaAnces
pnw. mpos oe... to oixos gov from ch xi. 14 4-marg 8. 26. 27. 73. 81 copt; os AaAnoe:
co 1383: om ABCELN p rel vss Chr Thl-sif.
7. om 2nd o L g m lect-26. rec Tw KopynAww (explanatory corrn for avtw),
éxav. Doubtless also among his company
(ver. 24) there must have been many who
were not proselytes. ~- Sedpevos T.
Qeod Sta w.] From Cornelius’s own nar-
rative, ver. 31, as well as from the analogy
of God’s dealings, we are certainly justified
in inferring, with Neander, that the subject
of his prayers was that he might be guided
into truth, and if so, hardly without refer-
ence to that faith which was now spreading
so widely over Judea. This is not matter
of conjecture, but is implied by Peter’s
otdate 7TH yevdu. piua Kal? Ans Tis
*Iovdalas. Further than this, we cannot
infer with certainty ; but, if the particular
difficulty present in his mind be sought, we
ean hardly avoid the conclusion that it was
connected with the apparent necessity of
embracing Judaism and circumcision in
order to become a believer on Christ.
76 ad] The Jewish inhabitants, see ch.
xxvi. 17, 23; xxviii. 17; John xi. 50;
Xviii. 14 al. 3. év épdp. havepds |
not in a trance, as ver. 10, and ch. xxii. 17,
—but with his bodily eyes: thus asserting
the objective truth of the appearance.
Gsel wept dp. év.| It here appears that C.
observed the Jewish hours of prayer.
4. eis pvnp.| Not instar sacrificii (Ps.
exli. 2) as Grot.: but, as E. V., for a me-
morial, ‘so as to be a memorial’
There has been found a difficulty by some
in the fact that Cornelius’s works were re-
ceived as well pleasing to God, before he
had justifying faith in Christ. But it is
surely easy to answer, with Calvin and
Augustine, ‘non potuisse orare Cornelium,
nisi fidelis esset.’? His faith was all that he
could then attain to, and brought forth its
fruits abundantly in his life: one of which
112
uch. ix.41 reff. u
v Luke xvi. 13.
Rom. xiv. 4.
| x id tg
] Pet. ii. 18
only. Gen, TOOCKAOTEOOUVTWY auTwW,
xliv. 33.
w ver. 2 reff.
xch.i.14 reff. 2 » ,
y cheKt. 12,14 eTAUPLOV
ret.
z John i. 29,
&c. ch. xiv.
20al. Exod. « ¢ 10
xxxii. 6. woav éxrny.
a here only ¢.
(-pa, 207, gagfat.
xi. 26. -pos,
ij ok l
mah RXV. EKOTAaGLC, ]
b dat., ch. ix.
3re
c = Luke v.19.
Josh. ii. 8.
‘ Paes ix.
a Mate. x. 27 I. xxiv. 17 |. Luke y. 19 only.
fg =ch. XX, 11, Jonah iii.7. Jos, Antt. vi. 14. ¢
i1=—ch.v. 5 reff. 2 Chron. xiy. 1}. xx. 2Y.
xv. 12, Ich. vii. 56 ref.
Gen. xxviii. 12.
Hos. ii. 4.)
n= Matt. iii. 16. Joho i. 52. vi. 33 al.
pceh. xi. 5 only ¢. (-veor, John xix. 40.
Ezek. xlviii. 1.) see note.
with L 13 rel syr Chr :
avtou (explanatory), with L 13. 36 rel vss Chr :
8. rec avtots bef amayta, with CL 138. 36 rel Chr:
NPAZEIS ANMOSTOAQN.
, 35 - yy? ~ \ ,
pwvnsac OVO TwWY OLKETWY Kal OTOATLWTHY
] Log > / > ‘
auTolc, amtoretAev auTouc
a¢ , , ! \ = ay
odoTopOUNT WY EKELVWVY Kal Ty TOAEL
U Lt ye , eee eer: |
Zovrwy avéf3n Flerpoe ETL nt
eyévero oe! mpocmervos, Kal nbedew © yev-
Kal 'Mewost Tov
Vaoyate [dedenévov Kat |
dean
m Matt. iii. 10 J L. Rev. xix. Il.
rch, ix. 25 reff.
txt ABCEN p vulg Syr coptt «th arm.
X.
>, ~ ~
* evocBn Tay
8 lm Bade cg , er
Kal * e&nynoauevocg amavta
, . , ,
ec tH lowzny.
9g 8
eye
~ ‘
Boma vt dp worieeih wept
h
mapaskevalovrwy oe aur@v "eyvero er avroy
™ oupavov " avewypévoy Kal
~ re) ~T ¢ p > () aX
" kataPaivov GKEVOC Tt WC olovnv peya nV, Tégoapaw
12 ep
r , eh ~ ~
kafhénevoy emt THE ynC,
e absol, ch. ix. 12. XX. 86. {here only Ms
h 1 Cor. xiv. 8. 2Cor ix. 2, 3 only. 2 Mace. ii. 27.
k = ch. xi. 6. xxii. 17 only. th. iii. lu reff.) Gen. i. 2!
Ezek i. 1 see ch. vii. 56.
John xix. 20. Exod iii. 22,
(Exod. xxviii. 23 F (not A).
o Mark xi. 1.
q = ch. xi. 5 only.
rec aft ok. ins
om ABCERX p 40 arm.
illis visum D-lat: txt ABEN p coptt.
9. for exew., avtwy (corrn to correspond with avros above) AELN dk op 13.36: av.
ex. ec: txt BC rel Chr @e Thi.
A tol.
for extnv, evarny &?.
aft ex7. ins Tns Nmepas
10. ree exewwwv (probably from exewwv having been in the margin in some MSS at
ver 9, and thus inserted here by mistake, or as in note), with L rel Chr: txt ABCEN p
13. 36 Orig.
rec emerecev (corrn to avoid the repetition of eyevero, and to the
more usual word, see ch viii. 16 reff. Meyer holds ener. to have beenorigl:
but being
ustally said of mvevuc, and thus seeming inappropriate to exataots, to have been altered
in conformity with ch xxii. 17, yeveo@at we ev exoracet.
12, we have moBos ewer. em avt., and so ch xix. 17: and xiii. 11, ewer. ex
(ereoey 19. 78. 96 Clem:) txt ABCN dp 36
Luke i.
avtov axAus), with EL 13 rel vss Chr:
copt Orig.
But this is very careless: for,
11. rec aft KaraBaw. ins ew autor (al avtw) (inserted to correspond with axpis euov,
ch xi. 5), with L rel D-lat Chr Thi:
las perished.) om peyadny C?.
Orig, Cyr Thdrt :
om ABC?EX ¢ p 13 vulg syrr coptt eth Orig. (C!
om bedenevov kot ABC*EN 40 vulg eth arm
txt (C! perhaps) L p rel 36 (D-lat syrr coptt) Chr Thl-sif.—transp
dedeuevov and kataBawoy c 13 Thi-fin.—also ¢ has tesoapaw apxats immediately aft
avewy. kat; 13, at end of ver.—kataBavov is omd by lect-12 D-lat syrr sah ;
these
vss have other varns, e. g. calum apertum ex quattuor principiis ligatum vas quodam
et(sic) linteum splendidum quod differebatur de calo in terram D-lat.
B' (Vere), kabquevoy m.
fruits, and the best of them, was, the ear-
nest seeking by prayer for a betterand more
perfect faith. 7. awqdOev| So in
Luke i. 88:—another token of the objective
reality of the vision: eiseA@dvra (ver. 3)
and a&r7A0. denoting the real acts of the
angel, not the mere deemings of Cornelius.
~ -Xad@v must be regarded as the im-
perfect participle, as in John ix. 8.
9.] By 8épa, Jerome, Luther, Erasm.,
al., understand an upper chamber. But
why not then érepgov, a word which Luke
so frequently uses? It was the flat roof,
much frequented in the non: for pur-
poses of exercise (2 Sam. xi. 2; Dan. iv. 29,
marg.),—of sleeping in summer (1 Sam.
ix. 26, by inference, and as expressed in
Kaderuevoy
LXX),—of conversation (ib. ver. 25),—of
mourning (Isa. xv. 3; Jer. xlviii. 38),—of
erecting booths at the feast of tabernacles
(Neh. viii. 16),—of other religious celebra-
tions (2 Kings xxiii. 12 ; Jer. xix. 13; Zeph.
i. 5),—of publicity (2 Sam. xvi. 22; Matt.
x. 27; Luke xii. 3. Jos. B. J. ii. 21. 5),—
of observation (Judg. xvi. 27 ; Isa. xxii. 1),
—and for any process requiring fresh air
and sun (Josh. ii. 6). (Winer, RWB. art.
Dach.) éxtynv| The second hour of
prayer: also of the mid-day meal.
The distance was thirty Roman miles, part
of which they performed on the preceding
evening, perhaps to Apollonia,—and the
rest that morning. 10. yevo.) see reff.
exelvwy is more likely to have been a cor-
D wav
La
atghk x Matt. vi. 26. viii.
‘lmop
13
8—15.
Becite , \ tu
UTNPXEV TavTa ta
\ tvx
Kat
a
(wv
Lt
‘ -x ? ~
meg TOU OvGavou.
] (4
peneys
elmrev >Mnédapoc KUOLE ore “ovdémors eae Trav * kowov
ABCDE Kal
*axabaprov. 15
Kal pwn
2U J. xiii. 32 |.
viii. 26 reff. Dan. vii.
15. (ch. xiv. 13 rei.)
vii. 2, 5. ver. 28. ch. xi. 8. Rom. xiv. 14 (3ce).
28. ch. xi. 8. 1 Cor. vii. 14, 2 Cor. vi. 17.
v. 5.) Judg. xiii. 14.
ch. xi. 9. Heb. ix. 28 only. Jer. i. 13.
TIPAZ EIS AMOSTOAQN.
, \
TETOATTOOA Kal
13 kat Ve ayer pon ™o0c¢
7" Avaorac Tlérpe * Bicor kat paye.
rad ©
Luke viii. 5. xiii. 19. ch. xi. 6. Gen. i. 26.
a= Matt. xxii.4. Luke xy. 23, 27, 30.
bch. xi. 8 only. Ezek. iv. 14.
Heb. x.
Rev. xviii. 2. (elsewh. always with mvevua, [ch. v.
f Matt. xxvi. 42 only t.
113
fimus Lt Tne ve sch. vill. 16
. . vill.
PRS Cree ae
tch. xi. 6.
Rom. i. 23.
u as above (t)
Oo Oe Tistpoe only. Gen.
i. 24.
Vv as above (t).
James iii. 7.
‘ Gen. vi. 7.
Kk deuTEpou TOOC was coven
only.
ych. vii. 31 reff. zch.
John x. 10. ch. xi. idea Deut. xii.
ec constr., Rom. iii. 20 se d = Mark
29. Rev. xxi. 27 onlyt. 1 Macc. i. e — ver.
6 reff. ] exc. Eph.
g as above (f). Mark xiv. ora: John ix. 24.
12. rec rns yns bef 1st kat (retpawoda ths yns: see ch xi. 6), with L rel Chr: om
T. y. 34°. 667. 163 D-lat sah (Ambr): txt ABCEN p (86) Syr copt arm Clem Orig
Constt Thdrt.—ins ra em bef 7. yns 36.
ch xi. 6), with L 13. 36 rel syr Chr, and, but aft epw., E: om ABC®?N p 40 vulg D
Syr coptt arm Clem Orig,
rec ins Ta @ypia kat bef [ra] ep. (from
-lat
Constt Thdrt Thl-sif comm Aug Cassiod.—rec ins Ta bef epz.,
with L 13. 36 rel Clem Thdrt Chr Thl-fin: om ABC?EN p Orig, Constt Thl-sif.—(C! is
illegible.)
Constt Chr Thdrt Thl :
rec ins Ta bef mer. (conformn to ch xi. 6), with C'EL 18. 36 rel Clem
om ABC?X p Orig,
14. rec for kat, n (conformn to ch xi. 8), with C D-gr EL p rel copt Chr: txt ABN
13. 36 vulg D-lat syrr sah Clem Orig,
rection of avr@y as applying better to the
people of the house, than the converse.
éxotaots| The distinction of this
appearance from the épaua above (though
the usage is not always strictly observed) is,
that in this case that which was seen wasa
revelation shewn to the eye of the beholder
when rapt into a supernatural state, having,
as is the case in a dream, no objective
reality : whereas, in the other case, the
thing seen actually happened, and was be-
held by the person as an ordinary spectator,
in the possession of his natural senses.
ll. téoo. apx.| not, ‘by the four
corners,’ which would certainly require the
article, as in reff.,—but by four rope-ends.
This meaning of a@px7 is justified by Diod.
Sic. i. p. 104, who, speaking of harpooning
the hippopotamus, says, €/@ €v) tay euma-
yevtwy evdntovtes apxas oTuTivas adlact
méxpis bv mapadvé7. The ends of the
ropes were attached to the sheet, and, in
the vision, they only were seen.
At all events, as Neander observes (Pf.
u. L. p. 126, note), these four apxai (whe-
ther ends of ropes attached to the corners,
or those corners themselves) are not with-
out meaning, directed as they are to the
four parts of heaven, and intimating that
men from the North, South, East, and
West, now were accounted clean before
God, and were called to a share in his king-
dom: see Luke xiii. 29. The symbolism
is, as usual, fancifully exaggerated by Dr.
Wordsw. in his note. The four dpxal are
the four gospels, because the word apx7
occurs somewhere near the beginning of
each, &e., &e. Who can wonder, after this,
Vox. II.
Constt Cyr-c Aug Ambr.
at the distrust of all Scripture symbolism
by intelligent, but unspiritual minds ?
I have retained the words ded. «al, doubt-
fully, because it seems difficult to account
for their insertion, but they may have been
omitted to assimilate our text to ch. xi. 5.
12. wavta ta Ter. | literally: not
‘many of each kind,’ nor ‘some of all
kinds,’ in which case the art., thé sense of
which is carried on from ra terp. to the
subsequent words (see ch. xi. 6), would be
omitted :—in the vision it seemed to Peter
to be an assemblage of all creation.
TeTp., Ept., wet. | In ch. xi. 6, from which
our text has been corrected, Peter follows
the more strictly Jewish division: see there.
14.] Peter rightly understands the
command as giving him free choice of ad
the creatures shewn to him. We cannot
infer hence that the sheet contained un-
clean animals only. It was a mixture of
clean and unclean,—the aggregate, there-
fore, being unclean. Kupte | So Cor-
nelius to the angel, ver. 4. It is here ad-
dressed to the unknown heavenly speaker.
On the clean and unclean beasts, Xc.,
see Levit. xi. 15.] These weighty
words have more than one application.
They reveal what was needed for the occa-
sion, ina figure: God letting down from
heaven clean and unclean alike, Jew and
Gentile,—represented that He had made of
one blood all nations to dwell on the face
of all the earth : God having purified these,
signified that the distinction was now
abolished which was ‘added because of
transgressions’ (Gal. iii. 19),—and all re-
garded in his eyes as pure for the sake of
I
114
h =ch. xi. 9.
Heb, ix. 22,
TIPAZEIS AIOZTOAQN. X.
16
\ e s ’ , ‘ si , -
avrov, “A 0 Oeoc ” exabapicey od py | Kolvov. TOUTO ABCDE
23. see ch. dens k?> Vk / ay sk 12 , . - Lrabe
(20.8. O& Eyévero “emt “ Tpic, Kat evOue aveAnup9n ro” oKxevoc dtghk
hn a eg . > , . Cane - , € ’ mop
inst rs cic TOV | ovgavor. 7 Oe 8 &v Eavtw “Soon 0 Térpog 13
ch. xi. If
only ¢
1 Mark xvi. 19.
ch. i, JL only.
4 Kings ii.
ll. = ch.i.
2, 22.
m ver. 11 reff.
nch. ii 12 reff.
o = Luke viii.
n ‘ o “a z ‘ Be ss e ” e
ri av ° em to * Opapa O ELOEY, [xat | LOOU OL avepec ol
> a - Y , a
ameotaApévot *aro tov KoovnAtov *dtepwrncavrec tH
’ ’ -~ ’ ’ , , \ ‘ ~ ‘
olklay tov Sipwvoeg * exéornoay ‘ett tov ® TuA@Va. 18 kat
, s be , ’ ew ,
* pwrnoavtec “ exuvOavorvtro “a Lipwv o * ETIKAAOUMEVOG
pre Tlérpoc evade * Eeviderat. ss TOU oe [érpov : dterBupov-
heady févov wept tov ' opapyatog EimEV TO ) ryevpa auTw Isov H sdov..
Tyee avooec Zntowvréc ot. 9 adda * avaorag * KaTanh, Kat ee
s Matt. xxv moosvou ovv avroic pndev » daxpivdpevoc, Ore tye am- Kime
sigh éoraka abrobe. ™*KataBde 8& Térpoc mpoc rove
Rev. xxi. 12, &c. xxii. 14 Gen. xliii 19.
u here only t. v ch. i. 23 reff. w ver. 6 reff.
1. ch. ii. 4. viii. 29. xi. 12, 28. xxi. 4. Rom. viii. 16, &c.
ach. xx. 10 reff. b = Matt. xxi. 21.
t absol., = Luke viii. 8, 64. xvi. 24. Dan. iv. 11 (14).
x here only t. y absol., Matt. iv.
zch. viii. 20 reff. Gen, xxxv. 1.
Rom. iv. 20. xiv. 23. Jamesi.6%. (Jer. xv. 1U.)
15. gwvnoas Se D-gr. exabepioey ACL m p: txt BDEN rel.
(itacism? as E p xvvov for cow.) D 13.
16. rec (for evOuvs) madkw (from ch xi. 10), with D-gr L 13 rel E-lat syr Chr
(aveAnupen bef radw D-gr): om 15. 36 D-lat Syr sah eth-pl arm Constt Ambr: txt
ABCENR p vulg syr-marg copt xth-rom.
17. avtw Bk. D adds evyevero. for ein, ec D!: txt D*. om Kat (corrn
of Hebraism ?) ABN p36. 40 vulg arm: ins CDEL 13 rel fuld zth-rom Chr. *Or0
BEX ab? e¢ ghop: aro ACDL rel Chr Thi-sif. om tov bef xopy. D Thi-fin.
emepwrnoovtTes D. rec om rou bef oip., with EL 13 rel Thl-sif: ins ABCDN ¢ p
40 Chr Thl-fin.
18. erv@ovto BC.
19. rec evOuu. (prob negligence of the significant compounded verb), with b: d:a-
voovmevov 15. 18. 36 Did: txt ABCDEL(X) rel Chr.—drevOuuevov &. rec autw bef
To mvevia, With DEL 13 rel vss Chr: om avt. B copt: txt ACN m p vulg sah.
rec aft avdpes ins tpets (conformn to ch xi. 11 and ver 7), with ACER f p 13. 36 vulg
Syr syr-marg Thl-fin ; bef avd., copt ; rwes arm; 5v0 B: om DHL rel spec syr Constt
Cyr-jer Chr Thl-sif Aug Ambr. rec (nrovot, with ACDEL rel: txt BN p.
for ov, cot
20. avacta D! vulg coptt: txt D°.
rec 8toT1, with L 13 rel Constt Bas, : txt
ABCDEHNR h p 36. 40 Cyr-jer Bas, Did Thl-sif-comm.
21. tore kat. DE Syr.
His dear Son. But the literal truth of the
representation was also implied ;—that the
same distinctions between the animals in-
tended for use as food were now done
away, and free range allowed to men, as
their lawful wants and desires invite them,
over the whole creation of God: that crea-
tion itself having been purified and ren-
dered clean for use by the satisfaction
of Christ. The same truth which is as-
serted by the heavenly voice in Peter’s
vision, is declared Eph. i. 10; Col. i. 20;
1 Tim. iv. 4, 5. Only we must be careful
not to confound this restitution with the
amoxatdoracis mavtwy of ch. iii. 21; see
notes there. 16, éwi rpis| denoting
the certainty of the thing revealed: see
Gen. xli. 32. 17.) Valcknaer and Stier
ins o bef retpos DEL b d o Chr Thi-fin: om ABCHN p
understand év éavr@, as ch. xii. 11, where
yevduevos is expressed (see D in var. readd.
here),—‘ when he came to himself,’ but
without yevduevos this is very harsh, and
it surely is better not to force from its
obvious meaning so natural a conjunction
of words as év éavt@ dinmdpet. 18.
dwvycavres | having called out(some one),
they were enquiring. The present,
teviLerat, is a common mixed construction
between the direct and the indirect inter-
rogation. 19.] See ch. viii. 29, note.
20. adda] ‘make no question as
to who or what they are,—but :—so also
ch. ix. 6. éyé | The Holy Spirit, shed
down upon the Church to lead it into
all the truth, had in His divine arrange-
ments brought about, by the angel sent to
16—26.
aveoac eirev ldov eyo euyue Ov Cnreire’ tle 1
a f . 29
id maotoTe, ~~
MIPAZEIS AIOSTOAQN.
115
ce = Luke viii.
47. ch. xxii.
24. 2 Macc.
ag” ’
“atria Ot
ot dé eimav Kopyn Ato EKATOVTOOX NC, ane tick
ver. 2 reff.
h. ie:
aviip dicatoe Kat * poPovpevoc Tov * Ocdv, ° Haprupotpevog ee sa
Rom. iii. 21.
3 John 12.
te “vmo OAov Tou EOvoue tov ‘lovdaiwy, f expnuatioOn sent 12.
vTO ParyyiXou ? ayiov " perargupasdai GE EC TOV OlKOV rt ee i
22. Luke ii
avurou kat “axoveat * pnuata mapa oov. 23 * cicxaAeoa- Fhe at a
: : ‘ . (ch. xi. 26.
mevoc ouy aurovue | emoey. eee) Oe € ET AVOLOV ” avaocrac Teter “a:
Oo? Ay ‘ > ~ , ~ p? ~ ~ 9s)! xxx xy.)
eEnrA0ev avy avurTolc, Kal TIVEC TWY adeA pur TWVY ATO I7al.
ars = > @- - A > , ot ak exp. abrp
lormne 4 cvvnA ov auTw. 24 m TH ce = diet " ercnAQoy Kaz. t. bx-
7 < ‘ I 5 i dat vous 0 6.,
etc THv Katoapeav. o o& KopynAtog * Hv ‘ moocdoKkwy Jos. Antt. xi.
> , u ry , ‘ Vv ie g Mark viii.
autTouc, ovyKkadAtoamevog Touc she Sats avrou kat ® 38) L. Rev.
“ w 2 Prec ’ 95 y hoe ue es
TOUC — avayKaiouc ptrove. we 6& eyévero * rou ete ot ie
z , 47.
cuvarvTicag aurw 0 Kopyndwoc Deit. Seath:
ehDetv tov Téroov,
a ‘ avs 2 Nera , b ,
Teowy * etl TOVC * TOOAC T OOCEKUINGED. 26 6 8 [lérpog *! k here only t.
t., =—ch,
(xvii. 20.) xxviii. 7, Heb. xiii. 2only +. Sir. xxix. 25. pass., ver. 6 reff. m ver. §) reff:
Num. xi. 32. nch. viii. 26 reff. o absol., ch. vii. 7 al. Gen. xix. 14. p =ch-
ix. 30 refi q ch. i. 21 reff. r= Matt. viii Sal. fr. Ruth ii, 18. sch. ii.5
reff. t — Luke i. 21, ¥» Pet.iii.J2al. Ps. cxviii. 166. u mid., Luke ix. 1. xv. 9.
xxiii.13. ch. xxviii. 17 onlyt. act.,ch. v.15 reff. Exod. vii. 11. v Lokei. 58. L.P., exc.
Mark yi. 4. John xviii. 26." Lev. xxy. 45. w = here only (ch. xiii. 46 reff.) +. Jos. Antt x. 1. 2,
x ch, iii, 12 reff Luke xvii. 1. Rev. xii. 7.
Tpels TOUS dvaykaroTarous y- abrw.
y Matt. x. 12. poe vi. 22.
XXxii.]. (-tno«s, Matt. viii. 34.)
mos, Mark vy. 22, mapc, Luke viii. 41.
Qal. Job i. 20.
13. 36 rel Thl-sif. for T. av5., avtovs C arm. rec aft avdpas ins Tous ameotad-
Mevous amo Tov kopv. mpos avtov (explanatory interpolation, ver 21 beginning an eccle-
siastical portion), with H(but om tov) (f) He Thl-sif ; 7. areor. vro kopy. (alone) m :
om ABCDELNX p 13 rel vulg syrr coptt 2th arm Chr Thl-fin. ins Tt OeAeTat 0
bef tis 7 D Syr (om Ist 7 D-lat syr). for Tis n, T17 M: OM 7 B.
22. [ermav, so ABCEX p. | add apos avtoy D Syr sah.
D-gr Syr. for vo, up D.
23. for eisk. ovv, ToTe mposkad. E: tote eisaryaywv o metpos D 40 sah, introducens
vulg E-lat Syr (addg Simon) ; ingressus D-lat. efev. bef avr. D 40 vss.
rec for avaoras, o metpos (avaot. being erased as unnecessary, the vacant space thus
left in some copies has been filled up with o wetp. the subject of the verb), with HL rel
Thl-sif: avacr. o r. Ec k m 13(omg 6) 36 syr Cbr Thl-fin: txt ABCDX d p vulg Syr
coptt ath. om 2nd tay D. rec ins tns bef wom. (with none of our mss): om
ABCDEHLY® rel Chr Ge Thl-sif. tommns D!: txt D-corr!. ourvndAbay D.
24. rec kat Tn (corrn appy to avoid the recurrence of 17 Se, Ty Se, o Se), with HL
13 rel eth Chr Thl-fin: txt ABCDEX p 40 vulg.syrr copt Thl-sif. e:snACev
(corrn to suit e€nAdev above) BD p eth Thl-sif: cvrvnA@ov m: txt AEHL 13. 36 rel vss,
-Oav CR. om tyv D m 133. ny mposdexomevos avrovs kat cuvk. D.
aft piAous add meptewervey D syr-marg.
25. rec om tov, with H k 36 Gc: ins ABCELNX p 13 rel Bas Chr Thl. aft rodas
ins avtov g o vulg Syr sah eth arm Thl-fin. for ver, mposeyy:Govros Se Tov meTpov
els THY Katcapiay, mpodpamwv eis Twy SovAwy Siecadynocevy mapayeyovevat avTov. o de
KopynAtos exTNdNoAS Kal TUVaYTNTAS aUTW TETwY TMPOS TOUS Todas MposeKUVNTEV aUTOY
D (avtw D-corr!) syr-marg.
» Heb. vii. 1, 10 only. Gen.
(ets, John xi. 32 v. r.)
b = Matt, ii. 11. viii.
z Luke ix. 37. xxii. 10. ch. xx.
4 ahere only. 4 Kiszety. 37.
€umpoabev, Rev. xix. 10.
aft kopy. ins Tis
friends. So Jos. Antt. xi. 6. 4, @idos
Cornelius, their coming. 23. ébevicev |
dvaykaidtatos TH BactAe?t, and Xen. Mem.
This was his first consorting with men un-
circumcised and eating with them (ch. ii. 1. 14, @fAouvs mpdbs ois avayrators
xi. 3): though perhaps this latter is not sKadoupévois %AAovs KTa@vTa BonOods.
necessarily implied. tTwes TOv ad.| These, like himself, must have been
fearers of the true God, or at all events
must have been influenced by his vision to
yait for the teaching of Peter. 25.
Tov eisedO.| This, the most difficult and
2
Six, ch. xi. 12: in expectation of some
weighty event to which hereafter their tes-
timony might be required, as indeed it was,
ib. 24. avayxalous} his intimate
116
IIPAZEIS AMOZTOAQN.
X.
:
ae ” ae , ad? ’ a a. ee ek , tee A :
og Marki.31. © nyeipey auToV AEywu Avaornfu Kat eyw avrocg av ee |
Dan. x. 10. ’ , \ = a Ke aie , HL |
d= ch. ix 6 Opwrog ee. 7 Kat ° cvvomiA@v autw * eicnAGev, Kat hie
rent. , , ” ‘ ? ‘
peceaten EVOLOKEL f GuveAnAvOdrac woAXove, 28 Epn TE TPOC auvTOUC P 13
Sa Ul
age) t ~ , c nr , , ? Aveo '
ag Yueig exiotacle ° we Quito Esty avool lovdaiw
f=ch.i. 6 reff. ; - x 1? , . > \ €
g ver 38 coAAacOa 7 * mpocepyeabar adrAopirAw’ Kamo oO .
ue nN ” ‘ ! n = cM aro a ce) as
biketi 4. Oeoe ™ Eekev pydéva “Kowov 7 “axabaprov ° AEyeww .
only t.
2 Mace. vii. 1 al2. Jos. B. J. iv. 9.10. Xen. Mrm.i.1.9 (cota). i i=ch. v.13 reff. k = ch. |
ix. 1 reff. Levit. xix. 33. lhereoniy. 1 Kings vi. 10, xiii. 3,5. 1 Macc. iv. 12. m constr.,
here only. = w. 6t¢, Matt. xvi. 21. Wisd. xiv. 4. w. acc., 1 Cor. xii. 31. 1 Kings xii. 23. n ver. 14
(reff.). o = Mark x. 18. xii. 37 al.
26. ree aut. bef ny., with HL rel Thi-sif: txt ABCDEN acdfhk m 13 Chr Thl-
fin.
for avaor., Tt movers D; syr has both.
x. aut. ey. C Thdrt : kat yap eyo,
omg autos, Eck 13 Chr: om autos D sah: x. yap ey. avt. 137: txt ABHLN p rel 36
Mare Thl-sif.—ree for kat eyw, kayo, with ADHL a bdfghIlmo13: txt BX p
lect-12.
aft ei ins ws Kat ov D'(and lat) E copt eth: om cas E-lat.
27. for K. cvvom. to evp., kat eseAOwy Te Kat evpey D!(and lat).
28. bef emo. ins BeATiov D Aug).
D-gr lect-12 Syr sah.
0. edeé. bef o 8. AEN vulg eth.
best supported reading, is a harshness of
construction hardly explicable (see Winer,
edn. 6, § 44. 4) on any principles. It
probably arose from taking the so fre-
quent tod with the infin. almost as one
word, and equivalent to the infin. itself.
Tovs m6das| viz. those of Peter.
Kuinoel’s rendering ‘in genua provolutus”
is clearly inadmissible. a poseKvv. |
« Adoravit; non addidit Lucas, ‘ eum.’
Euphemia.” (Bengel.) May not the
same reason have occasioned the omission
of airod after médas ? the one adr. would
almost require the other. It was natural
for Cornelius to think that one so pointed
out by an angel must be deserving of the
highest respect; and this respect he shewed
in a way which proves him not to have alto-
gether lost the heathen training of bis child-
hood. He must have witnessed the rise of
the custom of paying divine honours first
to those who were clothed with the dele-
gated power of the senate (Suet., Octav.
52, mentions, ‘‘ templa etiam proconsulibus
decerni solere’’), and then kar’ etoxnv
to him in whom the imperial majesty cen-
tered. 26. kal eyo avr. avOp. eipe |
This was the lesson which Peter’s vision
had taught him, and he now begins to prac-
tise it :—the common honour and equality
of all mankind in God’s sight. Those
who claim to have succeeded Peter, have
not imitated this part of his conduct.
See Rev. xix. 10; xxii. 8, in both which
cases it is €umpoo0. tTav Wé8wv Tod ayy.,
supporting the above rendering of ém. 7.
awédas. 27.| The second eis dOev be-
tokens the completion of his entering in;
or (as De W. and Meyer). the former, his
entering the Aouse,—this latter, the cham-
abemoroy D}. ins avdp: bef adAod.
rec kat euot, With HL 13 rel Thl: ca: wor p: txt ABCDEN
emcdeié. D.
ber. 28.] tpets, you, of all men,
[best] know: being those immediately
concerned in the obstruction to intercourse
which the rule oceasioned. See the gloss in
D. Gs a0éuirov ...| that it is un-
lawful, ... or ‘how unlawful it is:’ better
the former, because in the order of the
words, a@éu:tov has the stress on it: the
other rendering would more naturally re-
present os éotw aOéutov. In both the
reff. the ambiguity is the same. There
is some difficulty about this unlawfulness of
consorting with those aAAépuaAo: who, like
Cornelius, worshipped the true God. It
rests upon no legal prohibition, and seems,
at first sight, hardly consistent with the
zeal to gain proselytes predicated of the
Pharisees, Matt. xxiii. 15,—with Jos. Antt.
xx. 2. 3 (Iovdaids tis Eumopos, "Avavias
bvoua, mpos Tas yuvaikas eisiwy Tod Bact-
Aéws (Monobazus, of Adiabene) edfdacKev
ab’tas tov Oedby evoeBeiv), and with the
Rabbinical comment Schemoth Rabba on
Exod. xii. 4, ‘‘ Hoe idem est quod scrip-
tum dicit Jes. lvi. 3. Et non dicet filius
advenze qui adheesit Domino, dicendo: se-
parando separavit me Dominus a populo
suo.” But, whatever exceptions there may
have been, it was unquestionably the general
practice of the Jews to separate them-
selves in common life from uncireumcised
persons. We have.Juvenal testifying to
this at Rome, Sat. xiv. 103, ‘non monstrare
vias, eadem nisi sacra colenti: Quesitum
ad fontem solos deducere verpos.’ And
Tacitus, Hist. v. 5, ‘adversus omnes alios
hostile odium, separati epulis, discreti cu-
bilibus,’ &c..... Kapol} not, ‘ but
God hath shewed me,’ as E. V.: nat can
never have this meaning, and in all cases
27-—33. TIPAZEIS AMOZTOAQN. ay)
” ‘ \ > 2>e7 7 ,
avOowzov, 29 816 Kal P avayTippntwe nrADov 7 perarenpOeic. Deeeeust.
30 \ murs. 1.
KQ@l (-ros, eh.
u A ‘ s ey cee , ee
. 5 reif.
md reraprnc mipac *MeXpL TavTNE BE"
x unorevwy Me li ees ase = A 4-7. xxili. 19.
HOTEVWY Kal THY EVATH? TOOCEVXO sconstr., Rom.
Md Bieta oF: , xi. 20, 30.
EOTH EVWTLOV [LOU t — Matt. v. 32.
u= (1) Matt.
xxii. 46.
John xi. 53.
ch. xx. 18 al.
(but see note),
or (2) ch. xv.
7. 2 Cor. vill.
10. ix. 2.
x di 2 Ho cs , C ia k ! vch. xx. 7 reff.
Eoatl (uWva OC emikaAgirat Ilérpog OuTOC Eeviderat ogee Gee
x Matt. vi. 16.
ix. 14 &e. ||
ch. xiii. 2, 3.
Judg. xx. 26,
ace., John iv.
is . , v s , G ¢ q , ,
ruvOavouat ovr, ‘rive AOyw * werawéubacbé pe;
‘ f b ata? 5 a a ay PEs
0 KoornAtoe Edn
~ e wy
TNC woag yMNY
? oe ~ a 2 ‘\ > .
MEVOE EV TH OLKW MOV, Kal LooU avio
’ be ’ ~ bd ~ , , > ,
ev eoOntit Nappa, 3! kcal pnow Kopynrtg, © eccnkovabn
e a 4 e f , ’ > y } ’ 4
GOV 1) TPOCEVYN Kat at éXenpoouvat cov © guvyncOnoay * Evw-
32
~ = , ty , ? , \ h ,
TlLOV TOU zou. méwiLov OvVY £&1C lommny Kat péeTakKa~
> a
Ev ora Lipwrog ' Bugséwe ™ qaoa Qadaccar|* oc ° mapa-
, , 33 0? = ae on ea ,
YEVOMEVOC AaAnoe cot]. e& autne ovv ereuipa T00C OF, y
52. Rey. ili.3.
z absol., ver. 9 reff. a =ch. ii. 25 reff. b Luke xxiii. 1]. James ii. 2, 3 only. cas
above (b). Luke xxiv. 4. ch. (i. 10 v. r.) xii. 21. Jamesii. 2onlyt, 2 Mace. xi, 8. d Rev. xv.
6. xviii. 14. xix. 8. xxii. 1,16 only t. Wisd. vi. 12 al.
reff. Ps. iv. 8. f plur., ch. ix. 30 refi.
mid., ch, xi. 16 al. fr. h ch. vii. 14 reff.
ix. 43 reff. m ver. 6 reff.
%xi. 32. xxiii. 30. Phil. ii. 23 only,
Cant. v. 10 Symm. e1 Cor. xiv. 21
g pass., Rev. xvi. 19 only. Ezek. xviii. 22.
i ver, 5. k ver. 6 reff. Ich.
n absol., ch. xvii. 10. o Mark vi. 25. ch. xi. 11,
29. avaytipntws B'D p. aft werameud. ins up vuwy DE.
30. for rerapt., Tns Tpitns D!: nustertiana D-lat: txt D?(appy). for TavT. TNS,
Ts apti D. om yor. ca (erased perhaps, as nothing is said of fasting above,
ver 3) AIBCR p vulg copt zth arm: ins A7DEHL 13. 36 rel syrr sah Thl.—om ka...
pov L. for kar T. ev., Thy evaTny Te D!. rec aft ev. ins wpav, with H 13. 36
rel Chr: om ABCDX® p 40. KGL TpOSEVX. amo EKT. wp. ews evarns E. for 2nd
pov, enouv &.
31. » mposevx. cov E 96. 142 lect-12 vulg D-lat: 7 denots cov e 80.
32. for ev ok. o. B., Tapa twa. B. (corrn from ch ix. 43) C 36. 180. om ‘os
map. Aad. co (to suit ver 6 ?) ABN p vulg copt «xth-rom: ins CDEHL 13 rel vss Chr
Thl.
33. aft mpos ce add wapaxadwy eAGew mpos nuas D syr-w-ast (D8 and lat ins oe aft
where it is so rendered we may trace the
significance of the simple copula if we
examine. Here, for instance:—the two
parties concerned are buets, Kayd. * Ye,
though ye see me here, know, how strong
the prejudice is which would have kept me
away: and J, though entertaining fully
this prejudice myself, yet have been taught
&e? 29. tive Ady] on what ac-
count: the dative of the cause: see reff. :
and cf. Hes. Theog. 626: yains pad-
pootynow aviyayev,—Winer, edn. 6, § 31.
6. c, and Bernhardy, Syntax, ch. iii. 14.
30. awd tet. Hp.| The rendering of
Meyer and others, ‘ From the fourth day
(reckoned back) down to this hour have
I been fasting,’ is ungrammatical; for
(1) tkts would require tHsde tis Spas,
and (2) #unv cannot possibly reach to the
present time, but is the historical past :
I was fasting. This being so, amd Te-
TdpTns nuepas must indicate the time de-
noted by #unv—‘ quarto abhince die ’—four
days ago; see reff. (2), which fully justify
this rendering. De Wette’s and Neander’s
rendering, ‘lor four (whole) days was I
(i.e. had I been) fasting up to this hour
(i.e. the hour in which he saw the vision),’
does not satisfy tavtys THs Spas, which
must in that case be éxelvys, if indeed such
an expression could be at all used of ‘the
time when the following incident took place.’
The only legitimate meaning of tat. T. &p.
I take to be this hour of the day: and
this meaning is further established by the
omission of épay after evarny. The hour
alluded to is probably the sixth, the hour
of the mid-day meal, which was the only
one partaken by the Jews on their solemn
days. (Lightf.) Aaurpg] bright. In
Luke (ref.) the brightness was in the
colour: here, probably, in some super-
natural splendour. The garment might
have been white (as in ch, i. 10), or not,—
but at all events, it wasradiant with bright-
ness. 31.] The two are separated
here, which were placed together in ver. 4,
and each has its proper verb: eisnk.... 7
mposevx?) K. af eA... . Cuvyod. 33. |
The reading évém. cov, for evar. Tov Beov,
is remarkable, and had it more MS. au-
thority, would seem as if it might have
been genuine. It was much more likely
to have been altered into 7. @eod (as making
the expression more solemn), than the con-
verse: and the sense, ‘ We are all here
118
IIPAZEIZ ANOZTOAQN.
X.
~ , , , - * ,
Palast ov te? Kadwe EToinaag " Tapayevouevoc, *vuv 4 ovy TavTEc ABCDE
A's a panes ) - ; a) - , ‘
1 Mace. xii. NMELC "evwmiov tov Oeou ‘ Taptouey akovoat TavTa Ta Sole: h
q ch. xv. 10 s , t? ‘ = * 0) a 34 u A ic 33 =
ak ig TOOCTETAYMEVa GOL aTO TOV £0U. volGacg CF P
> ec - , a 2 4 ‘ 5,
ois Oe Tlérpoe ro" oropa eimev © Ew adnOetac * Kata\auPavopmat
r here only. oy > a = A a Fi 35 > al :
oe, TOUR ESTLY moocwmohnunTng o Osoc, ” adX ev Tartt
xvii. 26.
Matt. i.24. ¢
viii. 4 f only. eOvet Oo
consir., bere
veel Jonah vynv
11 vat
a = ch. viii. 35 reft
» Sexroc auTw éaTLy,
” poBobpevoc auTov Kal Nepyaconesoe oukatodu-
36 pay
v Luke iv. 25. ch. iv. 27 al.
© oyov o Ov ‘aver he
Job ix. w=ch.
x here only ¢. see James ii. 9. Rom. ii. 11. Luke xx. 2). y ver. 2 reff.
z — Matt. vii. 23, Heb, xi. 33. James i. 20. Ps. xiv. 2. a = 1 Jobo ii. 29. iii. 7,10. Rev. xxii. 11.
Isa. lviii. 2. b Luke iv. 19, 24. 2 Cor. vi. 2. Phil. iv. 18 only. Levit. i. 4. c Ps. cvi. 20.
€A0.). for re, 5¢ D E-lat coptt. ins ev raxet bef rapay. D. for ovy,
dov D!-gr: iov D-corr!: txt D3(and lat).
sah «wth arm Bede. (See note.)
om tapecuey D' sah.
for 7. Oeov, cov D}(and lat) vulg Syr
aft akovoa: ins
BovAouwevar tapa cov D; volumus D-lat: BovAou.(alone) Syr: mapa cov(alone) D%.
om mavta D 96. 142 sah:
36 rel Chr: mapa E: txt ACDN’.
ABCER c 13. 36. 40 vulg syr copt arm :
34. ro oroua bef merpos D.
sah arm Thi:
35. adAa A. eotat A Constt.
36. ins yap bef Aoy. C! D-gr ¢ 137 Syr syr-w-ast sah.
ins CDEHL(N?) rel 36 syrr Cyr-jer Chr Thi. (13
the constr) AB e p vulg coptt eth:
present before thee,’ follows better on the
two preceding verses. 7a mpost.| Not
doubting that God, who had directed him
to Peter, had also directed Peter what to
speak to him. 34. avoitas Td or. |
Used (see reff.) on occasions of more than
ordinary solemnity. ér’ adnPelas Kar. |
‘For the first time I now clearly, in its
fulness and as a living fact, apprehend
(grasp by experience the truth of) what
I read in the Scripture (Deut. be ay
2 Chron. xix. 7; Job xxxiv. 19),
35. | adda gives the explanation,—what
it is that Peter now fully apprehends :
but as opposed to mposwroAnumrns in
its now apparent sense. éy mavtt
Over «.7.A.| It is very important that we
should hold the right clue to guide us in
understanding this saying. The question
which recent events had solved in Peter’s
mind, was that of the admissibility of men
of all nations into the church of Christ. Jn
this sense only, had he received any infor-
mation as to the acceptableness of men of
all nations before God. He saw, that in
every nation, men who seek after God, who
receive His witness of Himself without
which He has left no man, and humbly
follow His will as far as they know it,—
these have no extraneous hindrance, such
as uncireumcision, placed in their way to
Christ, but are capable of being admitted
into God’s church though Gentiles, and as
Gentiles. That only such are spoken of, is
Ta Tpost. cot bef mavta A.
*
rec vo, with BHLN' p 13.
Kupiou (corrn to avoid repetition of Beov ’)
deov DHL p rel Syr sah eth Chr.
aft To sToua ins avrov ACEN3 dk 0 36 Syr eth
om BDHLN'! p am fuld Chr.
KatadauBavouevos D!(txt D? ?).
om ov (corrn to simplify
agreeable to the nature of the case; for
men who do not fear God, and work un-
righteousness, are out of the question, not
being likely to seek such admission. It is
clearly unreasonable to suppose Peter to
have meant, that each heathen’s natural
light and moral purity would render him
acceptable in the sight of God :—for, if so,
why should he have proceeded to preach
Christ to Cornelius, or indeed any more at
all? And it is equally unreasonable to
find any verbal or doctrinal difficulty in
épy. Sucaoctynv, or to suppose that d:x.
must be taken in its forensic sense, and
therefore that he alludes to the state of
men after becoming believers. He speaks
popularly, and certainly not without refer-
ence to the character he had heard of
Cornelius, which consisted of these very two
parts, that he feared God, and abounded in
good works. ‘The deeper truth, that the
preparation of the heart itself in such men
comes from God's preventing grace, is not
in question here, nor touched upon.
36. tov Adyov | The construction is very dif-
ficult. Several ways have been proposed of
connecting and rendering this accusative.
(1) Erasm., Wolf, Heinrichs, Kuin., &c.,
take rdv Adyoy with ofSare, and understand
Td yev. Pim. K.T.A. aS in apposition with it.
“The word which, &c., ye know, viz. the
yev. p.’? But this immediate connexion of
Ady. and of. is hardly consistent with the
interruption of the sense by obros ... kUpios.
ee
34—38.
roic * vioic ‘Iapanr °
piarew. 5
TO “yevopevov pnua K kal’ *
™amro tne Tadt\atag pera 10 Pamriopa 0
< 2 ’ h
pgs EGTLV TavTwY ' KUOLOC.
ITPAZEIS AMOZSTOAQN. 119
‘ebaryyeAtZopevoe § clphyny Sta “Incod 933 ¢ 23 om 6
Exod. ii. 11),
37 Duele OloaTE 2 Gon ii7,
OXne tnc lovdaiac, '™ aplausvoc hata.
e = Luke i. 19.
eens 42.
" exhputey Ps. xxxix. 9.
Or a ’ - SPs Toit Bass ! c Rom. x. 15
[wavenc, * "Incovy tov ° aro NaZapi0, Pwo 4% ey otcev pene ae
7.) Eph. ii.
17 only. Nah.i g ch. ix. 20 reff. h = Rom. x. ae ea iv. UGE
i = Lake ii. 15. iii. a “John x. Loe ch, vii. a al. Gen. xv.1. Jer. k ch. ix. 31 reff. L.
lconstr., see note. ch. i. 22 reff. n Luke ‘i 3. Exod. xxxii. 5. o=ch.
xxiii, 34. Matt. xxi. ul. Sohn i. 46. xi. 1. xii. 21 al. p = ver. 28 reff. q ch.
iv. 27 reff.
def.)—ov is marked for erasure by &', or more probably by N-corr'.
37. om vues B eth-rom. yevauevov Ei: yeyovos C ec. om pnua D.
rec aptauevov, with L p 18. 36 rel Ath Chr Thdrt Thl; quod factum est .. . incipiens
vulg E-lat Iren-int Hil Ambr Faustin, ¢.f- .
om Ist tns D': ins D3,
. cum cepisset D-lat : txt ABCDEH 40.
aft apt. ins yap AD vulg E-lat Ath Iren-int.
38. rec vaCaper, with AHLabdfghlop1s: txt BCDEN km vulg syrr coptt eth
(2) Meyer, and Winer, edn. 6, § 62. 3
end, adopt virtually the same construction,
but understand du. 075. to be a taking up
of the sense which was broken by (in this
case) the fwo parentheses evayy.....+ -
xptstov, and ovtos .... KUptos. This
also is the rendering of E. V. But it does
not sufficiently account for the two clauses
parenthesized. Besides, it is an objection
to both these, that the hearers did not know
the Adyos—‘noverant auditores historiam
de qua mox, non item rationes interiores,
de quibus hoe versu.’ Bengel. (3) Rosenm.
and others understand xara, ‘secundum
eam doctrinam quam Deus tradi jussit Is-
raelitis,’ or (4) take it as an accusativus
pendens, ‘ad sermonem filiis Israel missum
quod attinet’?.... But an accusative is
never found thus standing alone, unless
there be an anacoluthon, which (3) pre-
cludes, and which would, if assumed in
(4), give us a construction of unexampled
harshness. (5) Grot. and Beza take roy
Adyoy bv, for dv Adyor, ‘quem nuncium,’
justifying it by Matt. xxi. 42, and so nearly
(6) Kypke, ‘verbum quod misit .. . . illud
in omnes habet potestatem,’ a rendering
altogether out of all N. T. analogy, as is
also (7) that of Heinsius, who understands
Adyos as personal, ‘ Verbum quod misit
Deus, omnium est Dominus,’ a usage con-
fined in the N. T. to the writings of St.
John, and, even if admissible, most harsh
and improbable here. (8) I agree in the
main with De Wette, who joins tov Adyoy
with kaTaAauBdvouat,—and regards ver.
36 as exegetic of 671... . Sexrds avT@e
éott. Of a truth I perceive, &c.......
(and recognize this as) the word which
God sent to the children of Israel,
preaching peace (see reff.) through Jesus
Christ: (then, for the first time, ém &An-
Oclas kataAauBavduevos this also, on the
mention of Jesus Christ, he adds oitds
éotw TwavtTwv Kvpios,) He is Lord of atu
MEN; with a strong emphasis on ravtwy.
I the more incline to this, the simplest and
most forcible rendering, from observing that
so far from sets ofSare being (Meyer’s ob-
jection) a harsh beginning to a new sen-
tence, it is the very form in which Peter
began his address to them ver. 28, duets
éertoracbe, &c.: and, as there it answers to
kapot, so here also (ver. 39) to kal jets.
81a “Ino. xp. belongs to evayyed.,
not to eiphyny. 87. To pypa]| the
matter: not the thing, here or any where
else: but the thing said, the ‘materies ’ of
the proclamation, in this case perhaps best
‘the history. yevopevov | Not ‘which
took place,’ but, which was spoken, ‘ pub-
lished,’ as E. V. See reff. This meaning,
which pjua itself renders necessary, is fur-
ther supported by kaé’ 6Ans 7. Iovd., which
can only be properly said, and is used by
Luke (only, see reff.) of a publication, or
spreading of a rumour, not of the happening
of an event or series of events relating to
one person. apg. aw. t. Tad.] It was
from Galilee first that the fame of Jesus
went abroad, as Luke himself relates, Luke
iv. 14, 37 (44.v. r.); vil. 17; ix. 6 (xxiii. 5).
Galilee also was the nearest to Ceesarea, and
may have been for this reason expressly
mentioned. dapiduevos is an unexpected
transference of the case and gender into
that of the prime agent, a construction
common enough in the Apocalypse (iv. 1
reff.), but surprising in St. Luke.
peta TO Barr.| So also Peter dates the
ministry of our Lord in ch. i. 22. (See
note there.) 38. “Ingoty rT. ar.
Naf.] The personal subject of the yevd-
pevoy piua, q.d. ‘Ye know the subject
which was preached oe viz. Jesus of
Nazareth.’ as €xp. avt.| how that
God anointed him... , nut as Kuin. and
Kypke, ‘how that God anointed Jesus of
120 X.
r — Luke |. 17.
vi. 19 al.
sabsol.,ch. viii.
4 reli.
t here only.
Ps. xii. 6.
(-7n¢, Luke
IIPAZEIS AIMOZTOAQN.
c ‘ , 3 ' \ « , “a 8 -~
avtov 0 Oeoe mvevmare ayuy) Kal Ouvapet, Oc oA Dev ae
~ ys v4 s U
y EvEPyETWV Kal WWueEVvOoe TAaVTAC TOU" KATAOUVAGTEVOMEVOUC fe gh
mo
- , ¢ e ‘ v % ’ > -. 39 \
UTO TOU Saf3oAou, ort o Oeoc “tv per avrov Kat pls
xxii. 25.)
u James ii. 6
only. Ezek.
xviii. 12.
v Loke i. 66.
Jobn iii. 2.
ch, vii. #.
xviii. 10.
Isa. lviii. 11.
weonstr., Luke
xxiv. 48. ch,
i. 22. ii. 32.
iii. 15. xxvi.
16,
rs , {(z a
puagavTec emt CudAouv.
y x attr., ch. i. 1 reff.
8. xi. 6. xxviii.6 |. Rom. iv. 25.
x. 20 only, from Isa. Ixv. |.
Chr Did.
D3,
ity
KkataduvaorevOevtas D.
39. vues A D-gr.
y
1 Cor. xv. 4, &c.
om avrov D'(and lat).
, ‘ ? <4 /
imépa Kal > edwKev avtov “euparvn yevéoBat
= ch. v. 23 reff.
Isa. xxvi. 19.
d here only t. see ch. iii. 20.
~ , 7 ’ ’ ud ~ ,
NMeic * paptupEc Tavtwy “wy ETolMoEY EV TE TH Ywoa
~ » ’ A, vee \¢ od aes \y? = Zz
trav loveaiwy Kat ev lepovcadnu’ ov Kat * avetAay “ Koe-
- 3 \ a» ad U
TOUTOV O Oedc NYELOEV TH TOIT)
> ‘
OU TaVTi
» Naw, adXAa pa ic “ rooKeyetoorornmévoie UTO
tw Aaw, arra paprvow Toic “ TEOKEXELO nL
zch. v. 30 (reff.).
b = ch. ii. 4 reff.
a Matt. x.
c Rom.
for ws exp. avt., ov exp. D' syrr eth arm Bas, Faustin: ov exp. avtov
ins ev bef mv. ay. EL b m.
for os, ovros D tol Syr sah Iren-int Faustin: ws &! 13 lect-12 Thl-sif.
for d:aB., catava H-gr.
rec aft nu. ins ecuev, with HL 13 rel vss Cosm Thl: om
ABCDEN p 36 syrr eth Chr Iren-int-mss. ‘
BD p demid fuld Syr: ins ACEHLRX 13. 36 rel am coptt Chr Cosm Iren-int.
ay. bef mveup.
for mavtwv, avtov D. om ev bef tep.
rec
om 3rd Ka (its force not being seen), with 13 rel fuld copt Cosm Iren-int: ins
ABCDEHLX rel 36 am demid tol syr arm Chr.
[averAav, so ABCDEN p 13.]
40. ins ev bef rn Tp. nu. C X'(&3 disapproving) m vss(some) : meta THY TpiTHY NMEpav
~
for avrov, avtw D o 45.
D'(and lat).
N.,’ taking aitdéy as redundant by a He-
braism. See aconstruction very similar in
Luke xxiv. 19, 20. The fact of the
anointing -with the Holy Spirit, in His
baptism by John, was the historical open-
ing of the ministry of Jesus: this anoint-
ing however was not His first unction with
the Spirit, but only symbolic of that which
He had in His incarnation: so Cyril in
Johan. lib. xi. p. 993, ob Shaov mddAw exeivd
pauev bri TéTE yeyovey Gyios 6 KaTa odpKa
xpiotés, bre Td mvedua TeOdaTat KaTa-
Baivov 6 Bartioths Gytos yap Av Kal ev
€uBptw Kai pitpa.... adAdAd SedoTar wev
els onuciov T@ BartiotH Td O€aua :—which
unction abode upon Him, John i. 32, 33,
and is alleged here as the continuing
anointing which was upon Him from God.
Stier well remarks, how entirely
all personal address to the hearers and all
doctrinal announcements are thrown into
the background in this speech, and the
Person and Work and Office of Christ put
forward as the sole subject of apostolic
preaching. kataduvacr. | Subdued,
so that he is their durdorys,—and this
power used for their oppression. Here, it
alludes to physical oppression by disease (see
Luke xiii. 16) and possession: in 2 Tim.
ii. 26, a very similar description is given of
those who are spiritually bound by the
devil. 6 Beds Hy pet’ adt.} So Nico-
demus had spoken, John iii. 2; and pro-
bably Peter here used the words as well
known and indicative of the presence of
divine power and co-operation (see Judg.
vi. 16): beginning as he does with the
outer and lower circle of the things re-
garding Christ, as they would be matter of
observation and inference to his hearers,
and gradually ascending to those higher
truths regarding His Person and Office,
which were matter of apostolic testimony
and demonstration from Scripture,—His
resurrection (ver. 40), His being appointed
Judge of living and dead (ver. 42), and
the predestined Author of salvation to all
who believe on Him (ver. 48). 39.
Kal pets] Answering to bers ofdarTe,
ver. 37. ‘ You know the history as matter
of universal rumour: and we are witnesses
of the facts.’ By this jets Peter at once
takes away the ground from the exagge-
rated reverence for himself individually,
shewn by Cornelius, ver. 25 (Stier): and
puts himself and the rest of the Apostles in
the strictly subordinate place of witnesses
for Another. dv Kal dveid. |. Whom
also they killed. ai is not ‘yet,’ as
Kuinoel, but merely introduces, in this
case passing over it without emphasis, a
new fact in this history. He even omits
all mention of the actors in the murder,
speaking as he did to Gentiles: a striking
contrast to ch. ii. 23; iii. 14; iv. 10; v. 30,
—when he was working conviction in the
minds of those actors themselves.
kpep. er. &.| So also ch. v. 30, where see
note. 41.| Bengel would understand
ouved. Kk. cuver. of previous intercourse
during His ministry, and parenthesize od
movTl..... av7Td,—finding a difficulty in
oes VEKPO@V
c.
ABDE
HLN ab
cedfgh
klmo
p13
39—44.
NIPAZEIS AMOZTOAQN.
12]
~ rf) tines ee f ? \g ! 24.9% ;
TOU UeOu HMLY, OLTLVEC ouvepayouev KL © OVUVETTLOMEY AUT © ge xvi. 28.
; ch
b ‘ ab ee - 5% i’ ~-
ueTa TO avaoTynvat auTOV EK VEKOWD.
. v. 16. vii.
53 (note).
xiii. 31.
Heb. vii. 5.
AD ae
Kat Taony-
- , ~ ~ \
yetXev nev Knovgat Tw Aaw Kal Stapaptipacbat OTe f Luke xv. 2.
m > ’ ? fe iy 1S , c ‘ -~ - 0 ‘ r
avroc éoTty O “wolapévoc UT TOU Deov ° KpiTN¢ CwvTwY
\ ~ , re e ~ -~
kal vecowv. 4° ® rovrw mavrec ol TOOpHTaL * papTUpovAIY,
” € ~ (— ‘ >
"ageov * auaotuvy AaPetv * dia To
’
t , > Ul
WlOTEVOVTA E1¢ G@uUTOYV.
reff. 1 Chron. ii. 24.
xvii.3. Eph. v. 14. see ch. iv. 2.
m Matt. viii. 17. Luke xxiv. 21 al.
Anthol. xii. 158. 7.
‘
TOV
- s , , ~ ,
v ° Ovouaroe auToU TayTa
of
44 ey
i Mark vi. 14. ix. 9, 10. xii. 25.
k dat. and aor., ch. xvi. 18 reff.
o = 2 Tim. iv. 8.
q = Luke iv. 22. John iii. 26. ch. xiii. 22. xv. 8 al.
ch, xi. 3.
1 Cor. v. ll.
Gal. ii. 21
only. Gen.
xliti. 32.
Ps. c. 5 only.
g here only.
Esth. vil. 1
X DV = ~ only. Judg.
QAOUVTOG TOV. v.11 Symm.
h ch, xix. 21
John xx. 9. ch.
2 l ch. viii. 25 reth,
aé...Gedv wpice daiptiwn,
p ch. ix. 20 reff.
8 = ch. iv, 30 reff.
Luke xvi. 31. xxiv. 45.
n = ch. xvii. (26 reff.) 31 t.
Jamesv. ¥. Ps. vii. 11.
rch. v.31 reff.
t John ii. 11 and passim. ch. xiv. 23. xix. 4. Rom. x. 14 aL
41. nuw bef vo tr. 6. C Syr sah.
avtoy D.
Tecoapakovta KH.
42. for mapnyy-, evetethato D.
aft cvved. ins avtw C Syr.
avTw ins kat cvvavertpapnuev D? syr-w-ast : cuveotp. D', conversi D-lat.
aft vexpwy add nuepas pw’ D syr-w-ast sah wth Cassiod; 3: nucpoy
aft cuver.
om
for avtos, ovtos (corrn, but unnecessary)
BCDEL k 13 syrrcoptt: txt AHN p rel vulg D-lat E-lat 2th Chr Cosm (ic Thl Iren-int.
43. tovrov HL: rovro m 19. 667. 78 lect-2.
their having eaten and drunk with Him
after His Resurrection. But this would
make the significant ofrwes (‘people
who”).... av7@ very flat and unmean-
ing, especially after ver. 39: whereas the
fact of their having eaten and drunk with
Him after His Resurrection gives most
important testimony to the reality and
identity of His risen Body. And there is
no real difficulty in it: Luke xxiv. 41, 43
and John xxi. 12 give us instances; and,
even if cuverlouev is to be pressed, it is
no contradiction to Luke xxii. 18, which
only refers to one particular kind of drink-
ing. mpokex. Ur. T. Veod | Had not
Peter in his mind the Lord’s own solemn
words,—ods 5é5wxds por ek Tov Kdcpov,
John xvii. 6? 42. t@ had] Here as
elsewhere (ver. 2; John xi. 50 al. fr.), the
Jewish people : that was all which, in the
apostolic mind, up to this time, the com-
mand had absolutely enjoined. The further
unfolding of the Gospel had all been
brought about over and above this first
injunction. Ch. i. 8 is no obstacle to this
interpretation ; for although literally ful-
filled by the leadings of Providence, as
related in this book, they did not so un-
derstand it when spoken. ptt. C.K.
vexp.| So also Paul, ch. xvii. 31, preach-
ing to Gentiles, brings forward the appoint-
ment of a Judge over all men as the cen-
tral point of his teaching. This expression
gives at once a universality to the office
and mission of Christ, which prepares the
way for the great truth declared in the next
verse. It is impossible that the ving
and dead here can mean (as the Augsburg
Catechism, and Olshausen) the righteous
and sinners :—a canon of interpretation
which should constantly be borne in mind
is, that a figurative sense of words is never
admissible, EXCEPT WHEN REQUIRED BY
THE CONTEXT. ‘Thus, in the passage of
John y. 25 (where see notes), the sense of
vexpot is determined to be figurative by
the addition of kal viv éeorw after dpa, no
such addition occurring in ver. 28, where
the literally dead, of ev rots uvnuelots, are
mentioned. 43. mavtes ot mpod. |
All the prophets, generically: not that
every one positively asserted this, but that
the whole bulk of prophetic testimony an-
nounced it. To press such expressions to
literal exactness is mere trifling. See ch.
iil. 21, 24. ad. ap. AaB. «.7.A.| The
legal sacrifices, as well as the declarations
of the prophets, all pointed to the remis-
sion of sins by faith in Him. And the
universality of this proclamation, mavra
toy mor., is set forth by the prophets in
many places, and was recognized even by
the Jews themselves, in their expositions
of Scripture, though not in their practice.
44.] Peter had spoken up to this
point : and was probably proceeding (cf. év
76 GpkacGat we Aadeiv, ch. xi. 15) to in-
clude his present hearers and all nations
in the number to whom this blessing was
laid open,—or perhaps beyond this point
his own mind may as yet have been not
sufficiently enlightened to set forth the full
liberty of the Gospel of Christ,—when the
fire of the Lord fell, approving the sacrifice
of the Gentiles (see Rom. xv. 16): con-
ferring on them the substance before the
symbol,—the baptism with the Holy Ghost
before the baptism with water : and teach-
ing us, that as the Holy Spirit dispensed
once and for all with the necessity of cir-
cumcision in the flesh, so can He also, when
it pleases him, with the necessity of water-
X. 45—48.
122 IIPAZEIS AMOZTOAQN.
~ , Sou ~ > ee.’
wchivil © Tlérpouv ta pyuata tavra " éwémecey TO“ TvEUMA TO aytov
Cor. a we > , ‘ , 5 Nw Bos
ag éml TavTac TOE akovovTac TOV AOYoV. 45 Kai * eEéornoav
w ch. xi. 2. % 3 7s 1 @ s = 7
Kom v2 ot “ ex “ reoitoune * mestot Oaot *auvndADov tw Tlérpy,
Col. iv. 11.
Tit.i. 10 only.
x —ch. xvi. 1.
2 Cor. vi. 15.
- € , ,
Ore Kal emt ta eOvn *Swoed tov aylwu mvevpatoc
a’ , 46 ” ‘ , ~ »y X , : b NG
ExKéXural. nkovoy yao avtwv Aadovwrwv ° yAwooatc
, , / a
y ver, 38 rote amexptOn [lérpoc
z=ch. ii. 38
- f = , f o .
=n 47 4 Mire ro vewo dvvatar © KwAVoat Tic “= TOU MH Baz-
a -xeiv, ch, ii.
U ‘ ,
kat “peyaduvovtwy tov Oeov.
= , o sh - She hv
bth h aret, TIOONVaL TOUTOUC, OiTLVEG TO ' TYEVUA TO ' ayLOV éAaPov
s = Luke i. 40, ~- : , , > ‘ k? "ko? ?*
: ch, vis. we Kat husic 3 * ' Tpoceragév re avrove * ev TH * Ovomate
xix. 17.
Phil. i. 20.
- , k - , ee cs m?
(L.P., exe, TOU Kuplou BarrioOhva. TOTE yowTnoayv auTOv ET t=
Matt. xxiii.
o ne , o ¢
6) 2Kings metvat Nueoag Tivac.
vii, 26.
d Matt. vii. 16,
John iv. 20. Mal. iii. 8 vat. e — Luke vi, 29. f Gen. xxiii 6. & 1 Cor.
wit h ch. viii. 15, 14 reff. iconste, here only. (see ver. 33 reff.) Isa. xxxvi. 21.
k see ch. viii. 16 reff. | constr., ch. xvi. 29 reff. m ch. xxi. 4, 10. xxviii. 12,14. 1 Cor. xvi.7,8
al. L.P. (exe, John viii. 7.) Exod. xii. 39 vat. nch. ix. 19. xv. 36. xvi. 12. xxiv. 24. xxv. 13 only.
44. execev (mistake? or simple word for compound) AD 13. 36: txt BEHLN o p
rel Chr.
45. for ova, o B vulg D-lat Syr coptt Vig: txt A D-gr EHLN 13. 36 rel Chr
Rebapt. curnr@ay BR. tou Ty. T. ay. B(Mai) D8 40 vss: tov wv. ay. B(Btly)
D': txt AEHLN p 13. 36 rel Chr.
46. from AaAovvtwy to .. v roy Beov is obliterated in D! (seeing (1) that D' fills up the
space with txt written ‘‘laxius,” (2) that Wetstein reports D! to have read weyaduvew
(omg xa ?), and (3) that D-lat has prevaricatis linguis: we may conjecture that D!
possibly may have read yAwooats diapepiCouevats). for tote amexp., evmev 5e D.
rec ins o bef merp., with DEHL rel Ec Thl: om ABN p Chr.
47. rec KwA. bef duv., with D-corr HL 13 rel Chr: xwAa(corrd by D*) 7. duv. D!:
duv. Tr. kwA. E 40: txt ABN p. for Touvtous, avtous D-gr. rec kaOws (corrn to
more usual expr: or to suit ch xv. 8), with EHL rel Chr Ec Thl: wsrep D: txt ABN
achk p13. 40 Epiph Chr-comm.
48. for re, 5e BEN d p 13 syr coptt: txt AHL rel vulg eth Chr Ec Thl Rebapt.—
Tote mposer. LD Syr. avtots AN 33 Syr sah. rec Bartio®. bef ev Tw ov. T. K.,
with DEHL rel vss Chr Rebapt: txt ABN p 40 am demid Cyr-jer. for Tov kup.,
gov xpiarou (corrn, as giving more precision to the baptismal formula) ABEN c dk
p? 13. 36 am syr coptt «eth Cyr-jer Chr Thl-fin Jer Rebapt : 7. kup. ino. xp. D p! fuld:
7. Kup. ino. ah 38. 42. 57 Thl-sif: txt HL rel. for npwt., mapexadreoay D.
ins mpos avrous bef eximewat D-corr vulg-ed Syr sah eth, so but diame. D!.
baptism: and warning the Christian church
not to put baptism itself in the place which
cireumcision once held. See further in note
on Peter’s important words, ch, xi. 16.
The outpouring of the Spirit on the Gen-
tiles was strictly analogous to that in the
day of Pentecost ; Peter himself describes it
by adding (ch. xi. 15), Gsmep kal é¢f’ Hpas
év d4pxy- Whether there was any visible
appearance in this case, cannot be deter-
mined: perhaps from ver. 46 it would ap-
pear not. 45.) We do not read that
Peter himself was astonished. He had been
specially prepared by the vision: they had
not. The AaXety yAdooats here is iden-
tified with the A. érépats yA. of ch. ii. 4, by
the assertion of ch. xi. 15, just cited ;—and
this again with the éAdAouy yAdéooas of
ch. xix. 6 :—so that the gift was one and
the same throughout. On the whole sub-
ject, see note, ch. ii. 4. 47.) One great
end of the unexpected effusion of the Holy
Spirit was entirely to preclude the question
which otherwise could not but have arisen,
‘Must not these men be circumcised before
baptism ?? 7d USwp ... Td Tvevpa |
The Two great Parts of full and complete
baptism : the latter infinitely greater than,
but not superseding the necessity of, the
former. The article should here certainly
be expressed: Can any forbid rHE WATER
to these who have received Tuk spirit ?
The expression cwAdcat, used with 7d
#5., is interesting, as shewing that the prac-
tice was to bring the water to the candidates,
not the candidates to the water. This,
which would be implied by the word under
any circumstances, isrendered certain, when
we remember that they were assembled in
the house. 48. mposérafev} As the
Lord Himself when on earth did not bap-
tize (John iv. 2), so did not ordinarily the
Apostles (see 1 Cor. i. 13—17, and note).
Perhaps the same reason may have operated
eee MIOTOL
m.
ABDE
HLNab
cedfgh
klop
13
XI. 1—7. TIPAZEIS AIMOZTOAQN. 123
XI. 1”Hrovoav 8 ot ancoronot Kal ot adeA pot Ob 96h. il. 48.
xiii. 1. xv.
we! a 2 Macc.
ovtec “Kata Thy lovdaiav Ore Kat ta EOvn
eoeSavto Tov
Q¢ oak ‘viii. 14
OTE de *
avean Ilérpoc ELC ‘Teoousa- ref
qch. vi. 7. viii.
4 Noyor rou Geov.
Anu, *Stekpivovro mode avrov ‘ot ‘ek ‘mepitounce ° he Mele
7] Mad ” > yf xiv. 36 al.
yovrec ore “ercnrAQec “mooc avooac ig ax poBvoriay “EXovtac * Matt. xx. 75
18. ch. xv. 2
\ - » ?
kat * ouvepayec avroic. 4 Yaokapevog de Tlérpog * e&- Bits iit*"
, > - a ~ , ’ Best , , 5 coustr., here
etiVero avroic kabeEne Neyo Eye Hany ev mode only, "Ezek.
w.dat , Jade
d? , e
low ° TOCEV XOMEVOE, Kal eloov év * éExoracet *opana, of axe:
: ipl aiweel ; OKEVOC Tt ws ‘oBowny peyaAny ‘saad toons tch. x, 45
(rett.).
f aie
apxaic F kaBtenevny EK aoe ovpavou, Kat Ae axpt ae a
> oa 1 Luke i. 28.
EMOU. eS gic nv ‘arevioag " katevoouy Kat cidov Ta Ter G= Mark xv. 43.
ae = 20.
v here only.
~ \
Tooa rie yne Kal Ta Onoia Kal Ta Eomera Kal Ta
7 HKovea O& Kat dwvne AEyoU aeasd
) vO ere?
0 POVRs AN OUENE ETT,
z=ch. (vii. 21) xviii. 26.
Gen, xxxiv.
1 ‘ -~ > ~
TETELVaA TOU ovpavou,
x ch. x. 41 reff. — y ver. 15.
(Job xxxvi. 15.) Aoyou €xO*copar, Jos. Antt. i. 12.2. ach, iii. 24 reff. ¢
b constr., ch. x. 30. xxii. 19, 20 (Paul). Mark xiv. 49. Gal, i. 22. see ch. ii. 5 reff. c absol., ch.
x. reff. dch. x. 10 ref, ech. vii. 31 reff. f ch. x. 11 (reff). eg ch.
ix. 25 reff. h = ch. xiii.6. xx.4. xxviii. 15. 2 Cor. x. 13, 14. Rev. xiv. 20. xviii. 5%.
ich. i. 10 reff. k ch. vii. 31, 32 reff. leh. x. 12 (reff.).
iii. 50 all8.) only.
XXViii. 23 only.
Car. XI. 1. axovoroy 5 eyevero Tos am. kK. Tols ad. ot ev TH 10vd. D Syr (audito
vero apostoli Ke D-lat, ras ev T. tovd. D*). edetato D!: txt D°.
2. ree rat ote (alteration because the fact related seems a consequence of, rather than
opposed to, ver 1?), with HL 13 syrr eth Chr: txt ABEN p 36 vulg coptt Jer Cassiod.
rec tepogoAuua, with (D)EHL 13. 36 rel Chr: mAu NX: iAnu’ p: txt AB.
D (and simly syr-w-ast) reads the verse thus: 0 wey ovy metpos d1a tkavov xXpovou
nOeAnoa (-cev D>) mwopevOnvat ets tepoooAvpa* Kat Tpospwvngas Tous adeApous Kat ETI-
ornpitas avtovs moAvy Aovyoy motoupevos dia Twy xwpwv (civitates D-lat) d:dacKwv avrous*
os kat (quia et) katnvTNoEY auvTOLS Kal aTNYyyI\AEV avTos THY Xap TOV Beou" a1 de (quia
erant) ex Tepitouns adeAdot diekpivovto mpos avtoy (judicantes ad eum).
3. rec mp. av. ax. ex. bef eisyAGes, with EHL 13 rel syrr Chr Thl-sif: txt ABDN ah
p vulg coptt «th arm Thl-fin. e:snAOev and auvepayev (sic: see table) Le p 13.
36 syrr. ins avy bef avtas D'.
4. rec ins o bef wetpos, with HL rel He Thl: om ABDEN p 13. 40 Chr. ins
Ta bef Kabetns D.
5. vor. bef rod. D copt.
D-corr!. kataBawvev (error?) Aa
with B?EH 13. 36 rel:
6. om ta (1st and 3rd) D!:
by N?. om 4th ra D.
ins D3,
ews D: txt AB'L.
om Kadetns H! 41 copt.
om mposevxomuevos RI.
om 2nd ev D!-gr 96: ins
tetpaciv D Epiph. rec axpis,
in epmera, ep is written above the line
7. rec om 1st cai, with HL rel syr Chr Ge Thi-sif: for nx. Se «a, kar ne. D 15. 18.
in both cases,—lest those baptized by our
Lord, or by the chief Apostles, should arro-
gate to themselves pre-eminence on that
account. Also, which is implied in 1 Cor.
i. 17, as compared with Acts vi. 2, the
ministry of the Word was esteemed by them
their higher and paramount duty and office,
whereas the subordinate ministration of the
ordinances was committed to those who
dinkdvouy tpamwéCais. év TO dv.] =
éml 7@ ov., ch. ii. 38, where see note.
Wahl compares amoxtelvew ev TH mpopa-
get TavTn, Lysias, p. 452.
Cuap. XI. 1—18.| PETER JUSTIFIES
BEFORE THE CHURCH IN JERUSALEM, HIS
HAVING CONSORTED WITH MEN UNCIR-
CUMCISED. 1. kata tr. “Iovd.] in
Judea, or perhaps more strictly, through-
out Judea. (See reff.) Stu x. 7. Ov. ]
They seem to have heard the fact, without
any circumstantial detail (but see on rdy
teyyedov below, ver. 13); and, from the
charge in ver. 3,—from some reporter who
gave the objec tionable part of it, as is not
uncommon in such cases, all prominence.
2.] ot ék mepttopys must have come
into use later as designating the cireum-
cised generally: in ‘this case all those
spoken of would belong to the circum-
cision. Luke uses it in the sense of the
time when he wrote the account.
4.] ‘Having begun, set forth to them :’
i. e. began and set forth: not for #iptare
exriOévat, as Kuinoel. 5.] HAG. axpe
124
HPAZEIS AMOZTOAQN.
BGI
™ Mn-
% \
8 ELTTOV Of
meh. x.1,14 {LOL ™’Avaorac Tierpe " Busov Kal paye. um sis
Be pan: Sapwe Kv, ore” KoLwoV " axalaproy Doe use
0 oh 5.19 idDev ® ec T ® oropta pov. arexotn C& gown ROE
pel ete omy. EST OU oupavou “A o Oeoc ° exalagiory ov mn Kowow.
oysad =629 rouro 0: eyévero Pemt Tolc, Kal Vavecracbn wadw
Bit amravra etc TOV oupavey. MN Kai idov eG avrng TOEIC
Theod. avipec * emeoTnoay emt my olkiay & 0 * nun, SEG
rch. x. 33 reff.
s ch. x. 17 reff.
tch. x. 19 reft.
u —ch, i. 21
reff. [Lol
v Matt. viii. 5
" suveADety aurotc.
pevor aro Katoapetac TO0C pe.
12 clmey oe TO * rveuma
7A0ov 6: ouv enol Kal OLE ef adeA -
\
eles mings pot ovTot, Kal " etcnA Donen ELC TOV vikov TOU avdpocy
Xi. 7.
Matt. viii. 35.
Laake viii 20. 1K amiyyyedev * TE mee TOC ELOEV TOV ayy eXov év TW
ch, xv. 27.
Gen. xiv. 18 olkW aUTOU * gralévra Kal cimovTa auTw "ArooretAov ete
X aTraveEts,
Lokexvii- "Térarnv kat ¥ perameppar Zinwwva tov » extxadoupevov
a fia. a , ze , a? # ab ,
v.20: xvi. L[lérpov, M4 Oe * NaAnoe pee mpoc oF © ev ol owInon
22. xxv. 18. \ S ec Aner 2
et ov Kat wac 0 °olkoc cov. “ev Oe 7 agSacbai pe
chen fey S = N g
yenx i, ade ‘ éwérecev TO TvEULA TO ayLOV im avrouc, weoTep
in
ene. 13. Deut. xviii. 20. ach. iv. 9,12. Rom.v. 10 only. Hos, i. 7. b = Matt. i.
21. ch. ii. Av.
f ch. viii. 16 reff.
36 Syr eth:
txt, D>.
8. ema D.
c= ch. x. 2 reff.
gch. ili. 17 only.
txt ABEN o p 13 coptt.
only aka, N-corr 1 supplied -Oap, &> -Tov.
pwvnv Acyouoav D.
rec ins may bef kowoy (insertion from ch x. 14), with HL rel :
ABDEN cop Be 36 vulg syrr sah arm Chr Epiph, Damase.
d ch. ix. 3 reff. e ver. 4. ch.i. 1 refi.
avacta D-gr! vss :
om
of axafaptov, &' wrote
9. rec ins por bef davn (from ch x. 15), with EHL rel syrr eth (Epiph ?) Chr: om
ABR p 36. 40 vulg coptt arm.—eyeveto mwyn ex Tov oup. mpos we D. (aft ever. ins de D?
and lat.)
ex deur. bef gw. BE ah syr Chr Hpiph :
om ex 6. D 4.
10. rec wadw bef aveor. (see ch x. 16, where ratw was introduced in this order),
with EHL (13) rel syr Chr:
txt ABDN p 40 vulg copt «th arm.
a Hpeev ABDN 40: erant D-lat: nuny EHL p13. 36 rel vss Chr.
ewe NI.
12. rec po: bef to my. (corrn of arrangement), with KHL 18. 36 rel syrr Chr: txt
ABDX& p vulg coptt.
memory), With HL rel Chr ;
vovta EX! 36: om D syr.
Syr eth Ge Thi-sif.
DEHL 18 rel vss Chr.
pndev Siaxpwavra A B(sic:
om 2nd de D.
18. dé ABDN ah p 36 vulg syr copt (arm) Chr Thl-fin
om Ist roy D.
for aroor., meupov (from ch x. 5) B.
rec aft avtois ins udev Siaxpivomevoy (interpolation from ch
x. 20, as is shewn by the number of variations :
some inserting it accurately, some from
see table) N* p13: undev diaxpt-
: om sah: tre EHL 13 rel
om avtw ABN p copt eth: ins
ree aft
tomm. ins avipas (from ch x. 5), with EHL 13 rel syr Chr: om ABDN ah p 86 Syr
coptt «th arm.
15. aft AaA. ins avtos D eth.
ws D,
épov is a fresh detail. 12. ovttor |
They had accompanied him to Jerusalem,
and were there to substantiate the facts,
as far as they had witnessed them.
18. tov dyyeAov| The art. almost looks as
if the history of Cornelius’s vision were
known to the hearers. The difference be-
tween the vision of Cornelius and that of
Peterishere again strikingly marked: while
the latter is merely ‘ praying in the city of
Joppa,’ no place nor circumstance being
named, the former sees the angel ‘ standing
etmeoev D a.
Gxte es
em autos D!:
in his house.’ Notice also that Peter
never names Cornelius in his speech—
because he, his character and person, was
absorbed in the category to which he be-
longed,—that of men uncircumcised.
14. év ots ow8. «.7.A.] This is implied in
the angel’s speech : especially if the prayer
of Cornelius had been for such a boon, of
which there can be little doubt.
15. ev 8€ TG dptacGar...] See note on
ch. x. 44, as also for the rest of the verse.
16.] ch.i.5. This prophecy of the
8—19.
~
8 kal Ep nuac hey apyn.
IIPAZ EI AMOSTOAQN.
125
16 euvnoOnv dé rou PNMATOE hsonn ir.
Gen.i. 1.
~ , i« oe ? , \ 2737 ¢ :
TOV KUPLOV, WC eXeyev Iwavyne Ev éBarricev voart, Ae es
~ - , o €
Upele oé * Barris Onaecbs E Ev TVEUMATL ayiw.
‘ Im 7 nD x a ? ~ ¢€ \ ¢c \
TYHV tonv Owoeay EOWKED auTolc O Qedc WC Kal
’ \ ? - ’
° mioTevcacw ; él TOV KUOLOY Incovv Xplaror, eyo [oz] m
eee 8 Sankt | Ne ov Ocov: 18’ ,
Tig Nunv ovvatog 'KwAvoat tov Geov3 Axkovcavrtec
‘ 2 \ ’ \
de tTaura *“novyacay Kat *ed0kaZov tov Osov AéyorTec a
tv t \ - a e ‘ ‘ u ,
Apa [ ye | kat toc E0vectv o Oso thy fleTavotav
1
? % kch. i. 65 reff.
7 Eu OUVY 1 Cor. xii 13.
1 Luke vi. 34
only. Lev.
vi. 40 (vii.
e ~
nuw,
10).
as above (I).
Matt. xx. 12,
Mark xiv. 56,
59, John v,
x AIS o ch. ix, 42 reff.
p = Ron. xiv.
Cwnv EOWKEY. 4. Exod. iii.
e \ z w , ou ae 4 - / - 11. constr.,
19 Ou [ev OUV Ovacmrapévrec avo THC J OrtLewe THC see note.
q Luke ix, 49
) Mk. ch.x.47. Num. xi. 28. r Luke xiv. 3. xxiii. 56. ch. xxi 14. 1 Thess. iy. 11 only. L.P.
Neh. y. 8. s ch. xxi. 20 reff. t Matt. vii. 20. xvii. 26. Gen, xxvi. 9. oe
xx. 21. 2 Tim. ii. 254. (Prov. xiv. 15.) Wisd. xi. 24. xii. 10,19. Sir. xliv. 16 only. v = Rom.
vi. 22. x.1. 2Cor. vii.10. Jude 21. w ch. viii. 1, 4only. Ezek, xxij.15. x = Matt.
xxviii.4. Ezek. xxxi.16. Exod. vi. 9.
16. cuvnoOnpev A.
ins ABDEN p rel Thl-sif.
17. Scdwkev N o.
y=ch. xx. 23. 2Thess,i.4 al. 2 Chron. xx.y,
rec om Tov (bef xvpiov), with HL b d g Chr Qe Thi-fin:
aft eAeyey ins or: N3aeh.
om o 6cos D wth Aug Rebapt.
om 6¢ ABDNahko
p 18. 36 vulg Syr wth arm Chr Did Thl-fin Aug Ambr Jer Rebapt : ins EHL rel syr
sah Thl-sifi—om tis p.
aft Tov Ocov ins Tov wn Sovvar avTois mvevwa aryiov
motevoacw er avtw D, simly 8 syr-w-ast Aug.
18. edofacay BD?8 ch p vulg syrr coptt wth Chr Thi-fin: edSofary D': txt AEHL
13. 36 rel Thl-sif.
apa (ye omd, its force not being seen: cf note) A B(sic: see
table) DX k p 40: forsitan D-lat Syr: utique E-lat: txt EHL 13. 36 rel Chr.
om thy D.
demid fuld tol.
Lord was spoken to his assembled followers,
and promised to them that baptism which
was the completion and aim of the inferior
baptism by water administered to them by
John. Now, God had Himself, by pouring
out on the Gentiles the Holy Spirit, in-
cluded them in the number of these dpe?s,
and pronounced them to be members of the
church of believers in Christ, and partakers
of the Holy Ghost, the end of baptism.
This (in all its blessed consequences, = the
gift of werdvoia, eis (why, see on ver. 18)
was (ver. 17) the Zon Swpea bestowed on
them : and, this having been bestowed,—
to refuse the symbolic and subordinate or-
dinance,—or to regard them any longer as
strangers from the covenant of promise,
would have been, so far as in him lay,
KwAvoa Toy Bedy. 17.] muotevoacw
belongs to both avrots and juiy; setting
forth the strict analogy between the cases,
and the community of the faith to both.
[8€ (omitted in some MSS., the tran-
scribers perhaps not being aware of the
construction) brings out the contrast after
ei ovr, as frequently after eet, e. g. Od. é.
178, roy érel Opéay Geol, Epvet iooy ..
Tov O€ Tis abavdtwy BAdbe ppévas evdov
eloas: Herod. iii. 68, ef wh adTh Suépdw
. 2 es YlooKets, oV Se Tapa *ATécons
mudov. See more examples in Hartung,
Partikellehre, i. p. 184. ] Tis HeNv
Suv.| A junction of two questions: (1)
rec edwx. bef es ¢., with EHL 13 rel vss Chr: txt ABDN p 40 am
Who was I that I should ...., as ref.
Exod.,—and (2) Was I able to.... We
have a similar instance in tis ti apy, Mark
xv. 24. See Winer, edn. 6, § 66.5.3.
18.] [dpa ye is more than dpa. ye has the
effect of insulating the sentence, q. d. what-
ever may be the consequences, or however
mysterious the proceeding to us, this at
least is plain, that God &e. Compare
Matt. vii. 20, ‘therefore, whatever they
profess, from their fruits,’ &e.: and the
other reff.: and see Hartung’s chap. on ye
in his Partikellehre, vol. i. p. 344, ff. ]
eis Lwyv}| to be taken with rhy uerdvoary
édwxevy, not with thy perdvotay alone,
which would be more probably thy eis
(wjv, hath given unto the G. also re-
pentance,—that they may attain unto
life. The involved position of the words in
the present text is quite in St. Luke’s
manner.
19—30.| THE GOSPEL PREACHED ALSO
IN ANTIOCH TO GENTILES. BARNABAS,
BEING THEREUPONSENT BY THE APOSTLES
FROM JERUSALEM, FETCHES SAUL FROM
Tarsus TO ANTIOCH. THEY CONTINUE
THERE A YEAR, AND, ON OCCASION OF
A FAMINE, CARRY UP ALMS TO THE
BRETHREN AT JERUSALEM. Our present
section takes up the narrative at ch. viii.
2,4. In vv. 19—21 it traverses rapidly the
time occupied by ch. ix. 1—80, and that
(undefined) of Saul’s stay at Tarsus, and
XI.
126 TIPAZEIS AIOSTOAQN.
\ ~ f , ‘
2 = ch. iil. 16, yevouévng “emt Lrepavy * dinADov “two Dowtkne Kat ABDE
. s 1»? b ~ nN b , a
ae 8 Kobmoov kat Avttoyeiac, unodevt ° NaXouvrec Tov Aoyovedfgh
klop
rei.
b ch. iv. 29, 31. 5 , a > -~ ”
nOoav Oe TLVEC EG AUTWV avooec 13
Viii. 25. xiii.
46. xvi. 6,
32. Phil.
i. 14.
¢ constr., acc.
Luke i. 19.
éhadouv kat mpoc tovc “EXAnvac ° evayyeAdtZopevot rov
ch. v. 42.
Viii. 35. xvii. 18. Gal. i. 16.
19. em orepavov AE 13. 40 vulg D-lat Thl-sif: amo tov orepavov D-gr: txt BHLX
p 36 syrr coptt Chr Ge Thl-fin. tov Aoy. bef Aad. D. povos D c vulg.
tovdaror (sic)®.
20. rec etserd. (perhaps from ver 3), with H 13 rel vulg Syr Thl: cuvedAd. a: txt
ABDELRX o p 36 syr coptt Chr. rec om 2nd ka (as not being understood, the
whole sense having been confused by the reading ehAnnotas below), with DEHL 13. 36
rel fuld coptt Chr: ins ABX(marks for erasure were added, but rubbed out by &%)
p am demid.—ka: cvve(ynrovy 40. rec eAAnviotas (apparently a correction,
induced by the difficulty of preaching to Greeks as distinguished from Jews, having
preceded the conversion of Cornelius : see note), with BD°EHL p 13. 36 rel (vulg and
many versions do not seem to observe the distinction) Chr-txt (c-txt Thl-txt: evay-
El un povov "Tovdatore. 20
- e ’ > > ‘
Korovot Kal Kvonvato, olrivec é\Oovrec ELC Avrioyétav
brings it down to the famine under Clau-
dius. 19. pév ovv] A resumption of
what had been dropt before, see ch. viii. 4,
continued from ver. 2: not however with-
out reference to some narrative about to
follow which is brought out by a 6é, an-
swering to the wéy,—see ch. viii. 5, also ch.
ix. 31, 32; xxviii. 5, 6,—and implying,
whether by way of distinction or exception,
a contrast to that pév. él St.] on
account of Stephen; see reff. Wolf, Kuin.,
Olsh., &e. render it ‘ after St.’ the Vulg.
sub Stephano, reading ém) Srepavov.
SiAAGov | so ch. viii. 4, 40; ix. 32.
Powvikys | properly, the strip of coast, about
120 miles long, extending from the river
Eleutherus (near Aradus), to a little south
of Tyre, and belonging at this time to the
province of Syria: see ch. xv. 3; xxi. 2.
Its principal cities were Tripolis, Byblos,
Sidon, Tyre, and Berytos. It is a fertile
territory, beginning with the uplands at the
foot of Lebanon, and sloping to the sea,
and held a distinguished position for com-
merce from the very earliest times. See
Winer, RWB. Kvmpov] Cyprus was
intimately connected by commerce with
Pheenice, and contained many Jews (od
pedvov at Hmeipor peotal tev “lovdatikay
amotki@y ciotv, GAAG Kal VhowY ai Soximeta-
Tat, EvBo.a, Kumpos, Kpfitn. Philo, Leg.
ad Caium, § 36, vol. ii. p. 587. See also
Jos. Antt. xiii. 10. 4). See on its state
at this time, note on ch. xiii. 7.
*Avtioxetas] A city in the history of
Christianity only second in importance to
Jerusalem. It was situated on the river
Orontes, in a large, fruitful, and well-
watered plain, 120 stadia from the sea
and its port Seleucia. It was founded
by Seleucus Nicator, who called it after
his father Antiochus. It soon became a
great and populous city (Avt. 4 meyaAn,
Philostr. Apoll. i. 16), and was the residence
of the Seleucid kings of Syria (1 Mace.
lii. 37; vii. 2; xi. 138, 44; 2 Mace. v. 21),
and (as an ‘urbs libera,’ Pliny, v. 18) of
the Roman proconsuls of Syria. Josephus
(B. J. iii. 2. 4) calls it meyéOous re Evera
kal tis BAAns evdamorvias Tpirov adnpt-
tTws én) tis bd “Pwuators oikovpevns
éxovoa témov. Seleucus the founder had
settled there many Jews (Jos. Antt. xii. 3.1.
See also xiv. 12.6; B.J.ii. 18. 5; vii.3.3
—and contra Apion. ii. 4, a’Tay yap judy
of thy “Avtidxeray Katoikodytes, “Avti-
oxeis OvouaCovTat THY yap ToALTElay avTors
edwkev 6 KTiotns SeAevkos), who had their
own Ethnarch. The intimate connexion
of Antioch with the history of the church
will be seen as we proceed. A reference
to the principal passages will here be
enough: see vv. 22, 26, 27; ch. xiii. 1;
xv. 23, 35 ff.; xviii. 22. It became after-
wards one of the five great centres of the
Christian church, with Jerusalem, Rome,
Alexandria, and Constantinople. Of its
present state (Antakia, a town not one-
third of its ancient size) a view is given in
C.and H., where also, edn. 2, vol. i. pp. 149
ff.,is a minute and interesting description of
the city and its history, ancient and modern.
See also Mr. Lewin’s Life and Epistles of
St. Paul, vol.i. p. 108 ff (Principally from
Winer, RWB.) 20. €& avtav] not, of
these, last mentioned Jews : but, of the 8.a-
onmapévtes. This both the sense and the
form of the sentence (uév otv... . dé) re-
quire. , Kvpyvator] of whom Lucius
mentioned ch. xiii. 1, as being in the
church at Antioch, must have been one.
Symeon called Niger, also mentioned
there, may have been a Cyrenean prose-
lyte. “EAAnvas | The retaining and
advocacy of the reading “EAAnviords has
mainly arisen from a mistaken view that
the baptism of Cornelius must necessarily
have preceded the conversion of all other
20 —23.
KUpLOV "Incovv, 2!
> ‘ e > ,
“rode te “apOuoc 0 mortevoac "eméoroepey Emi Tov
22 nKovcOn dt 0 ® Adyoe" sic TA wTa THE | E
nkouaOn de 0 ® Aoyor’ ecg Tawratne © EkKAn-
KUOLOV.
‘TIPAZEIZ ANOSTOAQN.
127
\ g d \ d , ’ > ~ 4
Kat Hv KElo Kuolov ET auTwr, d Luke i. 66.
eh. xiii. 11
only. (ch. iv.
28, 30. vii.
1 Pet. y. 6.)
Num. xi. 23.
’ iehoes N Ngee aes \ k>?
siac tn¢ ev lepovoaAnp * rept avtw, Kat * eLatéotetAay chereouly.
J
- a ’
BapvaBav * SueAGety * Ewe Avrioyetac’ 23 Oc ' rapayevo~
AT ? ‘ ‘ ~ ~ ,
ftevog Kal lowv THY ™ yao.w thy Tov Oeov eyapn,
2 Chron. ix. 5.
ich. viii. ].
m = John i. 14, &c.
6 X. wept Nuasy, Xen. Anab. vi. 6. 13.
Rom. xvi. 1 al.
1 Cor.i.4. 2Cor. ix.8. Col.i. 6.
ob xxxviii.
2);
f ch. xxvi. 20
\ reff.
KQ@lU g Lake v. 15.
vii. 17 only.
Luke i. 44. ix. 44.
l absol., ch. xvii.
h Matt. x. 27.
k ch. vii. 12 reff.
yedtotas N!: txt AD'N® ec Eus Chr-comm (c-comm, Thl-fl-ms; gentiles Cassiod.
aft imo. ins xpicroy D 96 eth-pl.
21. ny de D-gr.
13 rel Chr: ins ABN p 36.
22. aft 2nd ts ins ovsns BEX ck p 13 Chr.
2), with EHL rel Chr: txt ABD p 36 sah. (13 def.)
Chr.
rec om 6 (as unnecessary, not perceiving its force), with DEHL
rec tepoooAvmors (corrn: cf ver
ins ta bef wept avtwy E k
om deAdew (as unnecessary; to simplify the constr: d51eAO. ews is in
Inke’s manner) ABN p vulg Syr copt eth arm: ins DEHL 13. 36 rel syr Chr; eAéew
sah. ins tns bef avr. D!.
23. ins ka bef rapay. D-gr.
Gentiles. But that reading gives, in this
place, no assignable sense whatever : for (1)
the Hellenists were long ago a recognized
part of the Christian church,—(2) among
these diacmapevtes themselves in all pro-
bability there were many Hellenists,—and
(3) the term “Iovdato: includes the Hel-
lenists,—the distinctive appellation of pure
Jews being not “Iovdato., but “Efpator,
ch. vi. 1. Nothing to my mind can be
plainer, from what follows respecting Bar-
nabas, than that these “EAAnves were GEN-
TILES, wncircumcised ; and that their con-
version took place before any tidings had
reached Jerusalem of the divine sanction
given in the case of Cornelius. See below :
and Excursus ii. at the end of Prolegg.
to Acts. 21. Av xelp Kup. p. a. |
By visible manifestations not to be
doubted, the Lord shewed it to be His
pleasure that they should go on with such
preaching; avtwy being, the preachers
to the Gentiles, whose work the nar-
rative now follows. 22.] AK. eis
tT. ora, a Hebraism, see reff. Bap-
vaBav| himself a Cyprian, ch. iv. 36.
His mission does not seem exactly to
have been correspondent to that of Peter
and John to Samaria (nor can he in any
distinctive sense, be said to have been an
Apostle, as they were: see ch. xiv. 4, and
note): but more probably, from what fol-
lows, the intention was to ascertain the
fact, and to deter these persons from the
admission of the uncircumcised into the
church : or, at all events, to use his discre-
tion in a matter on which they were as yet
doubtful. The choice of such a man, one
by birth with the agents, and of a liberal
rec aft thy xapiv om Thy (as unnecessary : no reason
can be given for its insertion in so unusual a connexion.
It has peculiar force, see
spirit, shews sufficiently that they wished
to deal, not harshly, but gently and cau-
tiously,—whatever their reason was.
23, 24.] It is on these verses principally
that I depend as determining the character
of the whole narrative. It certainly is im-
plied in them that the effect produced on
Barnabas was something different from
what might have been expected: that to
sympathize with the work was not the
intent of his mission, but a result brought
about in the heart of a good man, full of
the Holy Ghost and of faith, by witnessing
the effects of divine grace (t. xdp. THY TOU
6<ov, not merely, ‘the grace of God, but
the grace which [evidently] was that of
God: the expression is deliberately used).
And this is further confirmed to my mind by
finding thatheimmediately went and sought
Saul. He had been Saul’s friend at Jeru-
salem: he had doubtless heard of the com-
mission which had been given to him to
preach to the Gentiles : but the church was
waiting the will of God, to know how this
was to be accomplished. Here was an
evident door open for the ministry of Saul,
and, in consequence, as soon as Barnabas
perceives it, he goes to fetch him to begin
his work in Antioch. And it was here,
more properly, and not in Caesarea, that
the real commencement of the Gentile
church took place,—although simulta-
neously, for the convincing of the Jewish
believers at Jerusalem, and of Peter, and
for the more solemn and authorized stand-
ing of the Gentile church, the important
events at Cesarea and Joppa were brought
about. Dr. Wordsw.’s argument, that, as
even “EAAnvas may include Jews, we need
128
n ch. ix. 38.
xiv. 22 al. fr.
o = 2 Tim. ili. ~ , 24
10. (ch. xxvii. Ti KUPLW),
eed ad a t ; t 4 ;
= Wisd. iil.
Po. secch-xii, @YLOU Kal TLOTEWC.
43. (ch. xviii
18 reff.)
q ch, vil. 55
" fff.
reff.
rch. ii. 41 reff.
s here bis.
Mark x. 46.
Luke vii. 12.
ch. xix. 26.
(1 Mace. xiii.
: ’
TW KUOLW.
ll.
=asabove(s).
ch. xx. 37. .
xxii. 6. u John i. 44. Matt. xi. 7. ch. xiv. 20. xvi. 10.
x. 6. 2 Macc. xiii, 21 only.
vii. 3 only (ch. x. 22 reff.) t.
mss. x. 11. 6, ach. xxvi. 28.
note), with DEHL 13 rel Chr: ins ABN.
24. aynp bef ny X.
IIPAZEIS AMOSTOAQN.
kat * moocetéfn * ox Ao¢
9») ? — > ~
25" eenAOev Sé “cic Taosov ‘ ava@nrnoat
~ A ce ‘ ” , > /
Lavrov, Kat evpwv nyayev etc Avroyetav.
, A
w constr., here only. see ch. xxii. 6, 17.
Xonuaticas PAEAANY, Jos. Antt. xiii. 11.3 al.
1 Pet. iv. 16 only.
om Tw kupiw B!:
XI.
n aA , eats) 02 ss ol Pp /
"rapexade wavrac ty ° teobéce THE KapdLlag * TEOCMEVELY
Ore NY avno ayaloc kat 7 wAnone mvevmaroc
st « A
ikavoe
2 /
20m EYEVETO
Naw eee \ ’ = - , mae
de“ avroig Kat eviavtov OXdov “* cuvayOnvar Ev TH EK-
‘ ”
KAnsia Kat dwdagat * oyxAov
Zz Ang , ’ , N \ 4 ,
mpwrwc ev Avtioyeia rove pabnrag * Xoorcavove.
tae y '
ikavov, * yonmaticat TE
2 Cor. ii. 13. v Luke ii. 44, 45 only. Job iii. 4.
x ch. iv. 5 reff. y = Rom.
z here onlyt. Polyb.
ins ev bef tw kup. B 40 vulg coptt.
ins B?-marg (see table).
25. for ver, axovoas 5 ott cavAos eotiy ets Oapoov (Tapa. D*) efnAdevy avatntwy
avrov’ kat ws (om ws D-corr) cvytuxwy wapexadecer (add avtoy D®) eAGew ets avtioxeray
D syr-marg.
B).
36 Chr Chron.
rec aft tapo. ins o BapyaBas, with EHL p 13 rel vulg-ed(and am?)
syr Chr: om AB(D)X am! fuld Syr syr-marg coptt arm.
rec aft evp. ins avrov, with HL rel vss(most but syr-w-ob) : om ABEN ac h p
rec aft nyay. ins avtoy (supplementary), with EHL rel coptt
for ava(nr., avacTnoet
Chr Thl-fin: om ABN ad fhk o p 36 arm Chron Thl-sif.
26. for ver, o:tiwes maparyevomevot eviavToy oAov cuvexvOnoay (cvvavaxvOnvat 7
exkAnowa Kat 815afa D>, which conforms the follg to txt) oxAov tkavov" Kat TOoTe TpwToy
expnuatioev ev av. ot wad. xp. D: syr-marg has the former part.
(corrn of constr), with HL Did Chr: txt ABER c p 13. 36. 40.
(as unnecessary), with EHL rel 36 vss Did Chr: ins ABN syr Ath Vig.
om Ist vy HLabcde gh] Thi-sif.
evs avt. A.
E sah Chr.
AD'‘EHL rel: txt BD°X 36.
not suppose this to have been a preaching
to Gentiles, is best answered by the con-
text, in which the under) ef uh mdvov “lov-
dafois is clearly contrasted with joay 5é
....kal mpdos Tovs “EAAnvas, which con-
trast cannot be maintained without ex-
cluding Jews from this latter term.
23. mwapexader| in accordance with his
name, which (ch.iv.36) was interpreted vids
TapaKrANTEws. 25.| This therefore
took place after ch. ix. 30: how long after,
we have no hint in the narrative, and the
question will be determined by various
persons according to the requirements of
their chronological system. Wieseler and
Schrader make it not more than from half
a year to a year: Dr. Burton, who places
the conversion of Saul in a.p. 31,—nine
years. Speaking @ priovi, it seems very
improbable that any considerable portion of
time should have been spent by him before
the great work of his ministry began. Even
supposing him during this retirement to
have preached in Syriaand Cilicia,—judging
by the analogy of his subsequent journeys,
a few months at the most would have suf-
ficed for this. For my own view, see Pro-
legg. to Acts, § vi. 26. |} The unusual
word mp@tws seems to imply priority not
only in time, but also in usage: at Antioch
rec auTous
rec om Ist kat
om oAov
rec tpwtov, with
xpnotiavous X'(but corrd) p.
first and principally. So we have in Aristot.
Eth. Nic. viii. 5, mpérws kal kupiws.
Xptotiavovs | This name is never
used by Christians of themselves in the
N. T. (but of padnrat, of morol, or of
mioTevovTes, of adEAdol, of Aytol, of THS
6500), only (see reff.) as spoken by, or
coming from, those without the church.
And of those, it cannot have arisen with
the Jews, who would never have given a
name derived from the Messiah to a hated
and despised sect. By the Jews they were
called Na(wpato., ch. xxiv. 5, and Gali-
leans: and Julian, who wished to deprive
them of a name in which they gloried (see
below), and to favour the Jews, ordered
that they should not be called Christiani ;
but Galilei, Greg. Naz. Orat. iv. (in Jul.
i.) 86, p. 114. That it has a Latin form
is no decided proof of a Latin origin :
Latin forms had become naturalized
among the Greeks, and in this case there
would be no Greek adjective so ready to
hand as the Latin possessive, sanctioned
as it was by such forms as Pompeiani,
Cesariani, Herodiani (Christus being re-
garded as a proper name, see Tacit. Ann.
xv. 44, ©... quos vulgus . .. Christianos
appellabat. Auctor ejus nominis Christus,
Tiberio imperitante, per procuratorem Pon-
ABDE
HLN ab
eadigh
klop
13
24—29.
o7 > , \ ~
Ev ravraic d& raic mepatc
, ~ >
aoAtpwv ° roopyrat etc "Avrioy cay.
’ ~ > 4 Eby e222 f Ag ~ ff ,
avtowv ovonatt” Ayafsoc © éonuaven | dia * rou © rvevparoc
hy x Ay i Ny | i? ke Uke, a ea
mov peyadrny 'péXXzu | ececBar “ep ~ OAnY THY | oLKOU-
/ iw \ ’ / ’
MEVHY, NITLC [Kar] eyevero " emt KAavoiov. 29
15, vi. 9al. Ezrax. 4.
ii. 22. constr., here only.
g abs., ch. x. 19 reff
(fut., Actsonly.) Eccl i. 9 Symm.
xv. 33 L. ch, v. 11. vii. 11 only.
ii. 26. Lukeiii. 2. iv. 27. Isa. liv. 9.
27. avras Be.
IIPAZEIS AIOSTOAQN.
e ao xii. 33. xviii. 32. xxi. 19. ch. xxv. 27.
ch. i. 2. xxi. 4. Rom.y. 5. Eph. iii. 16. 2 Thess. ii. 2 al. L.P.H.
h fem., Luke xy. 14. a i ee sted
Xen. Anab. iii. 1, 2. See Winer, edn. 6, § 44. 7.
1 = Luke il. 1. xxi. 26.
129
b ~ a2. Nae
KatnADov ama ‘Tepo- beh, viii.s
28 d c = ch. xiii. 1.
xv. 32. xxi.
10. Cor,
xii. 28, 2Y.
xiv. 20, &c.
Eph. ii. 20.
— iv. IL
- A only InP.
Tay O& pall- d— Mark xiv.
57, 60. ch. i.
Rev. i. lonly. Esth.
avaorac O€ ec &&
1 Macc. ix. 24 F. ich. xxiv. 15. xxvii. 10.
k Mark
Isa. xxiv. 4 al. fr. m= Mark
28. for avaor. de eis, nv Se TOAAN aryyadAtacis’ cuverTpaumevwv Se nuwv epy ers D
Aug
eonuawey Bvulg D-lat Chron Aug: onuevwv D-gr.
rec peyay (see
g.
note), with D!EHL rel 36 Chr Chron: ome: txt ABD°X p 40 Epiph Euthal Chron.
(13 def.)
Kuthal Chron.
Chr.
tium Pilatum supplicio affectus erat’). The
name soon became matter of glorying among
its bearers: ref. 1 Pet., Eus. H. E. v. 1, in
the epistle of the churches of Lyons and
Vienne, tod jyeudvos . . . . pdvoy TovTO
muOomevov €i Kal avTds etn Xpiotiavds,
tov d¢ (Epagathus) Aaumpotdtn pari
éuodroyhoaytos,...and again, mpds mayta
Ta ennpwrnueva amexpivaro (Sanctus) TH
‘Poway pwvi, Xpiotiavds cit. And in
the Clementine Liturgy (Humphry, Comm.
on Acts, p. 84),—edxapioroduer got, OT Td
dvoua Tod xpioTod cov emiKeKAnTaL ep’
quas, Kal ool mpotwKeromueda. Before
this, while the believers had been iacluded
among Jews, no distinctive name for them
was needed: but now that a body of men,
compounded of Jews and Gentiles, arose,
distinct in belief and habits from both,
some new appellation was required.
It may be observed, that the inhabitants
of Antioch were famous for their propen-
sity to jeer and call names; see instances
in C. and H. i. p.148, note 2. See several
interesting particulars respecting the name
collected in Dr. Wordsw.’s note: who
however maintains that it was given by
the Church. herself. 27. év rT. 7. hp. ]
It was during this year, ver. 26.
mpodArat| Inspired teachers in the early
Christian chureh, referred to in the Acts,
and in the Epistles of Paul (see reff. and
ch. xix. 6; xxi. 9; Rom. xii. 6; 1 Cor.
xii. 10; xiii. 2,8; xiv. 6; 1 Thess. v. 20).
They might be of either sex (ch. MKIO)=
The foretelling of future events was not the
usual form which their inspiration took, but
that of an exalted and superhuman teach-
ing, ranked by St. Paul above ‘speaking
with tongues,’ in being the wtlerance of
their own conscious intelligence informed
by the Holy Spirit. This inspiration was,
Vou. Il.
rec ogtis (see above), with HL rel 36 Chr: txt ABDEN p 13. 40 Epiph
om kat ABDN p 13. 40 vss Epiph Chron: ins EHL rel 36 Syr
rec aft «Aavdiov ins xaicapos, with EHL rel 36syrr Epiph Chr Cassiod : om
ABDX p 13. 40 vulg coptt «th arm Chron.
however, occasionally, as here, and ch. xxi.
10, made the vehicle of prophecy, properly
so called. 28.” AyaBos| The same
who prophesied Paul’s imprisonment in
Jerusalem, ch. xxi. 10, ff. From the form
of his announcement there, we may infer
the manner in which he éojuavey 51a Tov
mvevuatos here. It was Trade héyer TO
TV. TO &yLov. The fem, usage of Aupés
prevailed among the Dorians (ef. Aristoph.
Acharn. 708) and later Greeks: see Meyer,
edn. 2, and Lobeck on Phryn. p. 188.
We find it sometimes also in lonic poets,
e. g. in Hom. Hymn. to Demeter, 311,
Asoo bw apyadéns: see other examples in
Palm and Rost, sub voce. oAnv T-
olxoupévnv] not, ‘all Judea,’ though in
fact it was so: the expression is a hyper-
bolical one in ordinary use, and not to be
pressed as strictly implying that to which
its literal meaning would extend. That it
occurs in a prophecy (Meyer) is no objec-
tion to this: the scope and not the wording
of the prophecy is given. But see below.
émt KAXavdiov} In the fourth year
of Claudius, 4.p. 44, there was a famine in
Judea and the neighbouring countries (Jos.
Antt. xx. 2. 5). And three others are
mentioned during his reign: one in Greece
(Eus. Chron. i. 79), and two in Rome (Dio
Cassius, lx. 11. Tacitus, Ann. xii. 43), so
that scarcity émt KAavdiou did extend
through the greater part of the ‘ orbis ter-
rarun, if it be thought necessary to press
the words of the prophecy. The queen
Helena of Adiabene and her son Izates
helped the Jews with subsidies on the occa-
sion (Jos. ibid., see also xx. 5. 2, where he
calls it-rov wéyay Adv), both of corn and
money. I do not believe that the words
ém) KA. imply that the eveuts jusl related
were not also in the reign of Claudius :
k
130
n = ch. il. 4.
Mark iv. 33.
Num, xxvi.
64
o here only.
Lev. XX¥.
26, 28, 4.
Wisd x. 10
ouly.
(-pea, ch.
xix. 25.)
p ch. xvii. 26
reff. constr,
here only.
sh viel
ret. r= Phil. iv. 16.
1 Tim. v.17, 19. James v. 14 al.
1}. 2 Chron, xxxiv. 14.
60. Luke xx. 1. ch. iv. 3. v. 38 al.
xv. § (xxvii. 44).
adeA pote,
TIPAZEIS AMOSTOAQN.
- n s Oo = - P «
nrov “Kaloo ° evropetro Tic, * wetcay
- - ’ ~? ,
ec “dtakoviay * méupat ToIg * KaToLKOVOLW “ev TH lovdata edtey
4
sch. i. 20 al.
Acts, past. and cath. epp. only.
v ch. xix. 23 only.
Gen. xxii. 12. constr., bere only.
XI. 30.
30 a ‘ , , > > ‘
& Kal éroinoay amoorttiAavTec TOUCG TOUC
rpeaBurépouc "Sa XEIpOC BapvaBa Kat DavaAov.
- e
XII. } ’ Kar’ * exeivov 6& Tov * Katoov * ereDadrev Hoo-
e ‘ ‘ = x - ' ~ pa.
Suc o BaotAevc Tac Yélpag ~Kakwoat Tivac Twy ° aTo
t — here for first time. ch. xiv. 23. xv. 2, &c.
u ch, ij, 23. vii. 25. xiv. 3. xix.
see Rom ix. 9. w Matt. xxvi.
x ch, vii. 6 reff. y=ch.
Num. xxii. 4.
29. [evmoperto, so AB(D)EHN 13 a begk1Thl-sif.] 0: d¢ mad. Kafws evmopovyTo
D. wpicev A 95!.
30. for o, o: L.
B Ll! 34 copt.
Crap. XII. 1. 0 Bas. bef np. 8 c! p.
but they are inserted to particularize the
famine as being that well-known one, and
only imply that the author was not writing
under Claudius. 29.| There is no
need to suppose that the prophecy of
Agabus preceded by any long time the
outbreak of the famine: nor would it be
any derogation from its prophetic character
to suppose it even coincident with its first
beginnings; it was the greatness and extent
of the famine which was particularly re-
vealed, and which determined the Christians
of Antioch tosend the relief. Baumgarten
(vol. ii. p. 5), in tracing the gradual transi-
tion of the apostolic narrative from Jewish
to Gentile Christianity, calls this contribu-
tion, sent from Antioch to Jerusalem, the
first stretching out of the hand by the Gen-
tile world across the ancient gulf which
separated it from Israel. Tov Sé pad.
w.7.A. is a mixture of two constructions,
of 5& pabyral Kabuds evropeitd Tis avTaY.
The church at Jerusalem was poor,
probably in connexion with the community
of goods, which would soon have this
effect ; see ch. ii, 44, note. 30.
apecButépous| These were the overseers
or presidents of the congregation,— an office
borrowed from the synagogues, and esta-
blished by the Apostles in the churches
generally, see ch. xiv. 23. They are in the
N. T. identical with émloxomor, see ch. xx.
17, 28; Titus i. 5,7; 1 Pet.v.1,2. So
Theodoret on Phil, i, 1, éxioxdaous tobs
mpeoButépovs Kader aupdtepa yap elxov
Kar’ exeivoy Tov Kkapdy'rd dvéuara, The
title érloxo7os, as applied to one person
superior to the mpeoBvrepor, and answering
to our ‘ bishop,’ appears to have been un-
known in the apostolic times. Respect-
ing the chronology of this journey to
Jerusalem, see note on ch. xii. 25, and the
table in the Prolegomena.
Crap, XII. 1—25.] PreRsEcuTION OF
aft kat ins o N': marked for erasure by X-corr’.
om mpos
ras x. bef np. o B. D.
THE CHURCH AT JERUSALEM BY HEROD
AGrirpA. MARTYRDOM OF JAMES THE
BROTHER OF JOHN. IMPRISONMENT AND
MIRACULOUS DELIVERANCE OF PETER.
DEATH OF HEROD ATCHSAREA. RETURN
oF BARNABAS AND SavUL FROM JERU-
SALEM TO ANTIOCH. 1. car’ é«. tT.
kaip.| Before the arrival of Barnabas and
Saul in Jerusalem. The famine in Judea
broke out under Cuspius Fadus, and con-
tinued under Tiberius Alexander, procu-
rators of Juda. Now Cuspius Fadus was
sent to Juda by Claudius on the death of
Agrippa (i.e. after Aug. 6, A.D. 44). The
visit of Barnabas and Saul must have taken
place about the time of, or shortly after,
Agrippa’s death. “Hpwdys 6 Bactdevs |
Herop Acripra L., grandson of Herod the
Great,—son of Aristobulus and Berenice
(Jos. Antt.xvii.1. 2; B.J.i,28.1). Having
gone to Rome, to accuse Herod the Te-
trarch (Antipas), and fallen under the dis-
pleasure of Tiberius for paying open court
to Caius Cesar (Caligula), he was impri-
soned and cruelly treated; but, on the
accession of Caligula, released, and at once
presented with the tetrarchy of Philip (Tra-
chonitis),—who had lately died,—and the
title of king. On this, Antipas, by persua-
sion of his wife Herodias, went to Rome,
to try to obtain the royal title also, but
was followed by his enemy Agrippa, who
managed to get Antipas banished to Spain,
and to obtain his tetrarchy (Galilee and
Pera) for himself, (Jos. Antt. xix. 8. 2.)
Finally, Claudius, in return for services
rendered to him by Agrippa, at the time of
Caligula’s death, presented him with Sa-
maria and Juda (about 41 A.D., Jos. Antt.
xix. 5. 1),so that he now ruled (Jos. ibid.)
all the kingdom of Herod the Great. His
character, as given by Josephus, Antt. xix.
7, 3, is important as illustrating the present
chapter: érepiner 5 56 Bacideds obros
7 > «
€kaoTroc autwy ABD
HLNab
13
E
XII. 1—4.
me *exkAnslac. 2
, , b ’
Iwavvou ° payatoy.
TIPAZEIS, AMOSTOAQN.
131
*avertev 8& “laxw3ov rov GdEA How * adrol> Matt
xviii. 37 al.
dJudg. xxi. 5.
3 , ‘ ,o c? , -
lowy oe OTL aptaTrov £ tor TOIG ach. v.33
reff,
, , ~
lovdatore, ° mpocéUero ‘ suAX ae Kal [er pov" Hoav Og Mat. xxvi.
« gt Ul ~ gh %Yys “a ‘ , i ff
[ai] NMED AL TWv alu. 4 OV Kal ; Tiagac : eVero ; at
xv. 9, ech. vi. 2 reff.
pe iv. 2. viii. 12. xviii. 20.
a(t. xxvi, 17) only ¢.
i Job i
n vii. 30 al7. ch. iii. 7. 2 Cor. xi. 32
aft exkA. add ev ty tovdaia D syr-w-ast.
2. om de 96 sah: Kat avetAevy D Syr wth: aveid. de ea ¢ 76. 1772.
so AB'D‘(?) & p.]
d pres., ch. xvi. 38 reff.
fch. i. reff.
h as above (g).
it. 30 al’. Rev. xix. 20 only.
k =ch. iv. 3. xiii. 28. Jer. xx xix. (xxxii.) 14. see ch. v. 18, 25. Gen. xli. lu.
47, &c. ch.
xvi. 27.
Rom viii 35
al. Exod.
e — Luke xix. 11. xx. 11, 12 only,
' g@ Mark xiv. iv. Loke xxii. 7. ch. xx. 6
Mark xiv. 1¢L. iCor.v.7,8only Levit. xxiii. 6.
Cant. ii. 15, Sir. xxiii, 21(not A) only,
[maxaipn,
‘38. rec Kat 13. (appy corrn to avoid recurrence of Se: or perhaps as agreeing better
with the continuation of the same line of conduct), with DHL rel vss Chr-txt: txt
ABEX p 138. 36 vulg coptt Chr-comm.
ETLXELIPNTELS aUTOU ETL ToVS TLoTOUs D.
om eotw &!.
ins tov bef cvAA. E.
aft covdaio1s ins 7
rec om at,
with B(Mai) HLN b! cl! o Chr, Ec: ins ADE p rel 36 Chr, Thl.
evepyeTicds elvat ev Swpeats, Kal ueyado-
gpovnca €Ovn giddtigmos, Kal odAors
GOpdws SaraVhuarw aviotas airdy eis ém-
paverav, Ndduevos TS xapiCecba, Kal TE
Bioty ev evpnula xaipwy... . (see ver. 3)
.... mpaus 5€ 6 tpdmos "Aypinma, kal mpds
mavras Td evepyeTixdy Guoiov. Hdeia your
avT@ Slarra kal ouvexts ev Tors “lepoooAu-
fos Hv, kal Ta waTpia Kabapas erhper. Sia
madons yoo abrby iyyev ayvelas, ovde Hucpa
als mapddevev avT@ TIS vouluns xnpevovca
@vcias. This character will abundantly
account for his persecuting the Christians,
who were so odious to the Jews, and for
his vain-glorious acceptance of the impious
homage of the people, ver. 23. éreB.
7. xetp.| A pregnant construction. In
full, it would be éwéB. ras xy. éwi riwas
TOV amd T. eKK., TOV KakK@oa a’Tovs. Some
expositors (Heinr., Kuin.), not seeing this,
have endeavoured to give to eréB. T. x.
the unexampled meaning, not justified by
Deut. xii. 7, xv. 10, of ‘took in hand,
‘attempted. he E. V. ‘ stretched forth
his hands’ (or, marg. ‘ began’) is equally
inadmissible. It should be, H. the K. laid
hands on certain of the church, to vex
them. tev amd) See reff., and com-
pare ch. vi. 9. 2. *IdxwBov | Of him
we know nothing besides what is related in
the Gospels. He was the son of Zebedee,
called (Matt. iv. 21) together with John
his brother : was one of the favoured Three
admitted to the death-chamber of Jairus’s
daughter (Mark v. 37), to the mount of
transfiguration (Matt. xvii. 1), and to the
agony in the garden (Matt. xxvi. 37). He,
together with John his brother (named by
our Lord ‘ Boanerges,’ ‘sons of thunder’),
wished to call down fire on the inhospitable
Samaritans (Luke ix.54),—and prayed that
his brother and himself might sit, one on
the right hand and the other on the left,
in the Lord’s kingdom (Matt. xx. 20 — 24).
It was then that He foretold to them their
drinking of the cup of suffering and being
baptized with the baptism which He was
baptized with: a prophecy which James
was the first to fulfil. This is the only
Apostle of whose death we have any cer-
tain record. With regard to all the rest,
tradition varies, more or less, as to the
place, or the manner, or the time of their
deaths. Eusebius, H. E. ii. 9, relates,
from the Hypotyposes of Clemens, who had
received it ex mapadécews T@v mpd abou,
that the accuser of James, struck by his
confession, became a Christian, and was led
away with him to martyrdom, ovvart xOn-
cay otv Eudw, dyol, kal kata Tiv ddd
Hilwoev apeOijva alte brd Tov “laxwBov.
6 d€ dAlyov cKxeduevos, elphyn cot, elre,
kal katepliAnoev aitéy. Kal olrws dupdre-
pot duod exaparounenoar. paxaipy |
Probably according to the Roman method
of beheading, which became common
among the later Jews. It was a punish-
ment accounted extremely disgraceful by
the Jews: see Lightf. in loc. 3.)
See the character of Agrippa above.
apos. ovAX.| A Hebraism: see reff.
ai yp. 7. af.] Wieseler (Chronol. der
Apost.- Zeit. pp. 215—220) regards the
whole of the following narrative as having
happened on one and the same day and
night, viz. that of the 14th of Nisan (April
1), ap. 44. He takes 7d wdoxa in the
strict meaning, ‘ the passover,’ i.e. the eat-
ing of the passover on the evening of the
14th of Nisan, and thinks that Herod was
intending to bring Peter forth on the next
morning. He finds support for this in the
four quaternions of soldiers, the guard for
one night (see below), and maintains that
the expression 7d do-xa cannot apply to the
whole festal period, which would have been
thy éoprhy, or Tavtas Tas Hucpas. But
Bleek (Beitriige zur Ev.-kritik, p. 144) calls
K 2
132
1 = Matt. v. 25.
xviii. 34.
Luke xii. 58.
see ch. xvi.
4.
m here only t.
tive Tay éy
Tos TETpA-
dias muda-
Kev, Philo in
Fiacc. § 13,
vol. ii. p. 633.
= Luke viii
20. ch. xxiii.
BS. xxviii. 16.
o Matt. xxvi.2,
&e.1.4 King)
xxiii, 22.
p — here (Luke
xxii. 66 v.r.) only. 2 Mace. vi. 10 F.
r Rom. xv. 30. 2 Chron. xxxiii. 18. see Luke vi. 12.
ayayew aurov TW daw.
Jonahiii.8. (-véotepow mpocenxeto, Luke xxii. 44 only. -reca, ch. xxvi.7. -vs, 1 Pet. iv. 8.)
v = Matt. vy. 44.
w = ch. (xvi. 30.) xvii. 5. xxv. 26+. 2 Macc. v.18. Jos. Antt. xvi. 11. 6, mpoayuyav (6
‘Hpwdns) eis ExxAnolay tprakogious THY NyELOvwy.
y = Luke xi. 61 8. xvi. 264. (ch. xv. 9 reff.)
2 Tim. i. 16.
ix. 7. xiii. 17. xxiii. 2. Eph. v. )2.
Bal.
vii. 3 reff.) Prov. iv. 16. J I
8, &e. J. ch. xxi. 33. xxviii. 20. Eph. vi. 20.
Xxviii. 22 Aq. Symm. Theod. see LXX ib.
4. for ov kat, Tovroy D copt.
vulg E-lat. om tesoapow H.
Ae.
TIPAZEIS AMOZSTOAQN.
- , , r . ‘ 0) ‘ KY € ‘ , -
tie éxkxAnstac ‘ mpoc tov Osov ** umep aurev.
” w - 5] 4 i ‘H wo = ‘23 /
nucdAev Tooayayelv auTov O owonc, TH VUKTL EKELYY)
Ws: e U x , y cs Si - 8 8
Hv oO Ilerpoc KOLMWHEVOE ~ METASU vo OTPATLWTWY EGc=
, gty? U a2 , s = Ov Grea4
MEVOC aXvoeow duo, purakéc TE TPO THC Vuoac “ETHOOUY
q = Matt. xxvii. 36. ch, xvi. 23. xxv. 4,21. Proy. xix. 16.
ev pvdaky E-gr.
om 1st avtoy D vulg(not am). Q
XII.
, ] ‘ r m Su ”
puAdakny, Tapaoove TEToApoW TETPACLOLC OTPATIWTWY
n , > eee 4 , ‘ s Oo , p2
puAacoey avuTov, ovAOpEvoc Meta TO TATK ave
e \ i , , ~ ,
5 O (1s OUV [lerooc 4 ETNOELTO €v
a a ’ = , eh
™ puAaky " rpocevyn be * ny ‘ exrevac yivonern “ vTa
6 Gre de
t 1 Pet. i. 22 only.
u Luke
mept, Col.i. 9. Luke vi. 28. xxii.32. Col. i.
s constr, ch. ii. 5 reff.
x = Matt. xxviii. 13. Luke xxii 45. (1 Cor.
° zhere bis. Mark v.
Rey. xx. lonlyt. Wisd. xvii. 17 only. Exod,
ach. v. 23. ver. only. Cant. v. 7.
mapadidous A, tradens
ayayew
5. rec exrevns, with A°7EHL p rel 36 Chr Sev-c @e Thi: txt A'(appy) BX 13. 40
vulg
ap. T. 0. mept avt.(sic) D (om 1st wept avtov D-corr).
E-lat Lucif Cassiod.—zoAA7n Se mposevxn ny Ev EKTEVELA TEpL aUTOV amo THS EKKA.
om 7p. Tov Geoy B.
* reol A-corr BDN 0 p 13. 40 (probably a corrn, see ch viii. 15: the two are indif-
ferently used in this connexion, see Lexx and reff: but wept is the more usual) : vmep
(A! ?)EHL rel 36 Chr Seyv-c.
6. [mucda., so BELXN 1 p 13.]
mposayeww No: txt Aap 36, mposayayew B13.
(Ee Thl: txt ABDEN ah k o p 13. 36 Chr.
for te, 5e D E-lat copt:
D! : txt D®.
this view most arbitrary and even un-
natural; and I own, with all respect for
Wieseler’s general acumen, I am disposed
to agree with this criticism. The whole
cast of the narrative,—the jay at juépat,
not jv H juépa Tay a¢., Luke’s own expres-
sion in his Gospel, xxii. 7,—the intimation
of enduring custody in the mapasovs .. .
pvAdooew ait.,—the delay implied in the
BovAduevos,—in the imperfects érnpetro,—
jv ywouern (not éyevero),—the specifica-
tion of tH vuKTl ekeivn as presupposing
(notwithstanding what Wieseler says to the
contrary) more nights preceding, — all this
would be unaccountable in the precise his-
torical diction of Luke, unless he had in-
tended to convey an impression that some
days elapsed. But still more decisive is
his own definition of mdéoya, Luke xxii. 1,
H foptH Tav alipwv, 7 Acyopevn Tacya.
So that wera 7d rao xa may well = pera thy
éoptiy tay aCiuwy. The argument from
the four quaternions of soldiers proves no-
thing: the same sixteen (see below) may
have had him in permanent charge, that
number being appointed as adequate to the
duties required. 4. tésoapow TeTpa-
Sio1s} In military arrangements, Herod
seems to have retained the Roman habits,
according to which the night was divided
rec mpoaryey (corrn), with DEHL rel Chr:
rec avt. bef mpo., with HL rel
om Ist o D lect-12. KOLMOUMEVOS
om e 133. mpos Tn Oupa A.
into four watches, and each committed to
four soldiers (S:ddaor puddKera Sto 7d SE
puddkedy eat ex Tecoapwy avdpav, Polyb.
vi. 33.7), to two of whom the prisoner was
chained, the other two keeping watch be-
fore the doors of the prison, forming the
Jirst and second guards of ver.10. It is
plain that this number being mentioned is
no sign that the custody was only for one
night. pet. TO Tacxa] (see above)
after the days of the feast, i.e. after the
21st of Nisan. Herod, who (ver. 1, note)
observed rigorously the Jewish customs,
would not execute a prisoner during the
feast: ‘Non judicant die festo’ (Moed
Katon v. 2, Meyer). avay. avT. T.
adj See ref.: to bring him out and sen-
tence him in sight of the people.
5.] On the duration implied by this
verse, see above. 6. ékeivy | em-
phatic: that very night, viz. which pre-
ceded the day of trial. The practice
of attaching a prisoner to one keeper
or more by a chain is alluded to by seve-
ral ancient authors: e. g. Seneca, de
Tranquill. 10, ‘ Eadem custodia universos
circumdedit, alligatique sunt etiam qui
alligaverunt, nisi tu forte leviorem in
sinistra catenam putas:’ and Kpist.
5: *Quemadmodum eadem catena et
ABDE
HLN ab
edfgh
klop
13
5—10.
TIPAZEIS ANOSTOAQN.
133
‘ , bee ind ‘ ”
THY purdakny. 7 Kat tdod ayyeXog Kupiov ° eréotn, Kal? age i)
>
Ce dw 2 a ,
poc “tXanpev ev tw © otkhuate’
€ reff.
f , = sc Matt. v.16.
TaTracac —€ Tyhv
‘ 2 Cor, iv..4
«Aeyov g N - , h» ; only. (Prov.
wad. 7Aevpav tov Tlérpov ” ipyeioev abrov Aéywv |’ Avaora ¥-'8) se,
ABDE j? , \ kove 5 = . : , ae vi. 13.
Hixab &¥ Taye. Kal “elémtoav avrov at *aXvaec tk Tov Mary is
efghk ~ Sys 2 © » . wat j 2 xvii. 2. Luke
XElowr. elmév TE 0 ayyeAog mo0c avtov | Zwaar Kai *2k |
\ only.
KQL ¢ here only t.
— Wisd. xiii.
m £ 4 A on ’ , ’
UTooncat Ta caveanta oOouU. ETOInaEY Oe ouTwe.
, ,’ ~ ~
Aéyet autw ° Meo Baro TO (uatiov cov Kal axoAovle 15. | Thacyd.
9 Vee: ‘ ’ ; +
pot. kat e€eA0av nxorovbe, Kat ovK nose Ore adnBic Sa >"
p2 f — here only.
(see ver. 23.)
= nvaro,
3 Kings xix.
a an
g& John xix. 34.
Xx. Qi, 25,
27 only.
x la ~ ,
EGTLV TO YyWWOMEVOY 4 Ota TOU ayyéAov, cooker Oe ' Opana
BAe.
/ s tM ‘ , ~
tépav 7A0ay ext ri mvANY THY ° o.onoay Thy * pépoveav
10S SeAOdvrec Ok TowTny ‘puAakny Kat Sevu-
a ‘ if wel x ? , > ‘ > = 1? u it
etc THY TOA, “ Hric * avromaty nvotyn avroic’ Kat e&eA- Bhs Kings
, - ii. 1
apy z te ’ \ fn ay td oF e ii. 16 vat.
Oovrec moondbov Puen Miayv, Kal evliwe aA7TEOTYH O h= Mark iv.
27. Luke
viii. 24al. Gen. xli. 4. ich. ix. 6 reff. j Rom. xvi. 20 reff. k ch. xxvii.
32. Jamesi. ll al. Isa. xxviii. 1, 4. | John xxi. 18 bisonly. Neh. iv. 18. m Mark
vi. 9. Eph. vi. 15 only, 2 Coron. xxviii. 15. Ezek. xvi. 10 only. n Mark vi. 6 only. Isa.
pe NE Judith x. 4. xvi. ¥ only. o Acts, here ony. Luke xii. 27 §) Rev. iii. 5 al. Esth. v. 1.
Ezek. Svili. 7, 16. p pres., ch. xvi. 38 reff. Q ch. ii. 45. iv. Wi al. reb. vii,
31 rett. sconstr, ch. xiit. 6 rett. t= here only. Xen. Cyr.i 6. 43. u Rev,
ii. 27. ix 9. xii. 5. xix. 15 only. Deut. iii 1.
xi, 28 al. fr. x Mark iv. 28 oaly. Lev. xxv. 5, 11.
= Jos. B.J. vi. 5.3, 9 7HAn .. . On adrouatws wewyuewn.
Cyr. ii. 4.18. (Matt. xxvi. 39 J. Gen. xxxiii. 14.) 2 z ch. ix. 11 refi.
reff. 1 Kings xvi. 14.
v =hereonly. Xen. Cyr.v. 4 41. w ch,
4 Kings xix. 29. Wisd. xvii 6 only.
y constr., here only. Xen.
a=ch. xv, 38
eweAauvev, omg ev follg, D.
7. aft eeorn ins tw retpw D syr-w-ast sah wth.
[eterecav, so ABDEN p.]
for matatas, vutas D Syr, compungens Lucit.
aft xe1p. ins avtov D-gr vulg Syr sah arm.
8. for Te, 5¢ (alteration, as often, to more usual copula, but te is characteristic
of the Acts) BDEH ac 36 sah Thl-sif: txt ALN p 13 rel Syr eth Chr (ec Thil-fin.
mp. aut. bef o ay. L b. rec wepi(woa (alteration for more precision, and
perhaps, as Meyer, to agree better with vrobnoa, also a compound), with EHL rel (Ee
Thi: txt ABDN a p 13. 36 sah(add rv orpuy cov) Bas Chr-comm,. umoducat
B}(Mai).
9. rec aft nKoA. ins avtw (supplementary, to corresp to wot above), with EHLN® rel
am Chr: txt ABDN! p 13. 40 tol arm. yevou. L. b ce p 180. for d:a, vro (corrn,
not observing the peculiar force of d1a here, said of the secondary agent. This is much
more probable than the converse. Both exprr are used by Luke: cf for dia, reff: for
umo, Luke ix. 7; xiii. 17; xxiii. 8. But this latter he uses always of our Lord, the
prime Agent in the miracle. See also Eph v. 12) AH e | syr-marg Chr, Thl-fin: apa
ec: txt BDELN 13. 36 rel vss Chr, He Thl-sif. for de, yap D 3. 15. 18. 36. 95.
180 tol Syr sah arm: om N!.
10. «. deur. bef gua. D vulg Lucif. [mAéay, so ABN 13. ] om Tn
gep. ers tr. w. Li Syr: em p 13. 96. 142. rec nvox9n, with EHL Chr: txt
ABDN p 13. 36. (nvvyn B'DN: nvorye 13.) aft «fA. ins kateBnoay Tous ¢
Ba@uous ka D. mposndd. D 25. 95! Ge: mss of Chr Thl-sif vary.
amnAdey A.
not, kept the watch (Raphel, Wolf, al.),—
but guarded the prison. 7.| olxyjpare,
the chamber. It is in St. Luke’s manner
to relate simultaneously the angelic ap-
pearance and the shining of a light around :
ef. Luke ii. 9; xxiv. 4; ch. x. 30. The
light accompanied, or perhapg, as suggested
here in syr-marg, shone from, the angel.
9.) é&eXOadyv, viz. from the of«nua.
10.) The first and second watch or
guard cannot mean the two soldiers to
whom he was chained, on account of
militem et custodiam copulat.’ “In the
account of the imprisonment of Herod
Agrippa himself by Tiberius, Jos. Antt.
xviii. 6. 7, we read of the cuvdedeuevos
ai’t@ otpatiérns. And we have an edict
of Constantius, commanding, for binding
prisoners, ‘ prolixiores catenas, si criminis
qualitas etiam catenarum acerbitatem pos-
tulaverit, ut et cruciatio desit, et perma-
neat sub fida custodia.’ (Wieseler, p. 414.)
See note on ch. xxiv. 23; see also ch.
xxviii. 16, 20. érypouy Thy ova. |
134 IIPAZEIS AMOXTOAQN. XIT.
’ ] ~ VC b? e Sb ,
ee ayyeAoc az avrov. 1! Kato Tlérooc ev cauTw > -yevomevocg ABDE
eke os sass Yaa, ee a Ca ae hee -
Anab.i. €LTPEV Nov oda Sarnbwc ore “ Earéotet\ev KUoLOg TOV ee
17. se - \ , ' , , f ‘ « s \
es domi ayyehov avrou Kat © e&stAaro we EK * XELPOC Howdov xat
Paice sina s a fs ‘ -~ ~ ~ p) as 12 »
Xxzii 16. TaGHE THC © MpocdoKiag TOV Aaov TwY lovéatwy. ouv-
dch. vii. 12
ff.
reff.
ech. vii. 10
2val. Mic. ™ p t ee OLED
svrnUpotopevol KaL TOOCEVYOMEVOL.
iv. 10.
g Luke xxi. 26
only. Gen.
x1ix. 10.
h = ch. xiv. 6
(v. 2. 1 Cor.
lv. 4) only t.
(Levit. v. 1.)
1 Mace. iv.
21 al.
i= Matt. xxi.
19. Luke
xxiv. lal.
Gen. xxii. 9.
k ch. i. 23 reff.
Ich. xiv. 2).
xix. 19 al.
rov ‘muAwvoc. }
1 Mace. xiii. 49.
Luke xi. 9, 10. xii. 36 only.
ver. 16. Matt. vil. 7, 8. i
s = Matt. xxvi. 69 al.
Lev. xxi. 21.
uhereonly. 1 Kings xxvi. 17.
only t. 2 Maer, v. 26 only.
Vii. 1 refi. b = Matt. xviii. 10.
, - ‘ ° AY -7 q
auTouv THY voayv TOU
~ I we ‘DH’ is Ne - Sn ‘
‘ Urakovoal, OvomaTe Poén 14 kat emiyvouoa THY = pwyny
é e aw
; Suc yupiZero “outwe “ Eye.
mch. xix. 25only. Dent. i. 41.
o and constr., Luke xiii. 25 (Rev. iii. 20). Judg. xix. 22 F (Cant. v. 2). Jndith xiv. 14 only.
Gen. xx. 17.
v = Matt. xili 44. xviii. 7.
x consir., here only (ch. xxvi. 2U).
1 Cor. xiv. 23 only. Jer. xxxvi. (xxix.) 26. Wisd. xiv. 28 only.
Ss hes \ ‘ ? , - , ~ ‘
sw te WAVey ‘et THY otkiay tHe Magiac tne pnreoc
~ kk? , 7 O64 ’
"Twavvou tov “eatkadovpévoyv Mapkov, ov noav
‘
iKavol
, \
13 op Ko00vGaVTOC O&
muAwvoec * moocnAber * Talakn
~- / yi Deo S - ag 9 ¢ ‘ gq Niue
TOU Ilerooy amo TNC Yapacg ovK Hvoltev TOV “ TVAWYA,
” etcd voa o& “amy Nev * ora ov Tle ;
ercOoamovea o& — amnyyetAey — EoTavat TO) ETOOV TOO
5 of O& po avuTHy Et ¥ Mai nN OF
poc autyy Elmay aivy. 1
e \ of e b » ,
ot 0& EAeyov O ° ayyedoc
n absol., ch. x. 9 reff.
p as above (0).
reonstr., ch. vii. Sl al.
t= hereonly. Xen. Symp. i. 11.
2 Chron. y. 6 w here
y John x. 20. ch, xxvi. 24, 25.
z Luke xxii. 5Y only t. ach,
qch. x. 17 reff.
Johr xxi. 6 al.
11. rec yevop. bef ev eavtw, with EHL rel Chr: txt ABDN a ec p 18 vulg Lucif.—
avtw B.
o 9eos a 27. 29. 36. 105. 163.
bef raons E 73 vulg Lucif.
ott bef aAndws DE eth Chr Lucif.
[efecAaro, so ABDEHN p 13. 36. |
om Tov Aaov A Syr.
ins o bef xvptos B c 180:
ins ek
12. suv. 8e Aak o p 13. 36 (Syr?) coptt: om te 591: ka ovvy. D: txt BEHLN rel
vss Chr.
ABDN p. (13 def.)
rec om Ist tns (as unnecessary ?), with EHL rel 36(sic) Chr: ins
13. rec for avtov, tov metpov (explanatory, ovvidev beginning an ecclesiastical
portion), with EHL rel 36 syr Chr: txt ABDX p 13 vulg Syr coptt arm Thl-fin.
muAwvos is written by D§(?), the former reading which occupied more space having
been obliterated : foris D-lat.
txt &-corr!. ov. pod. bef vax. D.
14. aft nvoitey ins avrw Ec Syr syr-w-ast.
om 2nd tov D!: ins D?.
ins kat bef ersdp. Se D)(and lat).
mpondée B2(Mai) & 3.
umakovovoa X!:
for Tov muAwva, Thy Cuvpay EK.
15. o(sic) de €[ Ae }yor avtn D!: ot Se pos avtny (without ei.) D3.—ern. bef mp. avr.
13. Lemay, so ABN. |
éfeAOdv above: but are probably the other
two, one at the door of the chamber, the
other at the outer door of the building.
Then ‘the iron gate leading into the city’
was that outside the prison buildings,
forming the exit from the premises. The
situation of the prison is uncertain, but
seems to have been iz the city. The addi-
tional clause in D (see var. readd.) is
remarkable, and can hardly be other than
genuine. ll.] év éavt@ y., as KE. V.
coming to himself: having reeovered his
self-consciousness. He was before in the
half-consciousness of one who is dreaming
and knows that it is a dream: except that
in his case thasdream was the truth, and his
supposition the unreality. 12. cuv-
dev] Not, considerans (as Vulg., Beza,
Grot.): nor, ‘ being aware of the place of
meeting, with reference to what fellows
(Meyer), against which the aorist is de-
for eAeyov, ecmav B lect-12.
add aft eAeyov
cisive, importing some single act and not a
state: but, as reff., referring to what wené
before (cida a@An@as x.7.r.), having be-
come aware of it. *Iwavvov| It is
uncertain whether this John Mark was the
same as the Evangelist Mark: but they
have been generally believed to be the same.
Yor a full account of him, see Prolegomena
to Mark (Vol. I. § i.). His mother Mary
was not’sister, but aunt of Barnabas: see
Col. iv. 10, note. 15. dyyedds éov.
avrov | No other rendering but his angel
will suit the sense: and with a few excep-
tions (Camero, Basnage, Hammond, and one
or two more) all Commentators, ancient and
modern, have recognized this meaning.
Our Lord plainly asserts the doctrine of
guardian angels in ref. Matt. (see note
there) : and from this we further learn in
what sense His words were understood by
the early church. From His words taken
11—19.
> a a 16°
EOTIVY aUTOU. 0)
> ~ = ‘oh = i , > Ce | ~
auTol¢ TH YEO " OLYyaY, dmynsaro avtoic | THC O KUpLoc
> a - aes k ’ -~ 1 ~ a >
auTov eqnyayev eK TNC purakne. ELTEV TE AmayyetAare aos
? ?, \ ~ > ~ ~ a ‘ ,
lake py Kal Towg adeAGotg Tata. Kal™ e&eAO@v ExopevOn
ay. n ¢ ¢
él¢" ETEPOV TOTOY. Woe Levouévne o& ° nNuépac ny © TapaXoc
q | aN r? - , g oP oF € ay
ovk ‘oAtyo¢ “ev roig otpatwratc * rt apa o I[léreog * rei
Serie. J,
EVEvETO.
u? ’ , , a
avakolvac tovc * pvAakac EkéXevoev “ amay Onvat’ Kal
x AGG > X _- > 8 , , , y ,
kateAfwy amo tne ‘Lovdaiag ere Katoaoeay duéerorPev,
“JIPAZEIS AILOSTOAQN.
\ /
6 [lérpog ° eméuevev “ kootwv*
Wem s aN Vf 27
Eavrec O& eloay avroy Kal' e&éatyoav.
19 Howdne oe‘ Emiytnoac avToy Kal py evowr,
135
e avot c[constr , John
evils 73)
ate day
émiuever,
Philo de
Agricult. §
15, vol. i. p.
,
17 ® Karaceioac Oe
ver. 13
€ absol., Matt.
xXv. 11.
Luke xiii. 25.
ch. v. 23 al.
Isa. xxii. 22
= 2Cor. v. 13
ro g w. dat., ch.
diii. 16. xxi.
40 only.
Jos. Antt,
viii. 11. 2.
W. acc., chi.
xix. 33 Tf.
(1 Mace. vi.
38 only.) __h Luke ix. 36. xviii. 39. xx. 26. ch. xv. 12,13. Rom. xvi. 25. 1 Cor. xiv. 28. 30,
S4donly. L.P. Eccl. iil.7. Sir. xiii, 23. ich. ix. 27 reff. k ch. vii. 40, xiii. 17. Heb.
vili. 9. Exod. xx. 2. 1 = ver. 5 al. m absol., vv. #, 10. ch. xvi. 36. Exod. xvi. 4.
n=ch. xvii 7 reff. o = Luke iv. 42. vi. 13. eh. xvi 30 al. Le peh. xix.23 only. 1 Kings
v 9. Wisd. xiv.25 Fonly. (-x) Mark xiti. 8.) q ch. xiv. 28al6. Acts only. Isa.x. 7.
r= Mark vi. 4 al. shere only. see John xxi. 21. Luke i. 66. t Luke iv 42. 1 Kings
re ane uch. iv. §) reff.
Matt. xxvii. 31 ||.
mpos avtnv tuxov D Syr. om 6 XR}.
rel Orig: txt ABN’.
16. om zertp. D.
17. karacioaytos Se avtov ory. A.
kat bef Suny. D Syr syr-w-ast.
vulg arm: ins BDEHL rel 36 Chr.
p 138. 40. 73.
txt ABEN p vulg Syr sah eth.
v ver. 6.
Ep. Jer. 18. constr., ch. xxi. 33.
Acts outy, exc. John iii, 22. Jer. xii. (xx XV.) 7.
efavoik. de Kat wovTes aut. Ka ef. D?.
for siyav, wa cevrya.. ow D!,
om 2nd avras AN a p 18. 33. 69. 100. 105 lect-12
w = absol., here only. (see Gen. xlir 16.)
x ch. viii. 5 reff. y ch. xv. 35 ais,
rec avtov bef eot., with DEHLN? 13
[eday, so AB. |
ins exsnAGev
avtov bef o kup. A: efnyaryev bef avrov
rec for Te, de (see above, ver 3), with DHL rel 36 syr copt Chr :
18. om ov« odcy. D 76 Lucif : peyas 15. 18. 36. 180 Syr sah arm Cassiod.
19. for de, re A a eth.
amoxtavénvat D'-gr Syr copt: txt D-corr!?.
rec
ins tnv bef kao. (insertion to answer to tys 10vd.), with HL rel Chr @e Thi: om
ABDEX a ep 13. 40. dierpupev A.
with the context (uh Kkatappovhonte évos
TOY iKpav ToUTwY) We infer that each one
has his guardian angel: from this pas-
sage we find not only that such was be-
lieved to be the case, but that it was suppo-
sed that such angel occasionally appeared
in the semblance (seeing that he spoke
with the voice) of the person himself. We
do not, it is true, know who the speakers
were: nor is the peculiar form in which
they viewed the doctrine binding upon us :
it may have been erroneous, and savouring
of superstition. But of the doctrine itself
this may not be said, as the Lord Himself
has asserted it. See Dr. Wordsw.’s in-
teresting note here. For what pur-
pose they supposed this angel to have
come, does not appear in the narrative.
17. xataceioas | see reff. His mo-
tive was haste: he tells briefly the par-
ticulars of his deliverance, and, while it
was yet night, hastily departs.
"laxoBo] James, the brother of the Lord,
whom we find presiding over the church
at Jerusalem, ch. xv. 18; xxi. 18; Gal. ii.
12. See Gal. i. 19; ii. 9. He appears
also to be mentioned in 1 Cor. xv.7. I
believe him to have been one of those
adeApol Tod Kupiov mentioned Matt. xiii.
55; John vii. 5; ch. i.14; 1 Cor. ix. 5, of
whom I have in the note on the first of
these passages maintained, that they were
His real maternal brethren, sons of Joseph
and Mary :—to have been an Apostle, as
Paul and Barnabas, but not of the number
of the twelve (see note on ch. xiv. 4) :—
and to have been therefore of course dis-
tinct from James the son of Alpheus,
enumerated (Matt. x. 3 ||) among the
twelve. The reasons for this belief I re-
serve for the Prolegomena to the Epistle
of James. eis Erepov térov]} I see
in these words a minute mark of truth in
our narrative. Under the circumstances,
the place of Peter’s retreat would very
naturally at the time be kept secret. It
probably was unknown to the person from
whom the narrative came, or designedly left
indefinite. And so it has remained, the
narrative not following Peter’s history any
longer. We find him again at Jerusalem
in ch. xv. Whether he left it or not on
this occasionisuncertain. It is not asserted
in éfeA0év,—which only implies that he
left the house. 18. yevonevns hpépas |
Wieseler argues from this, and 1 think
136
z here only ft.
Polyb. ix. 40.
4. mexpe THs
20 7
éoxartns
davaTvons dis
Guuona- eT
XovvTeEs,
Diod. Sic.
xvii. 33 end.
ach. i 14 reff.
b 2 Cor. xi. 8.
Gal. iv. 18,
20 only.
c = Matt.
Xxvili. 14. Gal.i. 10.
f = ch. xvi. 24 reff.
bis. John iv. 46, 49.
Matt. vi. 25 al.
9 re WG Cae
21K raxry O& nuéoa O
2 Macc. iv. 45.
Gen. Xx xviii. 19.
Xiii. 26.
Jos, Antt. ix. 13.1.
20. for de, yap D wth.
IIPAZEIS AMOSTOAQN.
g = Matt. vi. 26 al. 3 Kings xviii. 13.
James ii. 8 only. Num, xx. 17.
m ch, x. 30 reff.
xxvii. 19 | J. ch. (vii. 5.) xviii. 12, 16, 17. xxv. 6, 10, 17.
XII.
~ \ ’ z JaoS j ste
Oe ” Qupopay wv Tuptowc Kat VSwviore’ * onoOvuadov
~ , \ ¢ A
be? Taonoav ” 1o0¢ avtov, Kat ° weloavtec BXaorov tov
~ ~ ~ , ~ , , A
rov °kott@voe tov BactAéwe ‘roto elpnvnv, oa
‘ zg / 0 > ~ ‘ 7 he. ‘ - j " -
70 ® tpépecOar avrwy THY Xwpav ~ amo TNC BaotAtKkne,
pwene: Evoucapevoc " eaOnta * Ba-
\ > \ - , In s ‘
otAukny Kat" Kabloag ext TOU ° Bnuartoc ? eOnunyoos Tpuc
dch, viii. 27 reff. ehere only. Exod. viii. 3.
h = Jude 23 al. i here
k hereonly. Job xii, 5 only. leconstr.,
nconstr., ch. xxv. 6 reh. o = Matt.
Rom. xiv. 10. 2 Cor. v. luonly. Neh. viii. 4. 2 Mace.
p here only. Prov. xxx. (see xxiv.) 31. (Neh. viii. 4 [6] Ald.) only. €Snunyopec ev avrors,
rec aft 5 ins o npwdns (as being the commencement of a
new history,—that of the death of Herod), with HU rel 36 syr Chr, npw5ns Eab'ko
Thl-sif: om ABDN p 13. 40 vulg Syr coptt 2th Euthal Lucif.
ef aupoTtepwy Twy TOAEWY TapnTay mpos TOV Baotrea..
om D-lat. ntnoavTo A sah.
Thy modAw EH 13. 33. 34: civitates E-lat.
21. om o Ba. om kat BR p 40.
rightly, that the deliverance of Peter must
have taken place in the /as¢ watch of the
night (3—6 a.m. in April), for otherwise
his escape would have been perceived before
the break of day, viz. at the next change
of the watch. TL.... €yeveto| So
Theocr. Id. xiv. 51, adicta Topyot, ri
yevolucba. ; 19. kar. ... eis Kano. |
These words are to be taken together, and
exe? or év K. to be supplied with d:erpiBev.
Kuin. takes es K. as = ev K. with d:érp.,
and k«ateA@eéy alone, which is not so
natural on account of the position of the
words. 20. Ovpopaxav| It is im-
possible that Herod should have been at
war with the Tyrians and Sidonians, be-
longing as they did to a Roman province,
and he himself being in high favour at
Rome :—nor is this implied in our text.
The quarrel, however it originated, appears
to have been carried out on Herod’s part
by some commercial regulation opposed to
their interest, dependent as they were on
supplies from his territory. jv @up. is
therefore best rendered as in EK. V., was
highly displeased. 6p. wapyo. viz. by
a deputation. Blastus is a Roman name
(Wetst. from an inscription), and, from
Herod’s frequent visits to Rome, it is likely
that he would have Romans as his con-
fidential servants. Blastus was his eubicu-
larius, or prefectus cubiculo (Suet. Dom.
16): see ch. viii. 27. eipyvyv | not
(see above) peace, in its strict sense, but
reconciliation. Sia Td TeéhecOar |
We learn from 1 Kings y. 11 that Solomon
made presents of wheat and oil to Hiram
in return for the cedar and fir-trees for the
Lord’s house: and from Ezek. xxvii. 17,
that Judah and Israel exported wheat,
honey, oil, and balm (or resin) to Tyre. In
D reads o1 S€ ood.
for rov Bac., avrov Do:
Tas xwpas avtwy D vulg Lucif': avrovs a: aut.
for amo, ex D 40. 105.
Ezra iii. 7 also, we find Zerubbabel giving
meat, drink, and oil to them of Sidon and
Tyre, to bring cedar-trees to Joppa. Mr.
Humphry quotes from Bede, ‘ Tyrii neces-
sariam habebant vicini regis amicitiam, eo
quod eorum regio valde angusta et Galilee
Damascique pressa finibus esset.’ An
additional reason for their request at this
particular time may have been, the preva-
lence of famine. 21.] The account in
Josephus is remarkably illustrative of the
sacred text: tpitoy 5€ ros avT@ Bact-
Actvovtt THS BANS lovdaias meTATNpwTO, Kal
mapyy eis méAw Kaodpeay .... cvvereret
5¢ evrad0a Oewpias eis THY Kaloapos Tinh,
iwép Tis ekelvov swtnpias éopThy Tiva
TavTny emotduevos (probably the ‘ quin-
quennalia,’ B. J. i. 21. 8. Wieseler, p.
133). Kal map’ abtiy 7Opoiocto Tay Kata
Thy éemapxlay ev TéAE Kal mpoBeBnKdTwv
eis Gélay mAO0s. Sevtépa 5& Tav Oewpiay
heepa oTodhy evdvoduevos e& apyvpou
memoinuevny Tacav, ws Oavudoioyv vpryy
elvat, mapjrAdev cis TL Oéatpoy apxouevns
juépas. 0a tais mpwétais Tov HAaKoY
axtivev émiBodais 6 &pyupos Katavyacbels
Oavuaciws améaTiABe, mapualpwy Tt poBepdy
Kal Tots eis avTdy areviCovor ppiKk@des.
evOvs de of KdAaKeEs Tas OVSE Exelvm mpds
ayabod Aros UAAOVEY hwvas aveBdwy Bedv
mposaryopevovtes, Eduevhs Te eins, émidé-
ryoutes, ci Kal méxpt viv ws tvOpwror époBn-
Onuev, GAAG TobyTEvOEy KpElTTOVa TE OvnTIS
pvocws Suodoyodmev. ovK emémAnte TOUTALS
6 Bactrebs ovdE THY KoAaKelay aceBotoav
ametpivato. avarvwas 8 ovv met OAtyov
Tov BovBaya Tis EavTOv KEepadijs bmepKabe-
Chuevoy eldev emt oxowlov Twds* &yyedov
d€ TovTov evOds evdnoev KaKay elval,....
kal Siardpdiov eoxev odvynv. (This owl,
Eusebius, H. E. ii. 10, professing to quote
ABDE
HLN ab
efghk
lop1l3
20—25.
IIPAZ EIS AMOSTOAQN.
137
’ , 99 € \ a 6 res hs
auTouc. 0 b& TSnpog "érepwver Ocod pwr7 Kal OUK a Acts only.
> , O32 - Nit Pale y , ch. xvii. 5.
av0ow7ou. Taoaxpyua oe * emaratev autov ayyéXOC Num. i'20
al. fr.
te , We? \ ea 2 ae Fy o ‘ , ~ - \
KUPLOU av? wy ovuk EOWKEV TYyV * OdEav TW Bew, KQL © Luke xxiii,
, >
YEVOMEVOG ¥ oKWANKOPoWwTOC * Eedvéev.
- 4) ~ y ” \ y , ,
rou Oeov * nugavev Kat > exAnQovero.
s ch. iii. 7 reff.
3. xix. 41.
iv. 20.
Mark ix. 44, &c. (from Isa. lxvi. 24) only.
t = Rev. xi. 6
2 Thess. ii. 10 only. L.P.
xix. 15.
Gen. viii. 21.
Deut. viii 20.
Rev. iv. 9. xi. 13. xiv. 7. xvi. 4. xix. 7 only.
21. ch. xxi.
34. xxii.
24 onlyt.
2 Macc. i. 23.
Esdr. ix. 47
only.
a Luke i. 20, xii.
John ix. 24. Rom.
w here onlyt. oxwAdné,
y ch. vi. 7 (reff).
») e ,
24 5 88 Y Aoyoc
D5
a BapvaBac o& Kal
2 Mace. ix. 5.
v = Luke xvii. 18.
Josh. vil. 19.
xch. v. 5 reff.
22. at beg, ins katadAayevtos de avrov Tas Tupios D: reconciliatus est tis autem
syr-w-ast.
Lucif: txt D®. avOpwrov X!.
23. aut. bef erat. D c 180 Thl-fin.
DEHL rel: ins ABN dhk p 13. 36.
gwvn bef Peov Hu bef glo vss: pwvn Kupiov c: pwrar D! vulg Syr
om tyv (alteration to more usual expr)
kat KataBas aro Tov Bnuaros yevou.
KwAnroBpwros(sic D!: oxwa. D®) ets (wy kat ovtws efeputev D.
24. for Oeov, kvpiov B vulg.
Josephus, makes into an angel. Having
prefaced his quotation, adrots ypdymaow
dé Tws TH Oaipa Sinyetra, he cites thus:
. 2. dvakt pas 5 pet’ GALyor, THs EavTOU
Kepadrs omepxabelducvoy eldev Byyedov.
rovrov «vous evénoe Kak@v eivat alt.ov
k.t.A. On the impossibility of acquitting
the ecclesiastical historian of the charge
of wilful fraud, see Heinichen’s second
Excursus in his edition of Eusebius. It
may be a caution to us as to how much
we may believe of his quotations of authors
which do not remain to us.) &Opdov Se
adT@ Tis KoiAlas mposepucey GAynwa meTa
apodpdrntos apiduevoy. avabewpav ouv
mpds Tovs plrous ‘O Beds byiv eye, onoty,
Hdn Kataotpépew emitdtroua tov ior,
mapaxphua THs eluapuevns Tas &ptt pov
katepevonevas pwvas eAeyxovons’ Kal 6
KAnbels abdvaros bp tev dn Oavesv
andyoua... . . ouvexas de ep” tuepas
mevTe TH THS YaoTpos aryhuate diepyao-
Oels Tov Blov Katéatpewer. Ant. xix. 8. 2.
The circumstance related in our
text, of the answer to the Sidonian em-
bassy, of which Josephus seems not to
have been aware, having been one object of
Herod on the occasion, shews an accuracy
of detail which well accords with the view
of the material of this part of the Acts
having been collected at Czesarea, where
the event happened (see Prolegg. to Acts,
§ ii. 11). 23.| The fact may be cor-
rectly related by Josephus (see above):
but our narrative alleges the cause of
what happened to have been the dis-
pleasure of God, and the stroke to have
been inflicted by His angel. Compare 2
Kings xix. 35; 1 Chron. xxi. 15,16. But
no appearance of an angel is implied : nor
was I aware that such had ever been in-
ferred ; but I see in Valesius’s note on
Euseb. ii. 10, “ Quasi vero non utrumque
fieri potuerit, ut et bubo supra caput
-appareret.”
nutavero A: evtave D!: txt D®.
Agrippe, et ex alia parte angelus eidem
aokwdykdBpwtos| An-
other additional particular: and one to be
expected from a physician. In several
cases of deaths by divine judgment we
have accounts of this loathsome termina-
tion of the disease. So Herodotus, iv.
205, 7 Peperiun. ... (aoa evacwy ckECece :
which he alleges as an instance that
excessive indulgence of revenge, such as
Pheretima had shewn against the Bar-
cxeans, is looked on with anger by the gods.
See too the very similar account of the
death of Antiochus Epiphanes, 2 Mace. ix.
5—9., So also Jos. Antt. xvii. 6. 5, de-
scribing the disease of which Herod the
Great died, mentions ofpis okeAnKas
eumotodca. So also Euseb. (viii. 16) of
the death of Galerius. So also Tertullian,
ad Scapulam, ¢. 3, vol. i. p. 702, Migne,
«(Claudius Lucius Herminianus in Cap-
padocia, cum indigne ferens uxorem suam
ad hane sectam transiisse, solusque in
pretorio suo vastatus peste vivus ver-
mibus ebullisset, Nemo sciat, aiebat, ne
gaudeant Christiani. Postea cognito er-
rore suo, quod tormentis quosdam a pro-
posito suo excidere fecisset, pene Chris-
tianus decessit.” 24.) Similarly,
ch. v. 12 ff.; vi. 7; ix. 31, a general state-
ment of the progress and prosperity of the
church of God forms the transition from
one portion of the history to another.
25.] The journey (ch. xi. 30) took place
after the death, or about the time of the
death, of Herod; see on ver. 1. The pur-
pose of the mission would be very soon
accomplished : Saul would naturally not
remain longer in Jerusalem than was un-
avoidable, and would court no publicity :
and hence there seems an additional reason
for placing the visit after Herod’s death :
for, of all the persons whose execution
would be pleasing to the Jews, Saul would
138
TIPAZEIS AIOZTOAQN.
XIII.
~ « ,
z ex, hereonly. SavAoc * uTéatpeWav & ‘leoovcaAnu *? tAnpwoavtec THY
Ruthi. 6 Ald
io, Luke be 4 d B f ra | Bs = \y ad wapa-
epee ctaxoviav, ° ouumapadaPovteg | Kat Iwavyny tov ee
= Matt. iii. ’ , s
i. © exekAnQevta Maoxov. =
25. xiv. 26 s Res ; , f cl ® x
al, Ps. £ix. XIIL. }°Hoav d& ev Avriwyeta “kata th 5 ovcav aie p
. : is i
b Col. iv. 17. ? ! ] - \ ik 7 e , 5
iit =6ekKAnolay | Tpopytat Kat SiSaskador, 6 te BaopvaBacg *1op
reff. ¢ ‘sy < c , ’ \ ’ e ~ 13
deh. xv 87; KAL 2UUEWY O KaAoupuEevoc Neyep kat Aovukwoc oO Kuonvatoc, C os
a8. 5Gel it ¥ é ¥ <i Y wet, avanv
oa ton Mavanyv TE Howdov TOU =TETPUPYOU ~ GUYTPOpOg Kal 5,1,
i. Qonly.
e ver. 12. f ch. xi. 1 reff. g ellips. of @xet, Mark viii. 1. ch. xxii. 12. h ch, xi. 27 reff. HLN ab
i] Cor. xii. 28, 29. Eph. iv. 11. k Rom. ii. 20. 1 Tim. ii.7. 2Tim.i. 11+. 2 Macce.i. lo only. ILuke cdf gh
iii. 19. ix. 7 | Mt. only. (-xetvy Luke iii. 1.) m here only ¢. = 2 Macc. ix. 29 only. Thuc.ii.50 (of klop
diseases). Ken. Mem. ii. 3. 4. 13
25. amrcotpepey D!: txt D*.
for ef, aro D(E) b ec 0 36 vulg Chr-mss: ecs
BHLRX k 1 p vss Chr-mss (Ec Thl: txt A 13(sic) rel copt Chr.—aft rep. add ers avTioxeray
E abeo Syr sah Cassiod. (The variations have apparently arisen from a confusion of
marginal glosses.
Sor & ep.; then ayt.
for 2nd ka, rov D!: om ABN 36 vulg Syr:
emtxadovmevoy AN k p 13. 36 Thi-fin.
(Ec Thi. (13 def.)
es avt. may have been an explanatory gloss, afterwards substituted
may have again been corrected to tep., leaving the es standing.)
txt D8EHL p rel syr coptt Chr
Crap. XIII, 1. ree aft noay de ins ties (see note), with EHL 18. 36 rel syr Chr:
om ABDN a p 40 vulg Syr sah eth Vig.
D?-gr Vig.
wat Tetp. D'(and lat): txt D*.
hold the foremost place. Our verse is pro-
bably inserted as a note of passage from
the last recorded fact of Barnabas and
Saul (ch. xi. 30), to their being found at
Antioch (xiii. 1). *Iwavv. | See above
on ver. 12.
Cuap. XIII. 1—XIV. 28.] Frrst Mis-
SIONARY JOURNEY OF PAUL AND BARNA-
Bas. Henceforward the history follows
Saul (or Paul, as he is now [ver. 9} and
from this time denominated), his ministry,
and the events of his life, to the exclusion
(with the sole exception of the council in
ch. xv.) of all the other Apostles.
XIII. 1.] The twes of the rec. has been
interpolated, to make it appear that the
persons mentioned were not the only pro-
phets and teachers at Antioch. The enu-
meration is probably inserted on account of
the solemnity of the incident about to be
related, that it might be known who they
were, to wnoin the Holy Spirit entrusted so
weighty a commission. That those enu-
merated were ail then present, is implied
by the te... kal: see ch.i. 13. aT po-
g@qtar| See on ch. xi. 27. didacx. |
Those who had the xdpioua SidacKadlas,
see 1 Cor. xii. 28; Eph. iv. 11. They were
probably less immediately the organs of
the Holy Spirit than the mpopjra, but
under Hiscontinnal guidance in thegradual
and progressive work of teaching the Word
(see Neander, Pfl. u. L. p. 58). Sv-
peav & Kak. Niyep| Nothing is known of
him. From his appellation of Niger, he
may have been an African proselyte.
Aovxios] A Lucius, probably the same
emtkadouu. D o 180 lect-12.
Tetpaapx. (but a erased) X.
for o te, ev os D! vulg Vig: add yy rac
om o bef kupnyvaos D. np.
person, is mentioned Rom. xvi. 21 asa
ovyyevhs of Paul. There is no reason to
suppose him the same with Aovxas (Lu-
canus),—but the contrary ; for why should
Paul in this case use two different names ?
See Col. iv. 14; 2 Tim.iv.11; Philem. 24.
Wetstein, believing them to be the same,
quotes Herodotus, iii, 131, mparor bev
Kpotwyjra: intpol e@Aéyovto ava Thy
‘EAAdSa elvor, SevdtTepor 5é Kvupyvator,
which certainly is curious enough.
Mavayy | The same name with Menahem
(Mavanu LXX) the king of Israel, 2 Kings
xv. 14. A certain Essene, of this name,
foretold to Herod the Great, when a boy
going to school, that he should be king of
the Jews (Jos. Antt. xv. 10.5). And in
consequence, when he came to the throne, he
honoured Manaen, and madvtas am éxcivou
Tovs "Eoonvovs timav StetéAce. It is then
not improbable that this Manaen may
have been a son of that one : but see below.
The Herod here meant was Antipas, who
with his brother Archelaus (both sons of
Herod the Great by Malthace a Samaritan
woman, see Matt. xiv. 1, note) mapad tur
ididTH Tpopas elxov emt ‘Poéuns, Antt. xvii.
1. 3. Both were at this time exiles,
Antipas at Lyons, Archelaus at Vienne.
ovvtpodos | Probably ‘ collactaneus’
(Vulg.), foster-brother ; not, ‘brought up
with, for, if he had been brought up
with Antipas, he would also have been
with Archelaus: see above. In
this case, his mother may have called
her infant by the name of the person
who had brought the Essenes into favour
1—3.
TIPAZEIS AMOZTOAQN.
139
~ ¢ , ~ -
SavAoc. an AetToupyourTwy oe autwy TW Kvoly Kal n= hereonly$.
z &
, > ~
° ynoTrevovTwy ElTEV TO TVEVLA TO ayiov °’ Adooiaare
, \ , \ = , ;
18m pou tov BaovaBav kat DSavrAov ee TO épyov
s , > ,
TPOCKEKANMAL GUTOUC.
Yald War > Ge Q ~ > ~ vy? ,
EVSAMEVOL Kal ETUUEVTEC TAC KEtoac auTolc améAvoav.
Gen. xviii. 4.
auoteper Fuul@oev, Thue. i. 28.
Juel ii. 32. soch. xxv. 12. [John ix. 22.)
uch. viii. 17 reff. i
2. aft em. ins avros E vulg Syr sah eth.
Thl-fin: om ABCDEHLX rel vss Ath Cyr-jer Bas; Chr.
(Heb. x. LI.
Rom. xv. 27
only. Nam.
ra X viii. 2 al fr.)
Oo Och. x. 30 reff.
p = Rom. i. 1.
al. i. 18.
3 , rn) , \¢t G
TOTE VNOTEVGAYTEC KAL 7OOC- Lev. xx. 26.
q =ch. xv. 56.
Luke ii. 15.
1 Cor. vi. 20.
r constr., ver. 39 (Luke i. 25?) only. mapa Todeow, ais (i.e. map’ ais)
see Matthiz, 595. 4.
1 Pet. iv. 3.
y= Matt. xiv. 15. xv. 23, 32. ch. xv. dv, 33 al.
; s = ch. ii. 38. perf. pass., ch. xvi. 10.
4 Kings v. 25 al. o t “Deol ch. x. Yreff.
1 Macc. x. 43. (Gen. xy. 2.)
rec aft roy ins te, Withakop13
rec ins tov bef cava.,
with HLN! rel Thdrt (ic Thl: om ABCDE N-corr! p 13 Epiph Cyr-jer Bas Chr.
3. aft mposevé. ins mavtes D.
aut. bef tas yep. HE b ko 38.
om ameAvoay
D: add avtous E vulg Syr syr-w-ob eth Lucif Vig Jer.
with Herod, and no relationship with that
person need have existed. Tatdos |
mentioned last, perhaps because the pro-
phets are placed first, and he was not one,
but a teacher : or it may be, that he him-
self furnished the account. ‘This circum-
stance, which has been objected to by some
as invalidating the accuracy of the account,
is in fact an interesting confirmation of it,
as being eminently characteristic of: him
whospoke, as in 1 Cor. xv. 9; 2 Cor. xii. 6;
Eph. iii. 8. See Baumgarten’s striking re-
marks on this, vol. ii. p. 7 ff. From the
arrangement of the copule, it would seem
as if Barnabas, Symeon, and Lucius were
prophets, —Manaen and Saul, teachers.
2. Nevrovpyouvtev | The general word
for the priestly service among the Jews, to
which now had succeeded that of mpopiT at
and sddcKado. in the Christian church :
ministering is therefore the only word
adequate torender it, as E. V.after the Vulg.
‘ ministrantibus Domino :—more closely to
define it is not only impracticable, but is
narrowing an expression purposely left ge-
neral. Chrys. explains it by enputtévTay,
—alii aliter: and the Romanist expositors
understand the sacrifice of the mass to be
meant ; but in early times the word had no
such reference (see reff., and Suicer sub
voce). clmev. To wv. T. Gy} viz. by
one of the prophets present, probably Sy-
meon or Lucius: see above. The announce-
ment being to the church, and several
persons being mentioned, we can hardly,
with Meyer, suppose it to have been aninner
command merely to some one person, as
in the case of Philip, ch. viii. 29. ql
gives precision and force to the command,
implying that it was for a special purpose,
and to be obeyed at the time: sce reff.
7d &pyov| Certainly, by ver. 4, we
may infer that there had been, or was
simultaneously with this command,a divine
‘ntimation made to Barnabas and Saul of
the nature and direction of this work,
In general, it had already been pointed
out in the ease of Saul, ch. ix. 15; xxii. 21;
xxvi.17. It consisted in preaching to the
Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ,
Eph. iii. 8. In virtue of the foundation of
the Gentile churches being entrusted to
them, Saul and Barnabas become after
this Apostles, not vice versa ; nor is there
the least ground for the inference that this
was a formal extension of the apostolic
office, the pledge of its continuance through
the episcopacy to the end of time. The
apostolic office terminated with the apos-
tolic times, and by its very nature, ad-
mitted not of continuance: the episcopal
office, in its ordinary sense, sprung up
after the apostolic times (see the remark-
able testimonies cited by Gieseler, I. i.
p- 115 f. note, from Jerome on Wit. leds
and Aug. Epist. Ixxxii. ad Hieron. 33, vol.
ii. p. 290): and the two are entirely dis-
tinct. The confusion of the two belongs
to that unsafe and slippery ground in
church matters, the only logical refuge
from which is in the traditional system
of Rome. See the curious and charac-
teristic note in Dr. Wordsw., in which
he attempts to prove the identity of the
two offices: and compare with it the words
of Jerome, on Tit. i. 5, vol. vii. p. 699,
« Episcopi noverint se magis consuetudine
quam dispositionis dominic veritate pres-
byteris esse majores, et in commune debere
ecclesiam regere.” 3. VOT. K- arposevs. |
not, ‘jejunio et precibus (viz. of ver. 2)
peractis, Kuin. : this was a new fasting
and special prayer for Barnabas and Saul.
Fasting and prayer have ever been con-
nected with the solemn times of ordina-
tion by the Christian church; but the
‘jejunia quatuor temporum,’ or ‘ember
days at the four seasons,’ for the special
purpose of ordinations, were probably
not introduced till the fourth or even
fifth century. Sce Bingham, iv. 6. 6.
ém0. t. x. avt.] See on ch.
140 XIif.
w ch. xvii. 10 =
TIPAZEIS AMOSTOAQN.
" exreuplevtec v vTO TOU ayiou TebpaToc ABCDE
sty Gas, | adrol uly oby ee
ase. es F erie etc Tedebcecav, exeev te Y awéwdevoay etc caren
ain 4 ‘
va win. oe. Kozoov, ° Kat yEvouevor év Dadapin “ KarnyyeAAov toy 13
Mowe ~ ~ ~ ’
= pb as , 5
xxii 1 ab Aoyov tov ’ @eov gv talg suvaywyaic Twv lovéatwy
z ch, iii. 24. iv.
2. 1 Cor. ii.
RO PLG
ee i. 17,18
LP. THY ynoov
(- Bue ch. xvii. 13.) ach. xv. 36. xvii. 13.
16. 1 Cor.iv. 1. (Prov. xiv. 39.)
1 Cor. xvi. 5. Heb. iv. 14. Deut. ii. 7.
4. ree ovta (corrn to more usual exprn), with E-gr HL copt(appy) Chr:
Ath: txt ABN a p 36 vulg D-lat E-lat syrr Ambr Vig
expr) has exweupOevtes not exmeuavtes as Beh. |
txt ABC? D-corr & a p 13 Ath. (C! illegible.)
rec ins Tnv bef ced. and kump., with EHL rel We:
om ABC?DX& ao p Chron.
rel: 7. mv. ay. D!:
Bavtes de D-gr.
om 2nd tv 13 Thi:
syr-marg sah (He Thl: om D 64.
5. vyev. de D.
katnyyedov Leeg! kp:
Syr copt Lucif.
s \ We) , ef /
oe Oe Kal [wavyny UTNOETHY.
“axol Tapou evoov avooa Tlva
ev Tn cadamewn D:
Salaminam vulg Lucif Cassiod: Salamina am fuld D-lat E-lat Lucif :
katnyyeiday D 73. 96. 142 Chr,.
umnpetovyta autos D syr-marg sah:
6 4 SecA Oovrec O& OAV
* wayov
b ch. xi. 1 reff. c = Lukei. 2. ch. xxvi.
dconstr., Luke ii. 35. ch. xii. 10. xiv 24. xv. 3, 41 al. L. ony, exe.
ech. xi. 5 reit.
f here bis. Matt. ti. 1, Nc., only. Dan. ii. 2.
ot D lect-12
. (C illegible.) [ B(Mai
ree Tov mv. Tov ay., with EHL
amndAd. A: Kata-
ins Ist but
for te, 6e HUDBA gop D-lat
ev cadouwn AELN® p: es cadamwy R!:
txt BC rel.
for Oeov, kuvptov D-gr
in ministerio vulg : exovTes
Bed eautwy Kat ww. ets Siacoviay KE. (The corrections have appy been made for per-
spicuity.)
6. nar [re |preAd. (SteADovTwy, omg Kat D*) de avtwy D.
and axp. wapov being supposed to be inconsistent ?),
ABCDEN k p 36 vss Lucif. (13 def.)
rec om avdpa (as superfluous), with HL rel He:
vi. 6. 4. éxmepd. | Under the guid-
ance of the Spirit, who directed their
course. LYedevKerav] A very strong
fortified city (supposed impregnable,
Strabo, xvi. p. 751), fifteen miles from
Antioch,—on the Orontes, and five miles
from its mouth. It was founded and forti-
fied by Seleucus Nicator (Strabo, xvi. 749),
who was buried there (Appian, Syr.63). It
was called Seleucia ad mare,—and Pieria,
or 7 ev Tepig, from Mount Pierius, on
which it was built, to distinguish it from
other Syrian towns of the same name. This
mountain is called Corypheeus, Polyb. v. 59,
where is a minute description of the town
and its site. Among other particulars he
mentions, mpdsBaow dé lay Exe KaTa THY
amd OadarTns mwAevpay KAwaKwTyy Kar
XElpoTolntoy, eykAiwact kal oKadduacr
mukvois kal guvexéot SrecAnupevnv. This
excavated way is to this day conspicuous
amongst the ruins of the city. It was
under the Seleucid kings the capital of a
district Seleucis, — and,since Pompey’stime,
a free city. Strabo, xvi. '751. Pin. v. 21.
(Winer, RWB.; and Mr. Lewin, Life of
St. Paul, from an art. by Col. Chesney in
the Geogr. Society’s Transactions.)
els Kumpov] The lofty outline of Cyprus
is visible from the mouth of the Orontes
(C. and H., edn. 2, i. p. 164). -See below,
ver. 7. It was the native country of Bar-
nabas,—and, as John Mark was his kins-
inan, they were likely to find more accept-
rec om oAny (oAny
with HL rel (Ke Thi: ins
nupov EX: evpay A. add exe: C.
ins ABCDN k o p syrr copt «th Chr
ance there than in other parts. 5.
Salamis was the nearest port to Seleucia on
the eastern side of the island. It had a
good harbour (Aiwéeva Exovoa kAavoTdy
Xemmepivdv, Scylax, Peripl. p. 41). It was
the residence of a king anciently (Herod.
iv. 162), and always one of the chief cities
of the island. There were very many Jews
there, as appears by there being more than
one synagogue. Their numbers may have
been increased by the farming of the
copper-mines by Augustus to Herod. On
the insurrection of the Jews in the reign of
Trajan, Salamis was nearly destroyed, and
they were expelled from the island. Its
demolition was completed by an earthquake
in the reign of Constantine, who (or his
immediate successors) rebuilt it and gave it
the name of Constantia. The ruins of this
latter place are visible near the modern Fa-
magosta, the Venetian capital of the island
(Winer, RWB., and C. and H. pp. 171, f.).
umnpétyv | Probably for the admi-
nistration of baptism: see also 1 Cor. i.
14—17. 6.| Paphos is on the west-
ern shore, with the length of the island
between it and Salamis. It is Nea Paphos
which is meant, about eight miles north of
the Paphos more celebrated in classic poets
for the temple and worship of Venus. It
was destroyed by an earthquake in Au-
gustus’s reign, but rebuilt by him, Dio Cass.
liv. 23. It is now called Baffa, and con-
tains some important ruins. (Winer, RWB.)
4—9,
E Wevoompopntny ’Tovdator, @
‘ ’
obv ty “avOuTary Deoyiy NlavAw,
7 k
OUTOC Toockadesapevoc BapvaBav Kat
¢ ¥) ~ ~ -~
eLitnoev akovoat Tov » oyov tov ” Veov.
8: avroic EXt 0 * ma "ov xo ° we) U
c buaco | payoc ("ouTwe yao © peVeounveverat
‘ ” , ~ ~-
TO Ovopa avtov), ° Znrwy * diasrpepac tov " avOtTwarov
- € - ly. Prov.
9 SavAoc & 0 kat IlavAoc, * 7An- ah
> ‘ ~ r ,
aTro TiC TlOTEWC.
al; Gen. xxviii. 1}.
Ps, Ixxv. 7. (ch. ci. 10 reff.)
p = Luke vi. 1. ix. 9. xix. 47 al. fr.
2. Phil ii. 15 only. Exod. v. 4,
Thl; so, but aft twa, E 36 vulg sah Lucif.
NPAZEIS AMOZTOAQN.
ovoua Baomsouc, 7
] Rom. xi. 7 reff. constr., here only.
n = Matt. vi. 9.
Exod. ii. 15.
r=ch. vi. 7. Xiv. 22. xvi. 5.
141
a * g Matt. vii. 1
att. vii. 15.
o¢ nv xxiv. 11.
2Pet, ial.
Jer. vi. 13.
= 1? Zech. xiii. 2.
DYavAov €7r- h here &Xc. 3c
ch. xviii. 12.
8 0 xix. 38 only
(see notes).
i Matt. xi. 29.
Luke x, 21.
1 Cor. i. 19
(from Isa.
xxix. 14)
> S$ Care -
av ol OuveTW.
Bees /
avOioraro
<= ch. v.40
m mid, 2 Tim. iii. 8 only.
och, iv. 36 reth
Luke ix. 41 | Mr. xxiii.
sch. ii, 4dreil.
Mark 1i. 12 al.
q here bis. ch. xx. 30.
ovouatt Kadovupevoy D. Bapin-
covaly or -u| D!: Barjesuban Lucit; : Barsuma Syr : Baprntovy ADSHL p rel syr-marg
(Ke Thi-sif Cassiod: Bapmoou & 40. 96. 105 vulg copt arm :
add o peOepunvevetat cAumas (paratus, i.e. eromas, see on ver 8) E demid
fin.
Lucif.
7. ouvkadecamevos D.
wa payov, «7-A.| On the preva-
lence of such persons at this time, see ch.
viii. 9, note. ‘The Roman aristocracy were
peculiarly under the influence of astrologers
and magicians, some of whom were Jews.
We read of such in connexion with Marius,
Pompey, Crassus, Ceesar,—and later with
Tiberius: and the complaints of Horace
and Juvenal shew how completely, and for
how longa time, Rome was inundated with
Oriental impostors of every description.
See Hor. Sat. i.2. 1; Juv. Sat. iii. 13—16;
vi. 542 —546; x. 93, and C. and H. pp.
IUP/E/ 38 Bapiyoots} He had given
himself the Arabic title of Elymas, ‘ the
wise man’ (from the same root as the
Turkish ‘Ulemah’), interpreted 6 udyos
in our text. 7. 76 avOuTatw] The
Greek terin for the Latin ‘proconsul,’ the
title of the governor of those provinces
which were (sembably) left by the empe-
rors to the government of the senate and
people. The proconsul was appointed by
lot, as in the times of the republic ; carried
with him the lictors and fasces as a consul :
but had no military power, and held office
only for a year (Dio Cass. liii. 13). This
last restriction was soon relaxed under the
emperors, and they were retained five or
even more years. The imperial provinces,
on the other hand, were governed by a
military officer, a Propreetor (avtioTpar-
nyos) or Legatus (mpeoBevtas) of the Em-
peror who was girded with the sword, and
not revocable unless by the pleasure of the
Emperor. The minor districts of the impe-
rial provinces were governed by Procurators
(émitporot). (C. and H. pp. 173 ff.: Dio
Cassius, liii. 18,15: Merivale, Hist. of the
Romans under the Empire, ch. xxxii.) The
txt BCE 13 sah Chr Thl-
iar e(ntnoev D}(xou is marked for erasure by D-corr).
8. for eduu., et[o or almas D', etoemas D-lat:
ereidy noire nrovey avtwy D'(and lat) syr-w-ast :
eAuviuas Dt. aft morews ins
oTt ndews avtwy nkovev EK.
title fryeudv, used in the N. T. of the pro-
curator of Juda, of the legatus of Syria,
and of the emperor himself, is a general
term for any governor. But we never find
the more definite title of av@dmatos as-
signed in the N. T. toa legatus. Cyprus,
as Dio Cassius informs us, liii. 12, was ori-
ginally an imperial province, and conse-
quently was governed by a propretor or
legatus (so also Strabo, xiv. 685, yéeyove
oTpaTnytK?) erapxia Kal aityy .. ++ -
eyéveto emapxia 1 vio0s, KaOdmep Kal
yov éeott, otparnyiKn) : but immediately
after he relates that Augustus totepoy Thy
Kimpov x. thy Tadatiay Thy mept Ndp-
Bova TO Sipoe aréduxev, atts d& Thy
Aadmatiay avTeAaBe. And in liv. 4, re-
peating the same, he adds, kal oftws av@-
irarot Kal és ekeiva Ta Eby meuTer Oat
jiptavto. ‘The title of Proconsul is found
on Cyprian coins, both in Greek and Latin.
(See C. and H. p. 187, who give an in-
scription [Boeckh, No. 2632] of the reign
of Claudius, A.D. 52, mentioning the avé-
brarot, a former and a present one, Julius
Cordus and L. Annius Bassus). No-
thing more is known of this Sergius Paulus.
Another person of the same name is men-
tioned by Galen, more than a century after
this, as a great proficient in philosophy.
He was of consular rank, and is probably
the Sergius Paulus who was consul with
L. Venuleius Apronianus, A.D. 168, in the
reign of M. Aurelius. Another 8. P. was
one of the consules suffecti in A.D. 94: but
this could hardly have been the same.
8. EAvpas | See above on ver. 6.
Siactpépar. . . . amd) A pregnant con-
struction, as améaTnT eV ariaw, ch. v. 37.
9. 6 «ai Tavdos| This notice
XIII.
142 IIPAZEIS AMOZTOAQN.
‘ € , +) , , a AX. ¥. 9
teh.i.10ref. gOeic TvEULATOC aylovu, t arevioac tc auTov 10 giqrey “Q ABCDE
u Paes 28 é ; ays # x a xs i yo HLNab
Sete: 27 mAnpNC TAVTOC coAou Kal TaoNC pactovpyiac, VILE ae ce
Sir. xix. 26. , » \ , a Oe ad , b ,
w Matt.xxvi.4. y dtaBoAov, F ey Ope muone “oikKatoouvne, ov ° Tavoy 13
om. 1. 24,
1 Thess. ii. 3. Job xiii. 7. x here onlyt. Xen. Rep Lac. xiv. 4. (-ynua, ch. xviii. 14.) | _ Ysee
Matt. xiii. 38. John viii. 44. Eph. ii. 2 al. gz w. gen. of thing, Phil. iii. 18 only. Kocvov ExOpov ths
praews Ans THS avO,@mivns, Demosth. Kat. Treg¢a. 79. a= Matt.v.6al. Ps.cxi.9. bconstr,
Luke y. 4. ch. v. 42. vi. 13. xx. 31. xxi. 32. Eph. i. 16, Heb. x.2. Isa. xxxviili. 20.
9. wAnbers D. rec ins kat bef arev., with DEH rel vss ce Thl: om ABCLN c
f p 18. 36. 40 Chr Lucif.
marks the transition from the former part
of his history, where he is uniformly called
Saul, to the latter and larger portion, where
he is without exception known as Paul. I
do not regard it as indicative of any change
of name at the time of this incident, or
Srom that time: the evidence which I de-
duce from it is of a different kind, and not
without interest to enquirers into the
character and authorship of our history.
Hitherto, our Evangelist has been describ-
ing events, the truth of which he had ascer-
tained by research and from the narratives
of others. But henceforward there isreason
to think that the joint memoirs of himself
and the great Apostle furnish the material
of the book. In those memoirs the Apostle
is universally known by the name Pavt,
which superseded the other. If this was
the first incident at which Luke was pre-
sent, or the first memoir derived from Paul
himself, or, which is plain, however doubt-
ful may be the other alternatives, the com-
mencement of that part of the history which
is to narrate the teaching and travels of the
Apostle Paul,—it would be natural that a
note should be made, identifying the two
names as belonging to the same person.
The «ai must not be understood as
having any reference to Sergius Paulus,
‘who also (as well as Sergius) was called
Paul.’ Galen (see above) uses the same ex-
pression in speaking of his Sergius Paulus :
Sépyids te, 6 kal MatAos...., and then,
a few lines down, calls him 6 MatAos. It
signifies that Paulus was a second name
borne by Saul, in conformity with a Jewish
practice as old as the captivity (or even as
Joseph, see Gen. xli. 45), of adopting a Gen-
tile name. Mr. Howson traces it through
the Persian period (see Dan. i. 7; Esth. ii.
7), the Greek (1 Mace. xii. 16; xvi. 11; 2
Mace. iv. 29), and the Roman (ver. 1; ch. i.
23; xviii. 8, &c.), and the middle ages, down
to modern times. Jerome has conjectured
that the name was adopted by Saul iz me-
mory of this event: ‘ Diligenter attende,
quod hie primum Pauli nomen inceperit.
Ut enim Scipio, subjecta Africa, Africani
sibi nomen assumpsit, et Metellus, Creta in-
sula subjugata, insigne Cretici suc familia
reportavit ;—et imperatores nune usque
Romani ex subjectis gentibus Adiabenici,
Parthici, Sarmatici nuncupantur: ita et
Saulus ad preedicationem gentium missus, a
primo ecclesiew spolio Proconsule Sergio
Paulo victorie sue tropza retulit, erexitque
vexillum ut Paulus diceretur e Saulo.’ (In
Epist. ad Philem. 1, pp. 746 f.) It is
strange that any one could be found capa-
ble of so utterly mistaking the character
of St. Paul, or of producing so unfor-
tunate an analogy to justify the mistake.
[I may observe that Dr. Wordsw.’s
apology, that Jerome does not say that
the Apostle gave himself this name on this
account, is distinctly precluded by Jerome’s
language, “erexitque vexillum ut Paulus
diceretur e Saulo.”” This Dr. W., trans-
lating the final words “and instead of
Saul was called Paul,” has missed seeing.
Notice too Augustine’s “ amavit,” below. |
It is yet stranger that Augustine should,
in his Confessions (viii. 4, vol. i. p. 753),
adopt the same view: ‘Ipse minimus
Apostolorum tuorum .... ex priore Saulo
Paulus vocari amavit, ob tam magne
insigne victoriz.’ (Elsewhere Augustine
gives another, but not much better reason :
‘Paulus Apostolus, cum Saulus prius vo-
earetur, non ob aliud, quantum mihi
videtur, hoe nomen elegit, nisi ut se osten-
deret parvum, tanquam minimum Aposto-
lorum.’ De Spir. et Lit. c.7, vol. x. p. 207.)
So also Olshausen. A more probable way
of accounting for the additional name is
pointed out by observing that such names
were often alliterative of or allusive to the
original Jewish name :—as Grotius in his
note: ‘ Saulus qui et Paulus: id est, qui,
ex quo cum Romanis conversari ccepit, hoe
nomine, a suo non abludente, ccepit a
Romanis appellari. Sic qui Jesus Judis,
Grecis Jason (or Justus, Col. iv. 11):
Hillel, Pollio : Onias, Menelaus (Jos. Antt.
xii. 5. 1): Jakim (= Eliakim), Aleimus.
Apud Romanos, Silas, Silvanus, ut notavit
Hieronymus: Pasides, Pansa, ut Suetonius
in Crassitio: Diocles, Diocletianus : Bigli-
nitza, soror Justiniani, Romane igilantia.’
atevioas eis avtov| It seems pro-
bable that Paul never entirely recovered his
sight as before, after the défa Tod mwrds
éxelvov. We have several apparent allu-
10—13.
e
1 Stactpipwy rac © odove kupiov Tac " WOetac; 1M
"~ VF Nene , \ y
* 160v Xelp | Kuptov © Eml of, Kal éoy) tupAdc py" BrErwv 3!
Tov "nAcov * ay pt E Kaloov.
TIPAZ EIS ATOSTOAQN.
143
Vi
c = Rom. xi.
Kat vuy 33. Heb. iii.
10. Rev. xv.
Ps, xvii.
2)
] = , al.
Tapaypnua ot ™ érémecey deh. viii, 21
39 Sees n? N vo , \ , ro? if-7ir
em autov “ayAve Kat °oKoroc, Kat *reotaywv eCnret fon si ov ree
2 , IA’ c
12 TOTE Lowy 0)
q XElpaywyove.
gait tu? ’ (ee | - ~- ~
ETLOTEVOEV EKTANTOOMEVOR ETL ™ ¥ ddayy TOU Kuotov.
13 w
ich. xx. 6 reff.
only +t. Job iii. 5 Symm.
Eur. Phen. 377, Pp abscl., here only.
Matt. iv. 23. trans., 1 Cor. ix. 5 only.
s ebsol., John iv. 53. ch. iv. 4 al. fr.
u Mark vi. 2a). Ecel. vii. 17.
Viti. 22. ch. xvi 1! alll.L.t 2Macc.y. 9.
Luke xxii. 49.
k Luke iv. 13 only.
Hom. Il, uv 321.
10. om Ist macys D! arm Lucif, Vig Orig-int : ins D?.
ins tov bef kupiov BX'(N3 disapproving).
11. ins 7 bef xerp. (but marked for erasure) D!.
of our mss) : om ABCDEHLNX rel.
intrans. w.acc., Matt. ix. 35. xxiii. 15.
t Matt. vii. 28. xxii. 33.
Wisd. xii. 4. 2 Mace. vii. 12 only.
for axpi, ews D.
Ezek. xl. 1,
Ties , . ‘
av0umatoc TO yeyevoc £ = Matt.
xxvii. 25. ch.
XVili. 6.
Rom. i. 18,
ii. 2, 4,
Avayévrec d€ amo mC Tlapov * oL wept IlavAor beeing i 16.
Eccl, xi. 7.
n here
axoTtoy dedopKkus,
Mark vi. 6. w. ev,
1 ch. iii. 7 reff.
o = here only.
m ch. viii. 16 reff.
Deut. xxviii. 29.
(-vetv, ch. ix. 8.) rver. 7.
Mark i. 27. xi. 18. Luke iv, 32.
v=ch. ii. 42 reff. w = Luke
x = here (John xi. 19 v. r.) only. see Mark iv. 10.
q here only +.
vot D!: txt D2.
ins ovoas bef evderas D.
rec ins Tou bef «up. (with none
for de, re CR p vulg
Syr copt xth Lucif Jer: for rapaxpnua Se, xa evdews D (corrns, the copulative conj
seeming more appropriate).
auvtov B.
12. 15wy de D-gr Lucif.
Bab? ghk 138.
18. avexGevres(sic) B'.
sions to weakness in his sight, or to some-
thing which rendered his bodily presence
contemptible. In ch. xxiii. 1, the same
expression, atevioas TG cuvcdpiw, occurs,
and may have some bearing (see note there)
on his not recognizing the high priest. See
also Gal. iv. 18, 15; vi. 11, and 2 Cor. xii.
7,9,and notes. The traditional notices of
his personal appearance (see C. and H.
p. 181, note) represent him as having con-
tracted and overhanging eyebrows.
Whatever the word may imply, it appears
like the graphic description of an eye-wit-
ness, who was not Paul himself. So also
mepidywy eChrer xeipaywyovs, below.
10. vie 8:aB. | Meyer supposes an indignant
allusion to the name Bar-jesus. This is
possible, though hardly probable (see
below). 8aB., as a proper name, has no
article. mao. dux., of all that is right.
Stactp. «.7.A.] the ob maven evi-
dently makes this apply, not to Elymas’s
conduct on this occasion merely, but to
his whole life of imposture and perversion
of others. The especial sin was, that of
laying hold of the nascent enquiry after
God in the minds of men, and wresting: it
to a wrong direction. kuptov, here
and ver. 11, is Jehovah. If, as some sup-
pose, the reading of the name Bar-jesus is
Bar-jehu, the repetition may be allusive:
as in the other case might the éx@pé mdo.
dixatootvns to the name Jesus. But Meyer
supposes the various readings in the forms
erecev (corrn to more simple exprn than eewecey em)
A B(sic: see table) DX Thi-sif: txt CEHL 13. 36 rel Chr ec Thi-fin.
om er
ins eBavuarev ka bef emiot. DE eeth Lucif: ex. bef
emior. A: aft emit. ins Tw Oew D; tw kup., omitting the rest, eth.
EKTANTTOL.
for 7. kup., T. Qeou C Vig: tov xpiotov 63: Twy amrocToAwy 4.
rec ins tov bef mavAov, with HL rel @e Thl: om
of the name (Barsuma, Barjesuban) to have
arisen from a Cesire to reverence the Name
Jesus. Tudhos py BAr€trav | so uvjc-
Ontt wh emiAdOn, Deut. ix. 7. 16
G&xpt katgod] The punishment was only
temporary, being accompanied with a
gracious purpose to the man himself, to
awaken repentance in him. The sense
given to &xpi «. by Tittmann and Meyer
here and at ref. Luke, of €ws rTéAous, is
one of which it seems to me incapable.
axvs k. okdTvs | In the same pre-
cise and gradual manner is the healing of
the lame man, ch. ili. 8, described : €or
(first), «. mepremare:. So here, first a dim-
ness came on him,—then total darkness.
And we may conceive this to have been
evinced by his gestures and manner under
the infliction. 12. éwi tH 88. Tr.
kup.] Hesitating as he had been before
between the teaching of the sorcerer and
that of the Apostle, he is amazed at the
divine power accompanying the latter, and
gives himself up to it. It is not said that
he was baptized : but the supposition is not
thereby excluded: see ver. 48; ch. xvii.
12, 34; xviii. 8, first. part. 13. ot
mept II.| Is there not a trace of the nar-
rator being among them, in this expres-
sion? Henceforward Paul is the princi-
pal person, and Barnabas is thrown into
the background. Tlépynv tr. apd. |
Perga lies on the Cestrus, which flows into
the bay of Attaleia. It is sixty stadia from
144
y Matt. vii. 23.
Luke ix. 39
IIPAZEIS AMOSTOAQN.
WAQov Ete [léo-ynv ™m¢ TlauguAtac’
XIII.
"Twavune 8: ¥ aro-
SR ain) , AT aUuTwY “UTE ev ac Te ocdA\vpa. }4 avrot
XEVI. (S1VI vy -
xxvi. (xlvi Xwoncac am QUTWVY UTEDTOEWED ELC Q ll
iv. 33 only.
\
zch., viii. 23 oe
reff.
absol., ch.
viii. 4 refi.
b ch. ix. 26
reff. Exod.
XVI. 35.
ce Luke iv. 16.
ch. xvi. 13
only. Exod.
Xx. 8. see
Luke xiii. 14, 7
igwch. xx,
=
\ “ e? , -
dé THY avayVvwotv TOU
7 reff.
d abs., ch. xvi. 13 reff. e 2 Cor. ili. 14.
xvi. 16. ch. xxvi. 14. xxviii. 23. Rom. iii. 21.
h = Mark v 22, &c.
k = 2Cor. xi. 10. 1 Cor. viii. 7 al.
ABCDEX ¢ p 13 Dion Eus Chr.
BCR! p copt.
*SteOdvtec awd tne Tlépyne
x = C: €c , re c
aywyiy TH NMEOa TwY
1Tim.iv I3 only. Neh viii. &
Luke viii. 49. xiii. 14. ch, xviii. 8, 17 only fT.
avaxwp. EH 180.
14. for avro: de, wavaAos de kar BapyaBas E.
with DEHL p 13 rel vss: que est Pisidie tol: txt ABCR.
tnv(sic D!: tn D-corr) nuetepa Tw caBBatw D.
b a bi #?
TAOEYEVOVTO ELC
,
’ {} ‘ iw \ ’ 06 ‘
Avrwyeav THY Tliotdtay, Kat etceAfovtec etc THY ouV-
Sac earune
f
15 Mera
g
a2
exalioav.
, \ ~ f ~ ’
VOMOU Kal TWY TOOPNTWY ai=
s eh , g ‘ > ‘ g Xz
éoTetAay ol ‘aoxtovvaywyot © mpog avTouc EyOvTEC
; f sel k - j ,
Avodoec aceA pol, el TIC EGTLY ‘Koyo ev viv * maoakXn-
f Matt. v.17. Luke
g Matt. xxvii. 19. Markiii.8lal. 2 Kings xix. 1).
i Heb. xiii. 22 only. 1 Macc. x. 24.
uTeotpevav RN}.
eyevovto A. rec TnS TLT15L38,
for erseAO., eAOovTES
15. rec om tis, with D-corr EHL rel vss Chr (ce Thl: ins ABCD'X a p 13. 36 vulg
Syr copt Cassiod.
ev uuw bef Aoyos (alteration to connect ovyos with wapaxn.)
ABC(H)& ac p 13 vulg: txt (D)EL rel Chr @e Thl.—om ev H.—aft doy. ins gogias
D:
the mouth («/@ 6 Kéatpos motauds, ov
avatAeboavTt atadlous éfjxovta Tlepyn
aéAus, Strabo, xiv. p. 667), “between and
upon the sides of two hills, with an exten-
sive valley in front, watered by the river
Cestrus, and backed by the mountains of
the Taurus.” (C. and H. vol. i. p. 195,
from Sir C. Fellows’s Asia Minor.) The
remains are almost entirely Greek, with
few traces of later inhabitants (p. 194 and
note). The inhabitants of Pamphylia
were nearly allied in character to those of
Cilicia (of Tdupudct, moAb tod Kidcklov
pvaov met éxovres, Strabo, xii. § 7): and it
may havebeen Paul’s design, having already
preached in his own province, to extend
the Gospel of Christ to this neighbouring
people. John probably took the oppor-
tunity of some ship sailing from Perga.
His reason for returning does not appear,
but may be presumed from ch. xv. 38 to
have been, unsteadiness of character, and
unwillingness to face the dangers abound-
ing in this rough district (see below). He
afterwards, having been the subject of dis-
sension between Paul and Barnabas, ch.
xv. 37—40, accompanied the latter again to
Cyprus; and we find him at a much later
period spoken of by Paul, together with
Aristarchus and Jesus called Justus, as
having been a comfort to him (Col. iv. 10,
11): and again in 2 Tim. iv. 11, as pro-
fitable to him for the ministry. 14.
SteABovtes| It is not improbable that
during this journey Paul may have en-
countered some of the ‘perils by robbers’
of which he speaks, 2 Cor. xi. 26. The
tribes inhabiting the mountains which se-
parate the table-land of Asia Minor from the
sermo et intellectus in vobis exhortationis D-lat.
coast, were notorious for their lawless and
marauding habits. Strabo says of Isauria,
AnoTev Graca KaTouriat (xii. 6), and of
the Pisidians, cka@daep of Kiduces, Anotpt-
Kas HoxnvTa, xii. 7. He gives a similar
character of the Pamphylians. > Av-
Tioxeta YH ivovdia or mpds Micidia, Strabo,
xii. 8, was founded originally (Strab. ib.)
by the Magnetes on the Meander, and
subsequently by Seleucus Nicator, and be-
came, under Augustus, a Roman colony
(€xovea émoktay ‘Popualwy, Strabo, ib. :—
‘Pisidarum colonia Caesarea, eadem An-
tiocheia.’ Plin. v. 24. *TIn Pisidia juris
Italici est colonia Antiochensium,’ Paulus,
Digest.i.15). Its position is described by
Strabo as being on a hill, and was unknown
or wrongly placed till Mr. Arundell found
its ruins at a place now called Yalobatch,
answering to Strabo’s description : where
since an inscription has been found with
the letters ANTIOCHEAE CaESARE (C. and
H. pp. 205, 207 note). 15.| The divi-
sions of the law and prophets at present
in use among the Jews were probably not
yet arranged. Before the time of An-
tiochus Epiphanes, the Laz only was read
in the synagogues : but, this having been
forbidden by him, the Prophets were sub-
stituted :—and, when the Maccabees re-
stored the reading of the Law, that of the
prophets continued as well. at-
éoteidav | Then they were not sitting in the
mpwtoKabedpiat, Matt. xxiii. 6, but some-
where among the congregation. The mes-
sage was probably sent to them as having
previously to this taught in the city, and
thus being known to have come for that
purpose. See, as illustrating our narrative,
ABCDE
HLN ab
edfgh
klop
13
14—19.
N N , ,
OEWC TOOC TOV Aaor, Aéyere.
TIPAZ EIS ATOSTOAQN.
16 |
145
5 Q \ ~ ry “
avastac 6& MavXAog Kat 1=2h-¥i.9 ret
m , = \ z a -
KaTacéloac ™) KELCL ELTTEV Avdoec ‘IopanXirat Kat Qf mm ch.x.9
n , ‘ n , > ,
poPovpervor tov "cov, akovoare.
ToOUTOU ‘Iopand
€ ‘ Pr a ret, ~
0 Ode Tov Aaoy 9 shn vi. 70.
oO 27 a ‘ , € = \ » 1D.
e€eXsSato Tove P matéoac PRMOV, KQL Dent. iv.37.
Neh. ix. 7.
0 x Xx q e > = Vy a , - 2 ‘ \
tov Aaov 1 ubwoev ev ry Taootkia ev yn AtyuTre@, Kat Ph, ¥.30 tefl
q = Isa. i. 2.
s \ tu r? tv ¢ ~ weve > Q > ais Luk
eta Bpaytovoc vvnAou en yayev aurouc €& aurnc. Senex 5.
18 {ie Gen, xlviti.
Kal We “TEGoEpaKOVYTAETN Xeover si eTpopopoonaey avrouc !-
1 Chron.
XVii. 17.
? = ee, i \ DA € , i SN i 2:
Ev TY ” Eon 19 kai *KabeXev LOvn extra év yu Navaav pp peti iz
Ezra viii. 35.
u Luke i. 51.
sii. 17 reff.
Caten ).
xix. 27.
16. ins o bef ravaos D.
17. for rovrov, rov B: om 40 vulg eth.
John xii. 38 (from Isa. liti. 1) only.
x ch. vii. 23 only.
2 Mace. vii. 27 only.
2 Cor. x.5. Ps. li. 5 (7).
s = ch. v. 26, xxiv. 7.
z= Matt. iv. 1 |). ch. vii. 30, &e. Deut. i. 31.
ouly.
t here only. Exod. vi. 1, 6 al. (but w. é+).
v =here only. (Rom, xii. 16 al ) wh.
y here only. Dent. i. 31 bis (tpo7. compl Orig. in
a=ch.
aft ot ins ev vacv H lect-11 Chr.
om (as unnecessary) icpanA EHL rel
syrr Chr Ge Thi Lucif: ins ABCDN a g p 13 vulg copt sah(omg Aaov Tour.).
for Ist Ko, Sia D!: txt D5.
vss: txt CDEHL rel 36 Chr Ge Thi.
18. om ws DE vulg Syr sah eth.
ins Tn bef yn D.
etn « (omg xpovor) D.
aryuttov ABN a b c? d p 13
rec eTpotropopnaev
(alteration to what seemed a more appropriate word; see notes), with BC2:DHLN p
rel 36 vulg(mores eorum sustinuit) syr-marg-gr Orig Chr (Ke Thl-fin (erpopomop. Thl-
sif): txt AC!E 13 syrr copt eth arm Constt(see Tischdf ) Cyr Hesych.
Luke iv. 17 ff. and notes. 16. kata-
ocioas T. xetpi] As was his practice; see
ch. xxi. 40. See also extelvas thy xeipa, ch.
Xxvi. 1. On the character, &e. of Paul’s
speeches reported in the Acts, see Prolegg.
Sie Use mG ye The contents of this
speech (vv. 16—41) may be thus arranged :
I. Recapitulation of God’s ancient deliver-
ances of His people and mercies towards
them, ending with His crowning mercy,
the sending of the Deliverer and promised
Son of David (vv. 16—25). Il. The his-
tory of the rejection of Jesus by the Jews,
and of God’s fulfilment of His promise by
raising Him from the dead (vv. 26—37).
Ill. The personal application of this to
all present,—the announcement to them
of justification by faith in Jesus, and
solemn warning against the rejection of
Him (vv.38—41). It is in the last degree
unsafe to argue, as Dr. Wordsworth has
done, that, because Strabo asserts the
language of the Pisidians to have been
neither Greek nor Lydian, St. Paul must
have spoken to them by virtue of his
miraculous gift of tongues. To the ques-
tion put by Dr. W., “In what language
did St. Paul preach in Pisidia?” we may
reply, seeing that he preached in the syna-
gogue after the reading of the law and
prophets, “ In the same language as that
in which the law and prophets had just
been read.” ot dof. tr. 6.] The (un-
circumcised) proselytes of the gate; not
excluding even such pious Gentiles, nor
proselytes in any sense, who might be
present. The speech, from the beginning
Vou. II.
and throughout, is wniversal in its applica-
tion, embracing Jews and Gentiles.
17. tov aod tovTov] ‘ Hoc dicit Pisidis,
Judzos digito monstrans’ (Grot.). Or
rather, perhaps by the rovrov indicating,
without gesture, the people in whose syn-
agogue they were assembled. T. Wart.
jpov] It is evident that the doctrine so
much insisted on afterwards by Paul, that
all believers in Christ were the true children
of Abraham, was fully matured already :
by the tod Aaod tovtov he alludes to
the time when God was the God of the
Jews only: by this juav he unites all
present in the now extended inheritance of
the promises made to the fathers.
tWooev | Evidently an allusion to Isa. i. 2,
where the word is also used in the sense of
‘bringing up,’ nourishing to manhood.
This was done by increasing them in Egypt
so that they became a great nation: see ref.
Gen. There is no reference to any exalta-
tion of the people during their stay in
Egypt: whether by their deliverance (Calv.,
Heinr., Elsner), or by the miracles of Moses
(Meyer), or by Joseph’s preferment to ho-
nour (Beza, Grot.). 18. érpodo-
¢cdpygev] That this is the right reading, is
rendered highly probable by MS. authority
here and still more in the LXX of ref.
Deut., and, I conceive, dectded by the Heb.
of that passage, and by the expansion of
the same image in Num. xi. 12. The com-
pound verb (from 6, not 7, tgopds, as the
similitude is that of a man [ws] bearing
his son) implies carrying and caring for, as
a nurse: see ref. Mace. 19. ewra | See
4
146
b here only. b
TIPAZEIS AMOSTOAQN.
XIII.
20
\ ‘
trans., Di UT. katexAnpovoungey [abroic ] THY ynv auTwv. Kal METa
iii. 28. (i. 38. , ec?
ant 16, vat. rautra we ereotv TETOAKOGLOIC Kat TEVTYKOVTAaA EOWKE
i ace. ii.
36 F.) cconstr., Eph.iv. 11. 3 Kings ii. 35.
19. om «ka B p sah. ev yn xavaav bef erra E: om ev y. x. 18. rec
katexAnpodotncey (corrn to fix the active sense on the verb:
with aho: txt ABCDEHLX rel 36 Chr ec Thl.
coptt: txt ACD°EHL rel.
addog. D>.
for avtwy, Twy addopvdAwy D! syr-w-ast :
as also in Lxx, see reff),
om autos BD'R p 13. 40
QUT WY
20. ws er. Ter. K. mevT. bef kar wera TavTa (see notes) ABCN p 13. 36. 40 vulg coptt
arm: om p. T. D':
Deut. vii. 1; Josh. iii. 10; xxiv. 11.
The unusual transitive sense of karexAn-
povdunoev, justified by reff. LXX, has not
been understood by the copyists, and has
led to the rec. reading. From the oc-
currence of manifest references, in these
opening verses of the speech, to Deut. i.
and Isa. i., combined with the fact that
these two chapters form the present lessons
in the synagogues on one and the same
sabbath, Bengel and Stier conclude that
they had been then read. It may have
been so: but see on ver. 15. 20.]
Treating the reading of ABCX (see var.
readd.) as an attempt at correcting the
difficult chronology of our verse, and taking
the words as they stand, no other sense can
be given to them, than that the time of the
judges lasted 450 years. The dative éreow
(see ch. vill. 11) implies the duration of the
period between tavra (the division of the
land), and Samuel the prophet, inclusive.
And we have exactly the same chronologi-
cal arrangement in Josephus; who reckons
(Antt. viii. 3. 1) 592 years from the Exodus
to the building of Solomon’s temple,—
arranging the period thus: (1) forty years
in the wilderness: (2) twenty-five years
under Joshua (otpatnybs 5€ peta Thy
Mwmvoéws TeAcuTHy mwévte Kk. etkoot, Antt.
v. 1. 29): (3) Judges (below): (4) forty
years under Saul, see on ver. 21: (5) forty
years under David, 1 Kingsii. 11: (6) four
years of Solomon’s own reign. This gives
592—149 = 443 years (about, as, 450) for
the Judges, including Samuel. That this
chronology differs widely from 1 Kings
Wit eik, is most evident,—where we read
that Solomon began his temple in the
four hundred and eightieth (LXX, four
hundred and for tieth) year after the
Exodus. All attempts to reconcile the
two are arbitrary and forced. I sub-
join the principal. (1) Perizonius and
others assume that the years during
which the Israelites were subject to
foreign tyrants in the time of the ee
are not reckoned in 1 Kings vi. 1, and
attempt, by adding them, to make out
the period—in direct contradiction to
txt D'EHL rel Syr eth Chr Gc Thl.—for ws, ews D!-gr:
et quasi annis D-lat: quasi post annos vulg: et post annos wth-rom.
om AC:
aft edwx.
the account there, which is, not that the
Judges lasted a certain number of years,
but that Solomon began to build his temple
in the four hundred and eightieth year
after the Exodus. (2) Calovius, Mill, &e.
supply yevdueva after mevthkovta, and con-
strue, these things ‘which happened in
the space of 450 years,’ viz. from the birth
of Isaac to the division of the land. But
why the birth of Isaac? The words too
will not bear this construction. (3) Ol-
shausen conceives the 450 years may in-
clude all from the Exodus, as far as the
building of the temple. But to this the
objection which he himself mentions is
fatal, viz. that wera tadra and éxeiev
must beyond dispute give the termini @
quo and ad quem of the period. (4) Others
suppose various corruptions, here or at
1 Kings vi. 1, and by arbitrary conjecture
emend so as to produce accordance.
It seems then that Paul followed a chrono-
logy current among the Jews, and agree-
ing with the book of Judges itself (the
spaces of time in which, added together =
exactly 450), and that adopted by Jose-
phus, but not with that of our present
Hebrew text of 1 Kings vi. 1. The objec-
tion to this view, that Josephus is not con-
sistent with himself (Olsh.),—but in Antt.
xx. 10. 1, contr. Apion. ii. 2 gives another
chronology, has arisen from not observing
that in the latter places, where he states
612 years to have elapsed from the Exodus
to Solomon’s temple, he reckons zm the
twenty years occupied in building the tem-
ple and the king’s house, 1 Kings vi. 38 ;
vii. 1. His words are, Antt. xx. 10. 1,
ap is nuépas of marépes Huay e&éAutov
Atyurtov Mavoéws ayovtos, mMexpt Tis
Tov vaov KaTagKevys, ov Sodoudv 46
Baotrebds ev ‘IepoooAvmors aviyeipev, ern
dvoKaldexa mpos Tots étaxootos. Toreckon
in the thirteen years during which he was
building his own house may be an in-
accuracy, but there is no inconsistency.
Dr. Wordsworth, contrary to his
usual practice, takes refuge in the amended
text of ABC, and then characterizes in the
severest language those who have had the
ABCDE
HL ab
edfgh
klop
13
20—24.
d Ny ae aN -
KOLTaC EWC Lapovnr [rov] Toopntov" 21
/ ‘
oayTo Gacréa, Kat
en , ” ’ ~
viov Keic, avopa EK purne Beviapety,
22
TIPAZ EIS ANOSTOAQN,
g Ian > ~
ECWKEVY AUTOIC O
147
e ? = | Gs ARR
Kake , = d= here only.
CORRS Fone Al 18.
e of time, here
only.
fch. xvi. 29
reff. | Kines
xii. 17.
‘ ‘\
Qedc tov Laovr
a
ETN TEGGEOAKOVTA’
Kat ae 4 rea a * \Q 9 oe Luke vii. 15
peTagTHoacC auTOY ‘yELOEV TOV Aaveid avroie ® -
al. | KINGS
xii. 15.
k ae , ic? Ve ! , a
etc BaorXéa, Ww KQL ELTEV praoTvonoac Evooy Aaveiod Tov h = Luke xvi.
~ , ” m \ x ' a“
tov lescal, avooa “Kata THY ™ Kaodlay jou, O¢ ™ Tomo 2;
, \ no , ,
mavra ta "°OeAnpata pov.
, e A > ‘
23 P rourov o Bede amo Tov
4 (ch. xix.
1 Cor.
xiii. 2. Col.
~ i. 13) only.
3 Kings xv.
13. Dan. ii.
q , r > ys? ' t» -
améouatoc ‘Kat '* emayyeAtav nyayev Tw Aepanar , sect.
Jude. ii. 18.
u ~ ’ ~ / v , ’ ,
swtnoa Inoovr, 24 mpoknovSavToc Iwavvov “ 790 k=Lukeis. sa.
ver.47. 1 Kings xv. 11
n Isa. xliv. 28 (of Cyrus).
XXiii. 26,
sch. i. 4 reff.
only t.
p ch. ix. 20 reff.
t = ZECH. iii. 9 (8).
ins avtois © sah Chr.
l=ch. x. 43 reff.
Matt. vii. 21. xii. 50. John vii. 17 al.
Isa. xviii. 15.
w Matt. xi. 10, from MAL. iii. 1.
ch. vii. 21.
m = here only. 1 KinGs xiii. 14.
l r o plar,, Eph. ii. 3 only. Jer.
q Rom. i. 3 reff. rGal. iii. 29. 2 Tim. i. 1 only.
uch. v. 31. Isa. xlv. 15. v bere
om tov A(appy) BX p.
21. rec xis, with EHL rel: txt ABCDX.
[Beviapev, so ABCR: -meru p. |
22. rec avrois bef tov 8. (alteration of arrangement, to connect avtas with the verb),
with CEHL 13. 36 rel vss Chr: txt ABDX coptt.—om tov D.
om avdpa BE: om also kat. 7. x. nov os E.
23. 0 0. ovy am. T. om. avtov D: om amo 7. omepuatos NR.
tov, viov D 34.
nupov HK. for
rec for nyay., n’yelpev
(explanatory alteration, see ver 22), with CD 13. 36 rel tol syrr sah Thdrt Thl-fin :
txt ABEHLX b g 1p vulg copt «th Ath Chr-comm (ec Thi-sif Aug.
for owT.
ino, cwrnpiav (see note) H(ep: av) Lb df gh113 wth Chr, Thi-sif: 0. tov tny. D:
om ino. 0 42. 14!. 16, 23. 37. 46. 56. 66. 76: txt ABCER rel 36 vulg Syr copt arm (Be
Aug.
moral courage to abide by the more difficult
reading, charging them with “arbitrary
caprice,” “ gratifying a sceptical appetite,”
&e. I cite this as an example of that
elastic criticism, which by any means within
reach, and at any price, smooths away every
difficulty from the sacred text.
SapovyA] mentioned as the terminus of
the period of the Judges, also as having
been so nearly concerned in the setting
up over them of Saul and David.
Q1. SaovA..... GvSpa ek op. B.| It may
be not altogether irrelevant to notice that
a Saul, a man of the tribe of Benjamin,
was speaking ; and to trace in this minute
specification something characteristic and
natural. érn TeacepdkovTa | So also
Josephus: €Basideuce SaovA SapoutAov
(avros rn éxt& mpds Tots deka" TeAEv-
thaoavros 5¢ S00 Kal etxoot, Antt. vi. 14. 9.
In the O. T. the length of Saul’s reign is
not specified ; 1 Sam. vii. 2 gives no reason,
as Bengel thinks, why Saul’s reign should
have been less than twenty years, as the
twenty years there mentioned do not ex-
‘tend to the bringing up of the ark by
David, but only to the circumstances men-
tioned in the following verses. Biscoe has
well shewn (p. 399), that as Saul was a
young man when anointed king, and Ish-
bosheth his youngest son (1 Chron. viii. 33)
was forty years old at his death (2 Sam.
ii, 10), his reign cannot have been much
short of that period. It is clearly against
the construction to suppose Samuel’s time
as well as Saul’s included in the forty years,
following as they do upon the wer.
Yet this has been done by the majority of
Commentators. 22. petaotycas |
having deposed him (reff.) : in this-case,
by his death, for David was not made king
till then. Or perhaps wetaor. may refer
to the sentence pronounced against Saul,
1 Sam. xiii. 14, or xv. 23, 28, and fryepev
to the whole process of the exaltation of
David tobe king. But I prefer the former.
@ x. elmev p.| The two passages,
Ps. Ixxxix. (Ixxxviii. LXX) 20, and 1 Sam.
xiii. 14, are interwoven together: both were
spoken of David, and both by prophetic
inspiration. They are cited from memory,
neither 7ov tov *lecoai nor Os .... Mov
being found in them. These latter words
are spoken of Cy7ws, see reff. That such
citations are left in their present shape in
our text, forms a strong presumption that
we have the speeches of Paul verbatim as
delivered by him, and no subsequent general
statement of what he said, in which case
the citations would have been corrected by
the sacred text. 23. Kat’ éwayy.
Hyayev| viz. the promise in ref. Zech.
(LXX), where the very word &ye is used ;
not however excluding the many other pro-
mises to the same effect. The reading
cwrnplav has probably arisen from the
L 2
148 MPAZEIS AMOSTOAQN. XIII.
: , ~ x 2 2D > ~ oy , y ,
x1Thess.i.9 7ToOoCwWTOU THE ~ ELCOCOV aUTOU Bamriopa Y petavotac
Bee te 2h oie a eae are cle (LW con lst oeee
Wart ravtre tw Aaw lopana. we 6& *exAngou lwavync tov
MAL. Iii. 2. @g , o (Pe WW EG - 5 5 5) Cok IVE ee
y Mark i. 4, Sodpov, EAeyev Tu me ° vTovoette Elva 5 OUK © Ell EY,
ecimar € 2A A anaes FOR 08a Rah ao Nis eae .
chixixd @XX tov EoXETat “MET EME OV OVK EL AlLOG TO
= ch. xii. 25 € , -~ ~ - of > ' AN
ret? © ardonua Twv TooWY © Avoat. 26 Avéore adeAdot, vtot
a Paul (ch. xx. 7a, ’ \ V8 eB eed a , % ,
2a eee yevouc ABoaap kat or ev vp poPovpevor tov Oeor,
Jer. viii. 6. cr oe th a , ~ i 1 i , k og on
beh. xxv.18 Ul O oyog TIC ‘owrnplag ‘tavTng © ESaTectadn.
a Soe ivrec lev ‘I Ai Kat ova
only.L.P. 27 of yao Katotkouvtec ev lepovoaAnu Kat ot apxovrec
Judith xiv.
14. Sir. xxiii.
2lonly. Dan.
vii. 25 Theod.
> ~ nm 2: , \ ‘ oO ‘ ~
auTwWv TOVTOY ayVvonoayTEeg Kal TAC pwvac Twv TOEOPN-
ov tac Pata? wav oa(3PBarTov 1 avaywwoKouevac * Kol
(-vora, 1Tim. BO TS ‘ »/ ev ¢ >
, , \ ’ oy ,
clipe, Matt, VAVTEC * exA\nowoay, °8 kal pndsutav ‘attiav Qavarov
xiv.27.John e¢« # Teed ‘ vy? 07, a ee 99 «
iv.26. vill, EVOOVTEG | YTNGAYTO TliAarov * avatoeOnvat avrov. we
24. xviii. 5.
d = w. person, Acts only. ch. xix. 4 (Panl). v.37. vii. 5.
g = ch. x. 2 reff. h constr., ch. xiv. 3 (of Paul). xx. 32 (Paul).
Phil. ii. 16 al2. (Paul). Heb. v.18. Jamesi. 18. i here only.
ech. vii. 33 reff. f = ch. iv. 6 reff.
1 Cor. xii. 8 2 Cor, v.19. vi.7. Eph.i. 13.
k ch. vii. 12 reff. Ich. xi.
2y reff. m =ch. iii. 17. iv. 5, &c. 1 Cor. ii. 6,8. Josh. ix. 15 al. fr. n ch, xvii. 23 (Paul.
Rom. x. 3. xi. 25. 1 Cor. xiv. 38. 2 Cor. ii. 11. 1 Kings xxvi. 21. o = ch. xxiv. 21 (Paul). vil. 31
(Steph.). p ch. xv. 21, 36. xviii. 4 al. q = Luke iv. 16. ch. xv.21. 2 Cor. iii.15 al. Neh.
viii. 8. r=1Cor. xi.3!. 1 Pet. iv. 6. s = ch. iii. 18 reff. and passim. t = John
Vili. 38. xix. 4, 6. ch. xxviii. 18. Prov. xxviii. 17. u constr., ch, iii. 14 reff. veh. v. 33 rett.
24. om marti HL d e f g h 1 o Chr-comm Ce Thl: om Aaw Ade fghlo Chr-
comm (Ec: om icp. 68. 104 sah: txt BCDEN p 18. 36 vss. (The variations have
perhaps been occasioned by those in ver 17 above).—X" began to write mA. bef Aaw,
but marked the letters for erasure.
25. rec ins o bef wwavvns, with L 13 rel Chr Thl-fin: om ABCDEHR® a1 p ec Thi-
sif. etAnpouv D!. rec (for Tt eue) Tiva we, With CDEHL 13 rel vss Chr:
txt ABN sah, te war (= Tt pe) p- aft eyw ins o xpiotos E 68 lect-12 tol Thl-fin.
adda, and we? D!: wer DS.
26. om ka B. ev qutv AD p. aft @cov ins akovoate E. rec (for
nui) vay, with CEHL rel vss: txt A B(sic: see table) DX ¢ p 13 syr-marg sah.
aft o Aoyos ins ovtos C d 6. 36. 65. 133. 180 syr eth arm. rec ameotaAy, with
EHL rel ec Thi: txt ABCDN a h p 13. 36. 40 Chr.
27. om ev CE b dhk p 18 vulg (Syr?) Chr,. for aut. Tout. ayv., aut. s D!:
avtov T. ayvourvtes D®, for kK. T. dwvas,..... Tals Tas yp..as (uN ouMEeyTES T.
ypapas ?) D': txt D§: ayy. 7. yp. E Syr. ins ka bef kpw. D.
28. aft evpoyres ins ev avtw D vulg syr-w-ast coptt wth. for ntno. &e, Kpetvavtes
auTov Tapedwkay TMiAaTw wa ers avatpeow D! (ut interficeretur lat): D® reads nrnoavTo
am. aveped., without erasing any portion of D!: for ntnvavto, ntnoav tov(sic) Nt.
for the Jews in Jerusalem have rejected it.
contracted way of writing “Ingodv, thus:
«i -— ~~ 9 ‘ , “=
See ch. xxii. 18—21. TAS dwvas is
cwTnpay; and then from ver. 26 cwrnplay
was adopted. 24, eisdSov] referring
to Hyayev above—his coming forward
publicly. 25.) As John was ful-
filling his course (the expression is pecu-
liar to Paul, see reff.) he said (not once
but habitually). vt ene vr. etv. | Not,
‘I am not that which ye suppose me to be,’
as Vulg. (reading tiva,—quem me arbitra-
mini esse, non sum ego); Jmth., Grot.,
Kuin.,—making 7! (or tiva) relative, which
it will not bear; but What suppose ye
me tobe? Iam not He. See Luke iii.
15 ff. 26. +. cwiyplas tavTys | viz.
the salvation implied in Jesus being a
cwthp—salvation by Him. 27.| The
position of duiy at the commencement of its
clause in the last verse shews the emphasis
to be on it, and now the reason is given—
not governed by ayvohoartes, which makes
the sentence an unusually harsh one in con-
struction, requiring ai’téy to be supplied
after kpiv., and adtds after émAjpwcar.
The kat, as often, merely introduces, with-
out the emphasis implied by our ‘even,’ a
new element into the sentence. It is per-
haps hardly possible to find in our lan-
guage or the Latin any one word which
may give exactly this slight shade of mean-
ing, and no more: paraphrased, the sense
might be (but imperfectly and clumsily)
thus represented: in their ignorance of
Him (not only rejected His salvation, but)
by judging Him, fulfilled the voices of
the prophets, &c. 28. | Not, ‘ though,’
but rather because they found no cause:
when they found no cause of death in
ABCDE
HLNab
edfgh
klop
13
25—33.
Or wx ? tx tA A \ ’ ~
€ “* eteAtoav Tavta Ta TEL avTOU
SZ: > A -~
eXovtec amo tov *SbXAov * Onkav
0) SY b»* a. AN ? b ~
f0C NYELOEV AUTOY EK VEKOWY,
IIPAZEIS AMOSTOAQN.
149
x yeyoampéva, Y cae ¥ = Luke ii.
A 30 « ae. a jE Ie
= \ x = Luke xviii.
€lLC PVN UELOV, oO oe Sl. xxii. 87.
31 8 cv Aan AN Cees y = Luke xxiii.
Oo 63 1 Mk.
¢ op On ETENMEPAC Josh. vill. 29.
e / ; Cee -~ > ~ 9 Ny ~ - ¢
wAglove Toic cuvavaacw autw ato tye TadiX\atac ate * ee
‘| Nn g Da ~ >
e0ovgcaAnm, © OlTLVEC VU ELoLY
‘ , <
rov Auov. *2
k N
TOUC
hy 2 > ~ :
HapTugeg auTov mpocg 2
reff.
ach. iv.3. xii.
Ruth iv.
16.
MEG ~ Ge i > , ‘ 5
Kal nee umac ' evayyediZopeba rv TOOC "ren LPL
principally.
k D ee AY m , ¢ D ,
TaTEepac eTayye lav YEVOREVHY, OTL TAUTHD © 1 Cor. xv. 5,
Oca 0? ye = ; 3 om yee x ak: :
oO €oc EKTWET NPWKEV TOLC TEKVOLC auTwy nL P ava- constr., ch.
xvi. 18. xvii.
y ie 38} & Vs ee? tas t ~ 2. xix. 8, &c.
otnoae Inovvv, we Kal ev “tw Watuw yéyparra xxvii. 26.
‘ Hee : P t p uM t i YP . ae Heb. xi. 30.
see Rom. vii. 1 al. _ ech. ii. 40 reff. f Mark xv. 41 only. 2 Chron. xviii. 2. = ch.
x. 41 reff. heh. i. 8 reff. i double acc., here only. oe ch. viii. 25 reff E absol.,
ch. vii. 19 reff. lch. i. 4 reff.
oOhere only. Exod. xxxii.29 Ald. 2 Mace. viii. 10 only, but not =.
p = ch. ij. 24 reff.
29. ereAnoay A: eredouy D!: txt D-corr!.
for more completeness ?), with none of our mss: txt ABCDEHLNX rel.
67.1. (-pwous, ch. xxi. 26.)
mept avtou B.
Kat emituxovtTes madw kat D! syr-marg.
bef «@nxav D'(and lat).
m = ch. vii 31 reff. n ch. ix. 20 refi,
Tas émayyeNtas ExmAnpovy, Polyb. i.
rec awayra (error? or alteration
vyeyp. bef
aft yeypaumeva add evow nrovvto Tov methaToy TouvToOY Mev GTaUpwoal,
for fvAov, otavpov E Syr. ins kat
30. for ver, ov o Oeos nyepev D: aft Ocos ins vero D-lat: add tertia die vulg(not
tol).
31. ovtos wpbn Tos svvavaBatvovolw avTw am. T. y. ELS Lep. Ep Nuep. TAELovas D
(-avaBasw D-corr, mAeovs D8),
rec om vuv (as unnecessary ? hardly for Meyer's
reason, that they had been now for some time His witnesses), with BEHL rel xth-pl
Chr: et bef vuy X: txt AC ak p 18. 36 Syr coptt xth-rom.—axp: vuy D e¢ 137
vulg syr-w-ast. om avtov H.
32. Tnv mpos Tous is written over an erasure by X! or N-corr!. aft matepas ins
nuwy DE yss. yevou. bef exayy. D Hil. * yw (to avoid the difficulty
of ot poBovpevor Tov Beov being present, ver 16, besides the avdpes txpandttart) ABC'DR
vulg (vuwy tol) eth Ambr: om yuw sah Ambr Bede-gr: avtewy nuw C3EHL p 13. 36
rel syrr Chr (Ke Thl-fin.
for tncouy, Tov Kupiov mo. xp. D sah Ambr; so, insg
nuev aft kup.137 Hil; tov cup. nuwy ino. syr-w-ast: avTov ex verpwy A®. :
33. for ws kal, ouTws yap D.
ree TW W. Tw euT. y&yoaTTal,
with EL rel vulg Chr Thl Ambr: 7. mpwtw y. yey. D(no vss) Orig-scholexpr Georg-
him, they besought, &c.: see Luke xxiii.
DIRS: 29.]| The two verbs éréAcoay
and é€@nxav have still the same subject, viz.
oi katoikovytTes K.T.A. De Wette rightly
remarks, that Paul, inthis compendious nar-
rative, makes no distinction between friend
and foe in what was done to our Lord, but
regards both as fulfilling God’s purpose
regarding him. I may add, that there is
also a contrast between what men did to
Him, and 6 8€ Ged Hyeipey aitov. Jo-
seph and Nicodemus, be it observed, were
both a&pxovtes. Paul touches but lightly
on the cross of Christ, and hastens on to
the great point, the Resurrection, as the
fulfilment of prophecy and seal of the Mes-
siahship of Jesus. 31.] The viv gives
peculiar force to the sentence. Who are
at this moment witnesses,—living wit-
nesses ; q. d. ‘I am not telling you a mat-
ter of the past merely, but one made pre-
sent to the people of the Jews (7¢@ Aa)
by living and autoptic testimony.’
32. tpets tpas| He and Barnabas were
not of the number of the cuvavaBayTes,
ver. 31, nor was their mission to the Jewish
people. ‘ They are at tis moment witness-
ing to the people, we, preaching to you.’
Stier observes (Red. d. Apost. p. 367) how
entirely Paul sinks himse/f, his history and
commission from Christ, in the great object
of his preaching. avaotyoas| The
meaning having raised Him from the
dead is absolutely required by the con-
text: both because the word is repeated
with é« vexp@y (ver. 34), and because the
Apostle’s emphasis throughout the passage
is on the Resurrection (ver. 30) as the final
fulfilment (é&erewAnpoxev) of God’s pro-
mises regarding Jesus. This is maintained
by Luther, Hammond, Le Clere, Meyer,
&e.: the other meaning, ‘having raised up,’
as in ch. vii. 37, mpo¢ytny buiv avacthees
6 «bpios,—by Calvin, Beza, Calov., Wolf,
Michaelis, Rosenm., Heinrichs, Kuinoel,
Olsh., and by Mr. Humphry. Meyer well
150
gq Heb. i. 5. v.
BME BAS iis 7.
Yr trans., ch.
xvii. 31 only.
s=ch. xxii'.3.
XXVi. 22, 23
al. 2 Macc.
iii. 18.
t of a state,
here only.
see ch. viii.
25 reff. - 36 . . < net
= ch. ii. 27
Oe Aavitd piv yap Lola
v=Isa.lv.3
only.
w = 1 Tim.i.
15. iii. 1. iv.
9. Tit. iii. 8.
Rev. xxi. 5.
xxii. 6. Ps.
Ixxx viii. 28.
x=ch. xvii.7 reff.
ach. xx, 34. xxiv. 23 only t.
vii. 39 reff. 3 Kines ii.10.
40 reff. fch. i. 1Y reff.
y PsA. xv. 10.
Wisd. xvi. 24 al.
IIPAZEIS ATMOZTOAQN.
~ a ws ‘ ,
vu ta‘ Oora Aavetd ta ™ mora.
, ‘
eye Ov 9 decue Tov
5) g ,
ovx * eidev » dcapfopar.
see ch. ii. 27 reff.
Gen. xlix. 15 Aq Symm.
d(ch. ii. 41.) = Gen. xhx. 29. x
g ch. ii. 14. iv. 10. xxXviil. 22, 28. Ezra iv. 12, 13.
XIII.
, q cr = , AN , / ,
CevTEpy Ytoe pov &l GU, eyw OnMEOOV yeyevvnka O€&.
4 \ pr , , ° A r? ~ y s éxXr
OTL be QVEOTHOEV AUTOV EK VEKOWY PNKETL BPEAAOVTEA
? , er ” a ,
UTooT pEpery gic StapOooav, OUTWC *ELONKEV, OTL bwow
c
35 Store Kal ev * eTéow
Ootov cov * LoEtv * dap Oopar.
ee , ~ ~ =)
“yevea * UTNpETHGAC TY TOU feov
~ , , \ L / be ‘ ,
"Bovdn © exon Kat " ToocereOy mpoc Tov marépac
~ 3 Ze \ Noe hie
avrov Kat ¥ sidev ¥ diapfooay 37 Ov d& 0 Deo * nyetpev
f ‘ s 7 c
38 fg yvworTov OUV E EOTW ULV,
z=ch. xiv. 16. Eph.iii.5. Judg. ii. 10.
b ch. ii. 23 reff. ce = 1 Cor.
Judg. ii. lu. e ver. 30. ch. x.
alex (Hc) Tert Cypr-mss Hilexpr Jer Cassiod: tw deur. p. yeyp. H o 4. 68. 76. 100: txt
ABC ac p 138. 40 arm.
at end, D adds (from Ps ii. 8) aitnoat map atmou Kat
Bwow cor cov THY KANpPOVOMLaY Tov Kal THY KATATXETLY TOV TA TWEPATA TIS 7S.
84. ore D 187 Hil.
avtov Ek 32. 66 Chr.
aft avrov add o dcos E 68 Syr Thi-fin.
aft meAA. ins
35. ree 5:0, with CEHL p? 13. 36 rel vss Chr Ee Thi: propter nos E-lat: txt ABR
p! sah: om D Syr eeth.
86. om pev D 26 vulg.
remarks, that this meaning would hardly
in our passage have been thought of or
defended, had it not been that the sub-
joined citation from Ps. ii. has been thought
necessarily to apply to our Lord’s mission
upon earth. 33.| The reading év To
mpétw Waru¢@ is explained thus: “hic
psalmus qui nobis secundus est olim pri-
mus fuit, quod is qui precedit, tanquam
procemium, numeratus non esset.”” Rosenm.
Arg. Ps. ii. St. Paul refers the prophecy
in its full completion to the Reswrrection
of our Lord: similarly in Rom. i. 4, dpic-
Oévtos viov Oeod ev Suyduer..... €
avaoTdoews VEKpOV. 34. peyKete
péAd.] Compare Rom. vi. 9, xpiotds eyep-
Oels ee vexpav ovKéTt GmobvncKer Odva-
Tos avTov ovKeTt KUpiever. Itis interesting
to trace the same shades of thought in the
speeches and epistles of Paul; and abun-
dant opportunity of doing so will occur as
we proceed. But here the troop. eis
d:ap0. does not merely imply death, so that
Jesus should have once undergone it, and no
more hereafter, as the E. V. seems to imply:
but we must supply ‘ to die, and in conse-
quence to’ before the words, understanding
them as the result of death, if it had do-
minion over him: thus the clause answers
even more remarkably to Rom. vi. 9.
7@ Sova is the LXX rendering of »100, ref.
Isa., which in 2 Chron. vi. 42, they have
translated 7a €Aé€n. The word ‘holy’ should
have been preserved in the E. Y., as an-
swering to roy éordv cov below ; the mer-
cies of David, holy and sure: or my holy
promises which I made sure unto David.
erepws D: alias vulg: alia D-lat: ev Tw er. 18.
87. for ov, o D!-gr: txt D-corr'.
35. Sidte kai | wherefore also, —cor-
respondent to which purpose, of His Christ
not seeing corruption. étép@ | viz.
Wadug@, referring to ver. 33. héye |
viz. 6 Oeds, not David: the subject is con-
tinued from vy. 32 and 34, and fixed by
eipnrey and doo just preceding. ddacers
and éo10v accurately correspond to décw
and éo1a before. See on ch. ii. 27.
36.] The psalm, though spoken by David,
cannot have its fulfilment zz David.
idia yeved | The dative commodi, not ‘sua
generatione,’ which is flat in the extreme.
David ministered only to the generation in
which he lived: but dia TovTov, remission
of sins is preached duty, and to all who
believe on Him. TH Ted 8. BovAy is
best taken with bsanpetqoas, not with
éxoiundn :—as KE. V., after he had served
his own generation by the will (i. e.
according to the appointment) of God.
His whole course was marked out and
fixed by God—he fulfilled it, and fell asleep.
I prefer this, because joining 77 Tov @. B.
with éoiuhm seems to diminish the im-
portance of that verb in the sentence.
(See, on the whole, 2 Sam. vii. 12; 1 Kings
ii. 10.) aposet. «.T.A.] An expres-
sion arising from the practice of burying
fainilies together: see reff. and passim in
OnK 38.]| Paul speaks here of jus-
tification only in its lowest sense, as nega-
tive, and synonymous with remission of
sins ; he does not unfold here that higher
sense of bixadw, the accounting righteous,
..tdtaH.
ABCD
ELNab
edfgh
klop
13
which those who have from God are dikator .
It is the first office of the
ex mlaotews.
JLNab
edfgh
klop
13
o4—41.
” > ’ e Ld i i
avopec aded pol, ort dca "“ rovrou vu ' adeate * amaotiv
T xiii. 39 * katayyéAXera, *9 [ai] '
ABCDE Onre
,
TIOTEVWV
c ~
NIPAZEIZ AMOSTOAQN.
avo Tavtwy ™ wy ovK novvn-
"ep vou Mwuoéwe |" SucawwInvar, epial ToUTW Tac 0
'™ Stkaovrar. 4° ° BX ézere ovv m1? emeXOn [ep
vnac | TO * etonsevov Ev Toc Toopyraic 41 [Sere oft ' xara-
ppovnrat, Kat Oavaacare Kai ° apaviaOnre, re ‘ €o-yov
‘ goyaZouat eyo év Talc Nuéoate Vpwv, epyov Oo ov an
ag
151
h ch. ix. 20
fF.
reff.
ich. v. 31 reff.
k ver. 5 reff.
¢ 1 Rom. vi. 7
ovly. Sir.
XXVi. 20.
m constr., ver,
2 reff.
n Rom. vy. 9.
1 Cor, iv. 4.
vi.1l. Gal.
ii. 17. iii.
1H Lay aye: &
more usoally
Ww. €K.
u , 7 v>? ~ o = Matt. xxiv.
TIlOTEVONTE EAV TIC exoupynrat UvElV, 4|. 1Cor.
viii. 9. x, 12.
Gal. v. li alt pch. viii. 24. Luke xxi. 26. James.v.1. Micah iii, 11. AS
Luke ii. 24. iv. 12. ch. ii. 16. Rom, iv. 18. (act., ver. 34. Heb i 13. ive 3, 4, 7.) r hemouis:
Has. i, 5. ii. 5. s = James iv. 14 (Matt, vi. 16, 14, 20; only. Hab. lc. (notin Heb.) Job
iv. 9. i t Matt. xxvi. 10 ||) Mk. Johniii. 21. vi. 28. ix. 4. 1 Cor. xvi. 10. Ps. xliii. J. Hab. 1. ec.
uacc., John xi. 26. 1 Cor. xiii.7. 1Jolniy. 16. Hab. l.c. vch. xv. 3only. Hab. i. c.
38. uu. bef eco. AN.
101. 180.
39. om xa: AC’X am fuld demid tol «eth-pl: ins BC3DEL rel vss Chr.
edurnOnte A: nduvnOnuev D-corr!-gr.
add petavora D syr-w-ast.
d: avtov E d 65. 67. 133 wth: d:a rovro B! 15. 18. 34. 73.
aft Kat
rec ins Tw
bef vou. (corrn : but the art is not needed aft a preposition), with EL rel Ee Thl: om
ABCDN h p 13. 40 Chr.
mapa ew D 137 syr-marg.
40. ameAdn N?.
aft ev Tovtw ins ovv D syr-w-ast.
for Sixatovrat, dicarwOnvat (but corrd) X!.
om ep vpas (as unnecessary ? or because a difficulty was found
at end ins
in identifying vues with the katappovnta of the citation?) BDX 13. 36 am tol: ins
ACEIL rel vss Chr al.
41. for 13., axovocate E.
Katappovnoate X!.
ins kat em:BAevare (from
1uxXx) bef kat @avuacare I o Chr Thl-fin; aft «. @. E(but om rat) k 27. 29. 57. 69. 105.
106. Oavuacete N 1: -Cete c.
aft Ist epyov ins o X!.
rec eyw bef epyat. (corrn
Zo xx), with CEIL rel 36 demid Chr: eyw epyaCoue eyw NR: txt ABD k p 13 vulg sah
arm.
txt ABCDEILN rel Chr Thl.
kat evetynoay D, Kk. ecrynoey syr-w-ast.
Spirit by which he spoke, eAéyxew ep
auaptias, before He eAdéyxe: wept Sixao-
ctvvns: therefore he dwells on the &peors
auapti@y, merely just giving a glimpse of
the great doctrine of justification, of which
he had such wonderful things to write and
to say. 39.] [And] from all things,
from which ye could not in (under) the
law of Moses be justified, in Him (as ev
XpioT@, ev Kupiw passim) every believer
is (habitual pres.) justified. a7 mdvtwv
(a¢’) ov, from all things (sins), from
which .... but not implying that in the
law of Moses there might be justification
from some sins ;—under the law there is xo
justification (é€v vdu@m ovdels SixatovTa
mapa TH Oe@, Gal. iii, 11) :—but = Christ
shall do for you all, that the law could
not do: leaving it for inference, or for fur-
ther teaching, that this was absolutely aLL :
that the law could do zothing. The same
thought is expanded Rom. viii. 3, 4, 7d yap
advvatov Tov vduou, ev w HaobEever Sia THS
capkds, 6 Oeds K.7.A. .. . Wa Td dikalwua
T. vouov TAnpwOy ev juiv. This interpre-
tation will be the more clearly esta-
blished, when we remember that d:kaovv
amd auaptias was not in any sense, and
could not be, the office of the law, by
om 2nd epyov DEL be df gh k1 0 tol syrr xth-pl Chr Cosm (e Thl-sif ;
ins ABCIN p rel vulg coptt eth-rom Thl-fin.
exdinyertat AL: -ynoera D'.
rec @, with c dh 136 Cosm ec:
at end ins
which came the knowledge of sin. The
expression dicatodv amd is only once used
again by Paul (ref.), and that where he is
arguing against the continuing in sin.
6 moretwy is not to be joined with éyv
tovtw, which (see above) is contrasted with
ev véuw M. It is quite in Paul’s manner
to use mas 6 moretwy thus absolutely :
see Rom. i. 16; iii. 22; x. 4 (Gal. iii. 22).
Still less, with Luther, can we take as far
as dicatwOjvac with ver. 38, and make év
ToUT@.... SikaovTat a separate sentence.
40.] The object of preaching the
Gospel to the Jews first was for a testimony
to them: its reception was almost uniformly
unfavourable: and against such anticipated
rejection he now warns them. Tots
apod. | The book of the prophets: see ch.
iii. 18, note. 41. katadpovyrat |
So the LXX for oi23, ‘ among the heathen,’
for which they seem to have read 0°7313. So
the Arabic, ‘ videte arrogantes:’ and the
Syriac, ‘ videte transgressores.’ (Kuinoel.)
The prophecy was spoken of the
judgment to be inflicted by means of the
Chaldzans : but neither this nor any other
prophecy is confined in its application to
the occasion of which it was once spoken,
but gathers up under it all analogous pro-
152
v ’ , \ , -
weh. xvli. 15. 42 W RE Gyrwy of autwy
> a XXVil.
43
end caval, oaPParov *
31 (39).
Deon Oeione ok
1 Thess: v.27 ,
al. see note.
y = Lukei. 20.
z= here only.
(ch. xv. 9 reff.)
lovdaiwy Kal TWY
M4 ee ,
Kal TW BapvaBe,
TIPAZEIS ATIOSTOAQN.
AaAnOnvar avrote ra pyuara Taura.
P orBopevev
oirivec * woocAahovvrec avroic tee
DahEE
Y cic tO” perakv
43 a Die
= mapekadovy
TNC suvaywyic nKovovlnoay moAAol Twv
2 moocn\brwy tw TatAw
Lapidov te > . 44
Kat ZoXo- eo, TOOCMEvELW ay xapire TOU Qeov. Tw TE
Bavos, eT 36 a p 0
de Kad EXomenyy oafsBary ' Bes OV ‘are n TOALC “ ouviny n
petaly
ToUTwY akxovoat Tov’ ” Noy OV TOU ™ Asov. © Wovrec OE OL ol ‘Tovdatot
Basiéwy, Q ” vo ” , 0 ,
Joo BI¥. TOVE oxAove BA eles P ZnAXov, Kat 4 avrédeyov TOIC
2, also
Apion, 1.21, iA.mmov... Kat petaky 3 ’AdéEavdpov toy viov... , Plutarch. Inst. Lac. 42. a = here
onlyt. Diod. Sic. xix. 25, é\voe Thy éxkAngtav. Polyb. v. 15.3, Avecy T- Tvvovciay. b Acts (ver.
60. ch. xvi. 14. xvii. 4, 17. XViii. 7, }3. xix. 27) only, exc. Matt. xiv. 9 | Mk. (from Isa. xxix. 13.) Josh. iv. 24.
ech. ii. 10 reff. dch. x. 41 reff. ech. xxviii. 20 only. Exod. iv. 16 F. Wisd. xiii. 17 only.
f= 1 Tim. v. 5 only. seech. xi. 23 reff. gch. xiv. 3. xv. 1). xviii. 27. xx. 24, 32. h=ch. xx.
15 reff. ich. xix. 26. Heb. ix. 22 only +. 2 Mace. v. 2 only. k= ch. iv. 5 reff.
Evouet.s ch. xy. 6. xx. 7._ see 2 Kings iii. +4. m ch, xi. | reff. n ch. iii. 10 reff. 9 ch.
17. p = Rom. xiii. 13.
LP, exc. John xix. 12. Hos. iv. 4.
1 Cor. iii. 3. James ili. 14, 16.
1 Mace. viii. 16, q Luke xx. 27.
42. rec om avtwy, addg instead Se ex Tys cuvaywyns Twy ovdaiwy (supplementary,
at beginning of an ecclesiastical portion ;
with rel: avtwy ex tT. ovy. T. covd. L Thl-fin :
om tapekadouy E;
zeth arm Chr Cassiod.
98 has Twy awooToAwy eK TNS TuUY. K.T.A.),
txt ABCDEIR a p 18. 36 vulg syrr coptt
so B 81, insg ntiovy bef AaAnOnvan.
rec aft maper. ins Ta <bvn (added because it was considered necessary that this request
should be ascribed to the Gentiles, on acct of the hostility of the Jews, ver 45), with L
rel He: om ABCDEIN ack o p 13. 36 vulg syrr copt 2th arm Chr Thi Cassiod.
for petagu, eins D.
om Tw bef Bapy. DL.
om ta D!: ins D°.
43. aft Se ins avrois &1(N° disapproving).
om autos (as unnecessary ?) EL rel vulg Syr Ge Thl-sif :
ins ABCDIX vss Chr Thl-fin a k p 36. (13 def.)
aft oeB. ins Tov Oeoy KE syrr.
emiOovr. (emiOovte or -Oovto ?) D.
rec emtmevew (perhaps corrn to avoid mposAadourTes . . mpospeverv), with L 13
rel Thl-sif: txt ABCDEX e dk 0 p 36 Chr Thl-fin.
oAns TNS ToAEwS HieAPew Tov Aoyov Tov Oeov D, so syr-marg,
Tacav Thy ToAw pnucOnvat Aoy. EK.
44.
Chr ie Thi: 59 Ce.
tote for Tw Te L
at end ins eyeveto de Kad
omg T. 6.; ey. de kata
rec for te, de, with ACDX a b o p13: om eth-rom: txt BEL rel 36 syrr eth-pl
rec epxouerw (alteration | so D (which
every where alters exoua: in this sense) AX 69 in Lz xiii. 33], the sense of exowevw not
being perceived), with BC'DE?ILN p rel 36 Chr: erepxouevw 3. 95:
for @eov, kuptov AB? a p 13. 36. 40 am fuld tol sah :
for maca, ody D.
txt AC?E! 13. 40.
txt B'CEIL rel demid copt Chr.—D has akovoa: mavAov moAvy Te Aoyov Toinoapevou
mept TOV KUpLoU.
45. for idovres Se, kat tdovTes D.
rom.
cedures of God’s providence : such repeated
fulfilments increasing in weight, and ap-
proaching nearer and nearer to that last
and great fulfilment of all the promises of
grace and all the threats of wrath, by which
every prophetic word shall be exhausted.
42.) The insertions in the rec. have
been made (see var. readd.) par tly perhaps
to remove the ambiguity in atréy, and to
supply a subject to wapexddouvv. But they
confuse the sense. éE.dvTwv avt., As
they (the congregation) were going out,
they (the same) besought. On the
N.T. construction, rapexadouv LaknPjvat,
i. e. the passive inf. after verbs of command-
ing, exhorting, &c., see Buttmann, Gram-
matik des N. T.lichen Sprachgebrauchs,
§ 141.5, p. 236. He traces it to the in-
fluence of the Latin jubere and the like.
See, among his many examples, Mark vy.
justifies this use of weragv.
for Tovs oxA., To TANOos D (sah): om exth-
aft Tos ins Aoyos D'(and lat): Aoyors Tors D5 K Syr: om Ist tos D!9,
43; vi. 27; ch. v. 21; xxii. 24; xxv. 21.
7d petatd odB. appears, by the usage
of Luke, to mean the next sabbath-day, not
‘the following week. This last rendering
would hardly suit eis, which fixes a definite
occasion,—nor ver. 44, which gives the
result. The ref. to Josephus abundantly
43. v8.
8. t. o.| After the breaking up of the
synagogue. oitives| Paul and Barna-
bas; and avrots, to the Jews and prose-
lytes : not vice versd, as Calvin inclines to
believe : see a similar expression ch. xi. 23.
There too, we have 7 xdpis Tod Geod simi-
larly used of the work of the Gospel begun
in the hearts of the converts. See also
reff. 44.| Whether épx. or éx. be
read, the sense will be on the following
sabbath-day: not, as Heinrichs, ‘on the
following week-day,’ aovvyx8y | ‘ In
\ ABCDE
ILN a b
edfgh
klop
13
* 42—48,
uo [rou | Mieaos Aeyonuévore ie
apnmourrec.
BapvaBac si el7av Yuin a nv * avarykaioy TOWTOV AahnOnvac
" @cov “
TIPAZEIS ATIOSTOAQN.
153
avtiAéyovrec Kat | ‘BXa- PabseL cht
fe LRethiy. 4:
‘rappnsiacdpevot te 0 IlavAoce Kal o Mace: x.
s ch. ix. 27, 28
reff.
\ t= 2 Cor. ix.
Tov ee TOU ereion O& ‘ awwhcicbe avrov Kal 5. PhiLe
4 % ws) : e 24. ii. 25.
4 ouK agétouc © Kplvere eavtove “tne “atwvlov * Conc, % ov Heb. viii. 3
peXill, oz, ? zee , oo , 1 et ass
ie. OT pepopeba ee ra £Ovn. 47 ovrwe yap *evréraArat Teli
ba? a = only t.
eer, mcy Kbgtog > TieKca OE ete * pug ° evar, ? on elval 2 Mace. ix,
edf fv f? aks ;
Hep OE * ete owrnpiay aoe seryeran THe yne. 48 akovovra ch. xv. 24
13 gs #9 :3 irs v Rom. xi. 1,
é rd eOvn EXaipov Kat © edofaZov Tov Aoyor Tou Kupiov, ae
=ch. XVI.
15. xxvi. 8.
Kal émlatevoay dcot Hoav
h
TETAYMEVOL
' ete Cwny atwvor"
Rom. xiv. 5.
Prov. xvii. 15.
x John xvii. 3. 1 Tim, vi. 12 only. (see 1 Johni. = ii. 25.) y ch. ii. 7 reff. z = here
only. see ch, vii. 39. ch.i.2. John xiv. 31. perf, here only. =1 Kings xxi. 2.
bIsa. xlix.6F. 1 Thess. v.9. 1Tim.i.12. 1 Pet. ii. 8. c Luke ii. 32. dl Cor. x. 13
reff. e = ver. 22 reff. f ch.i. 8 reff. g 2 Thess. iii. 1 only. h — ch,
xv. 2. Rom. xiii]. 1 Cor. xvi. 15. (w. pos and a dat., 2 Mace. vi. 21.) i = Rey. xiii. 10.
om Tov (as unnecessary : but it has force here) ABN ec: ins CDEIL 13. 36 rel Chr
(Ke Thi. Aadouuevois ABER p 13:
eypnuevois 64. 97 (the varr have perhaps been
introduced from other similar exprr, such as ch xvi. 14, and ver 40): txt CDIL rel 36
Chr He Thi.
om aytiA. kat ABCLN ad e p 13. 36 Syr coptt eth arm:
evav-
Tiomevot Kat Ei (both the omission and the clumsy attempt in E seem to be emendations
« QVT
rec
of the apparent tautology avtedreyor .
46. mappynoiacapevos D 105.
vss Chr: om sah: fune vulg: txt ABCD
sif. [euray, so ABDR p- |
177: it is aft mpwr. in D. om avayr.
om be (from the two syll.,
Jjudicastis D-lat.
nu. bef evr. 76. 95. 97. 1387: txt Dt.
ixx) ov DE Cypr. pws (omg es)
demid. Aug.
48. kat akovovt. ta D a eth.
Aug: edofa¢e e g 97. 177?
Chr, : 68 syrr wth have roy @eov for Tov X.,
aft eum. ins mpos avrous D.
-bnde, occurring together) BD'&! syr coptt Thl-sif:
ACD°ELN? p 18 rel vss Orig. Thdrt; Chr, Gc Thl,.
eaut. bef kp. E vulg Thdrt,.
47. evteradkey D' e 47-marg Cyr Thdrt :
for edota¢., edetavto (corrn:
for kupiov, Geov B D-gr E-gr copt Aug
tAeyovtes): txt DI rel syr Chr Ge Thi.
de (as bringing out the contrast), with EIL
o p 36. 40 eth. om 2nd o D c 68 Thl-
om ny Co
for ereidn, ewer C p Origy.—
ins
kpwate D!: kpwera D?:
otped. bef ques E.
om nu D!-gr 57}
aft o kup. ins (from
Tos ebveow D am
D-gr.
EVTEAAETAL Pe
om 6 XN}.
te). ce D! Cypr.
see ch xi. 1) D
: om 105
Tov kv., and 34, Tov Geov Kat fe A. Tov Ku.
(all corrns, or misunderstanding of corrns, from ch xi. 1): txt ACLN p vulg D-lat
E-lat. awviay B.
the synagogue ;’ it was the sight of the
Gentile crowds in their house of prayer
which stirred up the jealousy of the Jews.
45. avtud. kati] These words (see var.
readd.) form a graphic repetition, passing
from the particular thing which they did,
viz. contradict the words spoken by Paul,
to the spirit in which they did it, viz. a
contradictious and blaspheming one. Itis
no Hebraism. 46. mp@tov]| See ch.
iii. 26; Rom. i. 16. 47.| From LXX-
alex., the vat. reading dé5wxa for TéOeiKa.
They refer the oe not to themselves as
teachers (as Meyer seems to think), but to
Christ. 48. retaypevor| The mean-
ing of this word must be determined by
the context. The Jews had judged them-
selves unworthy of eternal life: the Gen-
tiles, as many as were disposed to eternal
life, believed. By whom so disposed, is
not here declared: nor need the word be
in this place further particularized. We
know, that it is GoD who worketh in us
the will to believe, and that the prepara-
tion of the heart is of Him: but to find in
this text pre-ordination to life asserted, is
to force both the word and the context to
a meaning which they do not contain.
The key to the word here is the com-
parison of ref. 1 Cor. eis Siakovlay Tots
wylors ératav éavtovs, with ref. Rom.
al ovcat [eEovalat | jm Tov Oeod TETay-
péevat eioiv: in both of which places the
agents are expressed, whereas here the
word is absolute. See also ch. xx.13. The
principal interpretations are: (1) Calvin,
&e., who find here predestination in the
strongest sense : ‘ ordinatio ista nonnisi ad
eeternum Dei consilium potest referri’
‘ridiculum autem cavillum est referre hoc
154
x = here only.
Wisd. xviil.
10. seech. 5
XXVii. 27.
y ch, viii. 25.
xv. 35, 36.
1 Thess. iv.
15 al.
z here only t.
a ver. 43 reff.
b = Mark xv.
43. ch. xvii.
12 (1 Cor. vii. i * Ea ‘
35, xii. 24) EKTLVGa aMevol TOV
only. Prov.
xi. 25.
(-yLovas,
1 Cor. xiv. 40.
xxvili. 7, 17.
g Matt. vii. 4. Mark xvi. 9 only.
Exod. viii. 2.
ch. xxii. 23 ouly. Exod. ix. 9.
Rom. xv. 13, 14. 2Tim.i.4.L.P. Ps. lxxxii. 16.
49. rat dep. Da eth.
N
Tac
i emi yeipav © Sewypov
HAQov ete “Ikomov. 5
-poatvn, ch. xii. 23.)
dch, xiv. 2 only.
2 Chron. xi. 16.
TIPAZEIS AMOSTOAQN.
" sbexhnovag Kal Touc
\ > b) ‘ ? \ ~ I
cat ® e€éBaXtov avrove ® a0 tay
k x ~ ~
KOVLOpTOY TwWY TOOWY
ed \
ot re pabnra
ce = and constr., Mark vi. 21.
1 Kings iii. 12 al.
i Matt. x. 14) Mk. ch. xviii.6 only. Neh. v. 13.
1 Luke ix. 5.
XIII. 49—82.
49 * duepépero sto % Adyoe tov * Kvotou de GAne Tie X@pac.
” ot oe "Tovdator ” taper puvay Tac * o¢Popévac yovaikac
“ mpwToUC TNC moXewe, Kal
‘emt tov TlavAov Kat BapvaBav,
ie] ALi € \
Oolwy auTWYV, 51 ol Oe
jae > ‘
€7 avutTouc
m > — ~
émAnoovvto Xaoac
¢ 2 Cor. xii. 10 reff. f ch. viii. 1.
h elsew., Mutt. (ii. 16 arene Mark (v.17 al+) only.
k Luke ix. 5( Mt. x. 11.
m = Loke ii. 40. ch. ii. 28 (from Ps. xv. 1}).
ka oAns AN ak 13. 73.
50. mapwrpvvoy D!-gr: txt D>: mapwtuvay p Ce.
rec ins ka bef tas evox.
(attempt at corrn, from misunderstanding), with ELN? rel vss Chr: om ABCDN? p
13. 36 Syr sah arm Cassiod.
om tov D.
ABCDELN ack p 13 Chr Thl-fin.
with DEL vss Chr:
nrd., kaTnvnoay D-gr: nddev 133.
ins OAenpew peyadnv Kat bef Siwy. D; OA. x. E.
rec ins toy bef Bapy. (for uniformity), with rel ic Thl-sif: om
om autey B.
§1. ins amo bef twy 70d. E c d g 133. 137 syr Thl-fin.
om ABCN ak p 13. 36 vulg syr arm.
ins To bef tx. E.
rec aft od. ins avtwy,
for em, ecs E. for
52. rec for te, de (corrn), with CDELX p rel syr coptt Chr: txt AB 13. 36 vulg
Syr eth.
ad credentium affectum, quasi Evangelium
receperint qui animis rite dispositi erant.’
So the Vulgate, ‘ preordinati ? and Aug.
‘destinati. (2) * Qui juxta ordinem a Deo
institutum dispositi erant’ (Franz, Calov.:
but not Bengel [as De W.], who explains
it as I have done above): (3) ‘Quibus, dum
fidem doctrine habebant, certa erat vita
beata’ (Morus, Kuinoel): (4) ‘ Quiad vitam
wternam se ordinarant’ (Grot., Limborch,
Wolf, al.): (5) ‘Quotquot erant dispositi,
applicati, i.e. apli facti oratione Pauli ad
vitam et. adipiscendam ’ (Bretschneider) :
(6) taking rer. militari sensu, ‘ Qui de ag-
mine et classe erant sperantium vel conten-
dentium ad y. «. (Mede, and similarly
Schéttg.) There are several other ren-
derings, but so forced as to be mere carica-
tures of exegesis: see Meyer. It may be
worth while to protest against all attempts
to join éricrevoay with eis (why aidvioy,
which usage will not bear. Dr. Words-
worth well observes that it would be in-
teresting to enquire what influence such
renderings as this of preordinati in the
Vulgate version had on the minds of men
like St. Augustine and his followers in the
Western Church in treating the great ques-
tions of free will, election, reprobation, and
final perseverance : and on some writers in
the reformed churches who, though re-
jecting the authority of that version, were
yet swayed by it away from the sense of
the original here and in ch. ii. 47. The
tendency of the Eastern Fathers, who read
the original Greek, was, he remarks, in a
different direction from that of the Western
School. 50. tas oeB. yuv.| Women
had a strong religious influence both for
and against Christianity : see for the former
ch. xvi. 14; xvii. 4; Phil.iv.3; 1 Cor. vii.
16: for the latter, compare Josephus’s
statement (B. J. ii. 20. 2), that the majority
of the wives of the Damascenes were prose-
lytes, with ch. ix. 22—25. Strabo (vii. 3
C. and H. i. p. 219) says, Gmaytes Tis
Seuridatuovias apxnyous olovTat Tas ‘yu-
vaikas* autat 5€ Kal Tovs &yvdpas mpo-
KkaAdovvTat mpos Tas ém) wA€ov Oepametas
Tav Peay Kal EopTas Kal moTYIagMOUs.
These were proselytes of the gate, or at
least inclined to Judaism. e£éBadov |
Though the mpa@ro: tis méAews, at the
instigation, probably, of their wives, were
concerned, this seems to have been no legal
expulsion: for we find them revisiting An-
tioch on their return, ch. xiv. 21; —but only
a compulsory retirement for peace, and
their own safety’s sake. 51.| As com-
manded by our Lord, Matt. x. 14, where
see note. *Ixdéviov| A populous city,
east of Antioch in Pisidia, lying in a fertile
plain at the foot of, and almost surrounded
by, Mount Taurus. It is reckoned by
Xenophon (Anab. i. 2. 19) as belonging
to Phrygia,—by Strabo (xii. 568), Cicero
(ad Famil. xv. 4), and Pliny (v. 25) to
Lycaonia, of which it was at this time the
capital,—by Ammianus Marcellinus (xiv. 2)
to Pisidia. At this time, it was the capital
of a distinct territory, ruled by a tetrarch
(Plin. N. H. v. 27), and probably on that
Luke xix. 47. ch. (xvii. 4) xxv. 2..
ALY. 1—5. HPAZEIS AIOSTOAQN. 155
\ , € ’
kat mvevuatoc ayiov. XIV. 1" ’Eyévero 8: ev “Tkovi 2 ener ch.
o N N > A , ~ 9 ry ’ = 4 e hk
kata TO avro etceADely avtove ec THY suvaywyny TOY ° Eeod wevi.
| 8 ’ \ x i, poe p? - , ’ 24. 3 Kings
ovoatwy kat AaAnoat * ovtrwe ? were Tistevacar Lovdatiwy _ iii-!8.
A Lee ss = ye ees p peeks nels
TE KAL nywy torAv tANVoc. ~ ot O& YarabnoavTec « Jonviii. a6.
| 8 io res Le Vel ga . s ja ’ oa ch. xix. ¥.
ovoatot * Emryelpav Kat * Exakwoav tac Wuyac Twv Efywy Kom xv. 31
al. Exod.
3 u Xxiii. 21
Ou- rch. xiii. 50.
sch. vii. 6 reff,
, Vv a to ow le , x
éronpav * wappnotaCouevor “ete Tw KUply TW ~ wapTuR toh viii Ll
‘ ~ ? ~ t*
Kata Twv aderdpov. ikavov pev ouv ‘ yoovov
reff.
uch. xii. 19
Ss Sch a tey. ~ , teas ~
povvTi Tw * oy ™¢ “* xagtrocg avtov, ” dwovre onueta “<e
a NG 7 ’ d ‘ - ~ > = v ch. ix. 27, 28
pz Kal. TEgaTa yivecOat oud TwY XElpwv auTwV. a eax ta0n reff,
KSGDE 3) 56 rAROoe the mod ae PY DER A
HEN Of TO a nlog ae ph eC, Kal OL MEV HoaVv GUY ToOIG { vila
- > , e x =ch. x. 43
ia lovSaiotc, ot 8& fodv rote ®amoorddoc. 8 ‘Qe BE “ret.”
ch. xx. 32.
13 z constr., ch. xiii. 26 reff. ‘ a = ch. xiii. 43 reff. % bch. ii. 4 reff.
e ch. vii. 36 reff. dch. v. 12. xix.11,26. Mark vi.2al. 2 Chron. xxxiv. 14. e=ch,
xxiii. 7. 1 Mace. vi. 45. f1 Cor. xv. 10. see 2 Kings ii. 10. g& = ver. 14, see note.
Car. XIV. 1. for avrous, avroy (see xiii. 46) D-gr: om a.
aft ourws ins pos avtous D: pref E, simly Syr.
D: Oavpaca E, addg at end kat muorevoa.
2. ree ameiBourtes (appy a corrn to the simpler and more usual pres part. Meyer
believes that the pres has been altered to the aor to give the plup sense, but this is hardly
likely), with EL rel Chr: txt ABCR ao p 13.36. 40 Thi fin. for o1 de to emnyerpar,
ot de apxiouynywyot Twy tovd. Kat OL apXoVTES TNS TUVAywyNS ETNYayOV avTois diwyuov
om Twy tovdaiwy &!.
for mecrevoa, mioTeEvetv
Kata Twy Sixaiwy D, simly syr-marg.
at end ins o de kuptos cdwkev Taxu eipyyny
D demid syr-marg Cassiod ; 0 de «up. espnyny eromoer Kk.
3. dierpiBor A.
pevar D.
X.
4. ny de eoxiopevoy D.
aft dverp. ins exes E Syr syr-w-ob.
ins em bef tw Aoyw A X1(N8 disapproving).
with CL ab p eth Thl: om ABDE(X) 13. 36 rel vulg syrr copt Chr (ec.
for avtwy, avtov D'(but corrd).
for ot de, adda Se Dz
diatpenavtes Tapnoiaca-
rec ins kat bef 8:5.,
didovTos
at end ins KoAAwmevor dia
Tov Aoyov Tov Ocov D syr-marg ; KoAAwpevor(alone) Syr.
account is not reckoned to any of the above-
mentioned districts. It became famous in
the middle ages as the capital of the Selju-
kian Sultans, and had a great part in the
growth of the Ottoman empire. It is
now Konia, a town of 30,000 inhabitants.
(Winer, RWB. ; C. and H. i. pp. 220, f.)
52.] See, for similar “joyful per-
orations,”’ as Dr. Wordsw. well designates
them, Luke xxiv. 52; ch. v. 41; xii.
24.
Cuar. XIV. 1.] kata 7d aitd, toge-
ther (reff.) : duod, Hesych.: not, ‘in the
same manner,’ as Wolf and others.
ovTws Oste, as in E. V.; not eyéveto....
dsre..., as Vater. “EA jvev | Pro-
bably here these are the oeBduevur toy
6cdv, those of the uncircumcised who were
more or less attached to the Jewish religion.
2.] The past part. indicates who be-
lieved not, viz. when Paul preached.
éxakwoav, ‘male affecerunt,’—kakovpyws
8:€0nxav, Chrys. So Jos. Antt. xvi. 1. 2,
Kakoov,.... kad THs evvolas fs elxev els
ToVS Taidas apatpeEty. Ver. 3 gives the
sequel of ver. 1,—ver. 4, of ver. 2. The
ev odv, as usual (see ch, xi. 19), takes up
the narrative which had been interrupted.
3. mapp. emt +. kup.] A pregnant
construction :—‘ speaking with boldness,
which boldness was grounded on confidence
in the Lord, 7T® kuptw is GOD: see
ch. iv. 29, 30, and ch. xx. 32, 7G 0€6 Kk. TG
Adyw THs XapiTos avTod. S.dovtt,
without kal, defines uaprupodyte: viz. by
giving, Xe. 4.] So Virg. Ain. ii. 39,
‘Scinditur incertum studia in contraria
vulgus.’ Such a split into two factions was
a common occurrence, on far less important
oceasions, in these cities of Oriental Greeks.
(C. and H. i. p. 223.) Tots arooTd-
Xots]) This is the first place where Paul
and Barnabas are so called. St. Paul
constantly vindicates the title in his
Hpistles: cf. Rom. i. Coriad saxsts
xv. 9; 2. Cor. i. 1; Gal. i. 1; Col.i.1; 1
Tim. i.1; 2 Tim. i.1; Tit.i.1. Itseems
to have been borne in this higher sense
also by James the Lord’s brother: see
Gal. i. 19, and note, and the prolegg. to
the Epistle of James: and by Barnabas,
here and in 1 Cor. ix. 5, 6: see also Gal.
ii. 9. So that there were, widening the
word beyond the Twelve, fifteen Apostles,
usually so called. The word was also used
in a still wider sense: see Rom. xvi. 7;
156
h James iii. 4
ouly- Prov.
iii. 25.
(-udy, ch.
Vii. 57.)
i Matt. xxii. 6.
Luke xi. ay
XvVill, 32.
Thess. li. ft
only. Kings
xix. 43.
k ch, vii. 58 reft.
lch. xii. 12 reff.
m Heb. vi. 18
ouly. Gen. rr?
xix. 20.
n ee eT , 9
Gen. xiii. 10.
0 abs., Bout. rl peselgcahhl sh tape
xv. 2U reff.
p constr., ch, oc
xxii. 29 reff, y 07
gq = Rom. (viii. ~ o@® val
3?) xv.1 ui ?
eyevero
apxovaty auTwv,
“oumidovrec ™
Acai Pa noav.
10
only. (Luke xviii. 27 al.) Joel iii. 10.
TIPAZEIS AMOZTOAQN.
h ¢ ‘ ~ , ~ \
opr tov evov re Kal
ie , \
UBoicat Kal
/ , ‘ LA — U
ab ido lay oe mG moAae the AvKaoviac
8 Kat re avno év Avarpotc
t? , od Se Qype ¢
arévioac rigid Kal LOWY OTL
rabsol.,
XIV.
’ , ‘ -
lovdaiwy avv role
* \BoBoArAnsat avrove,
> ~
Aboroayv Kal AépBny Kal THY * TEoly woo”, 7 kake ° evay-
qg 297 ~ \
aouvaroc TOLG TOOLV
, ‘ s? ’ ‘ > - «A >O7
exaOnro ywroo “ek KotXlag pyTpOE avToU, O¢ OvoETOTE
* ” ~ , ~ ‘
ovtroc nkovev tov IlavAov AaXovvyroe
uv v [2 w -
EXEL TLOTLV TOU
ElTrEV ¥ peyady * TH Y pwn ’Avaarnit ¢ emt ee
Matt. xxvii. 36. Mark v.15. Lukev.17. John ix.
s Matt. xix.12. Lukei.15. ch. iii. 2. Gal. i.15. Ps. xxi. 10. Ixx. 6. t constr., ch. iii. 12 rei
u pres., ch. xvi. 38 reff. v Matt. xxi. 21. Mark iv. 40. xi. 22. Rom. xiv.22. 1 Cor. viii. 2. 1 Tim,i. 19.
James ii. 1, &e. w constr., Luke xxii. 6. ch. xx. 3. Rom. xv. 23. 1 Cor. ix.[6,] 10. 1 Pet. iv. 17.
Winer, § 44. 4, a. x = ch, iv. 9 al.
5. om te D 133 sah Chr.
6. ins kat bef karep. D!.
D', simly ver 11.
DE: pref vulg.
7. rec noay bef evay., with CEHL rel Chr He Thi:
ins twv bef tovd. D.
aft kate@. ins ot aroctroAa C3 40 Thi.
ins ets bef Avot. C!D-corr :
ych. xxvi. 24 only. Prov. xxvi. 25.
autous bef xk. Acé. E.
Avka@vias
kat dd. aft meptx. ins oAnY
txt AB D-gr & 36 ¢ p 13.
at end ins kat exetyn@n oAoy To TANOoS emt TH Didaxn’ 05¢€ 7. Kat B. dieTpiBov ev AvaTpoIsS
D; rov Xoyoy Tov Beov" Kat eLemANTOETO Taga n TOAUTANALa emt TH 51d. aUTwY Oo De T.
x. B. dietp. ev A. EH vulg-sixt.
8. aduy. bef ev A. BN!:
ins ts bef untp. D'.
with HL rel Chr:
exaO. bef aduy. D 137: om ev A. DE.
rec aft avtov ins urapxwr (interpolated from ch iii. 2),
om ABCDEN ¢ p 13. 36.
om xwA. D.
elz mepiemenat nner (see note), with 57.
73. 76. 78. 80. 95. 96 Thl-sif: Steph mepuremarnre:, with DEHL rel Chr: rerarnre
137: txt ABCN a p 13. 36.
9. aft ovros ins ove &.
of the imperf being overlooked :
(Ke. for Aad., AeyovTos NR}.
avTw 0. 7. D: mpos ov ar. o. 7. E.
ABCD ak p 13 am demid fuld sah.
10. om Tn (as unnecessary, its force being overlooked) BCD! k p:
rel.
nrovaey (alteration to suit the other aorists, the force
see note) ADEHLN b ce p13. 36: txt BC rel syr sah
aft Aad. ins urapywv ev poBw D.
atevioas de
ree mot. bef ex., with EHL rel Chr: txt
ins ADSEHL
aft porn ins cot Aeyw ev TW OVOMaTL TOV KuUptou ino. xp. (interpolation from
ch iii. 6) CDE a 0 18 vss Thl-fin (om tw, and aft «vp. ins nuwy E): om ABHLN p rel
2 Cor. viii. 23; 1 Thess. ii. 6: in which
latter place Silvanus and Timotheus seem
to be included in it. 5.| opp is
not a rush (‘impetus,’? Vulg.: ‘assault,’
KE. V.), but as Hesych. BovAg, érbupta.—
as is manifest from cumddvres, rightly
rendered in EK. V. they were aware of it;
which it would be strange if they were not,
if an assault had been made on them.
6. Avotpav] 7a A. also, ver. 8.
This, as well as Derbe (of both which very
little further is known), was probably a
small town at the foot of the singular
mountain-mass known as the Kara-dagh, or
black mountain, Lystra being S., and Derbe
8.E. from Iconium. The sites are very un-
certain. There are the ruins of about forty
Christian churches on the north side of the
Kara-dagh, at a place called by the Turks
Bin-bir- Kilisseh (the L001 churches), which
the most recent travellers believe may be
Lystra (C. and H.1i. pp. 225 ff).
In one of
these places (probably at Lystra, see note,
ch. xvi. 1) Paul found and took up Timothy
on his second journey ; and from téxvoy,
1 Cor. iv. 17, compared with rarip, as de-
fined ib. ver. 15, we are justified in con-
cluding that he had been converted by the
Apostle ; and, if so, during ¢his visit.
There appear to have been few Jewsin the
district : we hear of no synagogue.
Avkaovias | Strabo describes Lycaonia (xii.
6) as a hilly plain among the mountain-
spurs of Taurus, very ill watered, cold and
bare, but exceedingly adapted for sheep-
pasture and the growth of wool.
8. éxd@yt0| Not ‘dwelt,’ as Kuin., but
sat, probably in the forum or some place
of resort. mepterratyoev is the his-
toric past: who never walked. The plu-
perfect seeming more apt, it has been
altered in the later MSS. accordingly.
Meyer supposes the alteration to have been
the other way, from the constant pre-
ABCDE
HLNab
edfgh
klop
13
++. 0U0E*
TOTE
TEP d.
ABCDE
HLNab
cefghk
lop 13
6—18.
mooac cou * oo boc.
TIPAZEIS: ATOSTOAQN.
‘ae \ r
kat * nAaro Kal TEOLETATEL
157
2 = here (Heb,
Ril. 13, trom
ad
i OL TE
Prov. iv. 26)
” 77 oat , ~ ib Sa ‘ b ‘
OxAou LOovTec O éemoinoey TlavAoc » éxnpav , ly. Mark
X $ y $ ss ila pwevny v.36. 3.
> - \
avtwy AvKaoviortt AEyourEc Ot Oeot © opowAévrec av-
Dowrotc * katéBnoay mooc muac.
Vv
Kings xxi.
(xx.) lI.
12 cee ‘ ach. iii. 8.
exaAouv TE TOY Johniv.14
only. Isa,
XXxvV. 6.
, ’ \ \ ~ e ~
BapvaPav Ata, rov d¢ [avAov ‘Eppiy, © ered) avroe Fy y2°8"yo som,
o ' yobmevoc Tou Aoyov. Bo
»”
ovToce
reff.
g of false gods, here only. 4 Kings xi. 18.
Esch. Theb. 162 (Dind.).
vulg syr-txt copt wth Chr Ge Thl-sif.
mepimatet D syr-mare.
O TE
c = Rom. ix.
29 (from Isa.
1. 4).
Sigoevcg tov Awoc tov
h \ ~ 7 , \ i , 2 Vawe cette
Teo TNC TOAEWC Tavpoug Kal aTémpata ere © Watt xxvii
ech. xv. 24
f =here only. Dan xi. 22 Theod. 6 t&v Adywv iyyestwv, Tamblich. de Myster. init.
hch. xii. 6, 14. @vaga’ "Oyka mpd TédEws,
ihere onlyt. Zech. vi. 11 alii (Tromm.).
op$ws E-gr H syr-marg Thl-sif: add cau
aft Ist kat ins mapaxpnua E vss; evdews mapaxpnua D.
rec Ader (alteration to suit the imperf mepterare:), with L 13 rel syr Thl,
ndeto H: avndAato D!, avndAdato D5: efnAdAato E: txt ABCN vulg(evilivit ef ambu-
labat) Chr.
11. rec d¢ (alteration from the characteristic re), with CDEHL p rel 13 vss Chr: txt
AB® 36. 40 Syr eth.
ins Tors bef avOp. D1.
12. for te, 5e Da b g 40 Chr.
[ B(Mai expr) reads 6 not omep as Beh. |
mavaos, with HL p rel: om ABCDEN ec 13 Chr.
avOpwrot(sic) Xt.
rec aft Ist roy ins ney (to answer to the follg
rec ins o bef
om thy D. om autTwy Xi.
de), with B(sic: see table) C}3EHL 13 rel syr copt Cyr-e Chr: om AC!(D)X p 36 vulg.
—om Tov also D.
diav DEHL o p 40.
for emeidy, ere: N' k. om o C'D.
13. rec for re, de, with DEHL rel syr coptt @e Thi: txt ABCN 36. 40 vulg wth
Chr—rore o p lect-12: tote C!, but Te is erased.—or de wepeis . .
om ts D!: ins D3,
avtwy, with C3EHL rei syr Chr: om ABC'DN a p 13. 36 vulg coptt.
D 96. tou ovtos 6. D ¢ 137.
ference which the Greeks gave in narration
to the aorist over the plusq. perf.:” but
qu. ? 9.| The imperfect 7Kovev is
important. He was listening to Paul’s
preaching, and, while listening, his coun-
tenance, read by the Apostle’s gift of spi-
ritual discernment, gave token of faith to
be healed. atev. avt.] See note on
ch. xiii. 9. 10. pey. TH dp. | Raising
his voice above the tone in which he was
before speaking. The article is important.
11. Avxaovigri| The nature of this
dialect is uncertain: its existence is further
mentioned by Steph. Byzant., cf. 77 Tav
Avxadvwy pwrv7, in note on ver. 20. The
notice is inserted to shew that the Apostles
had no knowledge of the inference drawn
by the crowd, till they saw the bulls being
brought to their doors, ver. 13. So Chry-
sostom: ovk hv TovTO ovdérw SAO TH
yap oixela pwr epbeyyovto, A€yovTes
K.T.A. Sia TovTO ovdey avTois EeAeyov
[meaning, “for this reason they, the Ly-
caonians, spoke unintelligibly to the Apos-
tles :” €\eyoy taking up the Aéyortes. Dr.
Wordsw. has, in his ardour to vindicate
Chrysostom from heterodoxy, fallen into
the mistake of rendering, “therefore the
Apostles said nothing to them ” ]* éme:57 5€
eldov TX oTeumpmata, TéTE eLeAOdYTES K.T.A.
Hom. xxx., p.235f. See, on the real na-
ture of the gift of tongues, and the bearing
of notices of this kind on its consideration,
eveykavTes .. nOeAov
rec aft oA. ins
aft taup.
the note on ch. ii. 4. These émpaverat
of the gods are frequent subjects of heathen
poetry and mythology. Hom. Od. p. 484,
says, kal Te Oeo) keivoitw eorxdtes GAXo-
damotat Tlayroto. TeAeGovtes emiaTtpwhaor
méAnas. It was in the neighbouring
country of Phrygia that Jupiter and Mer-
cury were said to have wandered, and to
have been entertained by Baucis and Phile-
mon: ‘Jupiter hue, specie mortali, cum-
que parente Venit Atlantiades positis ca-
ducifer alis.’ (Oy. Met. viii. 626, f.) Dio
Chrysostom (Orat. xxxili. p. 408) says,
gaol Tovs oikioTas ijpwas 7) Oeobs mod-
Adkis émiotpepecbar Tas aita@y médcts.
(From Mr..Humphry’s note.) 12.]
This distinction is (besides the reason
given) in accordance with what Paul him-
self cites (as the saying of his adversaries,
it is true, but not therefore without some
physical foundation), 7 mapovcla rod oé-
batos aoGevjs. So Chrysostom, éuol doe?
kal ard ris bWews akiompems elvar 6
BapydBas, Hom. xxx., p. 287.
Hyovpevos ToU Adyov| So Iamblichus,
of Hermes, in reff.: ‘vocis et sermonis
potens,’ Macrob. Saturn. i. 8: Adyou mpo-
gnrns, Orph. H. xxvii. 4: AaAloraros k.
Aoyiétatos Oe@y andvTwy, Lucian, Gal-
lus, 2. 13.] wpa t. a. (see reff.) ; i.e.
of Zevs mpdmvdos: no ellipsis of fepod or
any thing else. Tavpous K. OTEpL-
pata] Not for tavpous éoreumeévous: the
158 NPAZEIS AMOSTOAQN. XIV.
4 ~ ’ s - ” lv m ,
k=ch.x.17 royce * ruA@vac evéyKacg avy ToIg OyAoIC noerev ™ Oveww.
reff.
1 = and constr.
\ =
wiiitpre, -# ’Axovaavtec O€ ot “amootoXoL BaovaBac kat TlavAoe
John xvi. 19. =
Luke x. 29. OP 7 56 Sposa ? qr? z A <
alent duappngavtec Ta {uaTlLa AUTWY eEemoncav élc TOV
= k 5 \ / ’ -
men Le | Gor, Ox Aov S KoalovTEc 5 kai § Aéyorrec "Avopec, tl Tavra
v.7. Xx. 20 eS
\ ~ e - ’ Is L— wv
Or en) X- TOULELTE 5 Kal mpeete m dees EGUEV ULV av0pwrrot,
Exod. iii. \ , - ’ wy?
Svat " dayyeAtZoucvon v vuac “ amo TOUTOY tTwy * waratwy ~Y ere-
n ver. 4. ; ; , Q > .
OUMATL Seu PAE) rl “Orov * Gwvra, oc * eroinoey TOV * ovoavoy
65. Josh.
\ \ \ , Nae? > =
p as above (0). KQL als “yny Kal THY * PaXacoay Kat TWavTa Ta &yv auTolc,
Mark xiv. 63. 16 48
b c = o ‘Z ‘
Luk 6 nq «
vii ‘2 only. i oc a Talc 7 spe ygis tae fpbtsirik ures . TAVTa an
; See il. eOvn 7 opeveaat as * odoic QuTWYV, KalTOLl yé OUK
22.
rJudith xiv. §& ) ) WY, vy UW
i wate dpaorugoy EavuTOL "agincey cages PY * obpavdbe un
Matt. viii. 29.
oe UETOUC drd0ve Kat ™ Katpoug ® kapTopopove, | ° euTimAwy
mut 28 a" p ~ Sy kgs =? K ot 18 K \
xod. v. 8. O v oov IY a a a Uv lw U a
u James v. 17 She pne war e pp LSS p ¢ h Lf :
only +. Wisd. vii. nes vconstr., ch. xvi.10. Gal.i.9. 1 Pet. i. 12. w ch. XxVi. es
1 Thess. i. 9. x = here only. (1 Cor. iii. 20 retl.) Levit. xvii. 7. Isa. ii. 20 al. ye
Xxvi. 20 reff. zsee note. 1 Kings xvii. 24 F. ach. iv, 24 reff. ineeener:
Xen. Anab. ii. 4. 1, end. c= ch. xii 36 reff d constr., ch. ix. 31 reff. e= Lake
a0 79. ch. ii. 28. Prov. i. 31. f John iv. 2 (ch. xvii. 27 v. r.) only. Xen. Mem. i. a 3. g here only t.
ovK Eat b€ ajctptupov TO péyedos itis TPVELCPNILEv@Y Xenuatwv, Jos. Antt. xiv. 7. h = Matt. iii. 15.
Heb ii. 8. Ezek. xvi. 39. i1 Tim. vi. 18 only ¢. k ch. xxvi-. ig ong ZEschin. p. 73. 5, on
Hesiod. Ich. xxviii. 2. Heb. vi.7. James v.18. Rev. xi.6 only. Deut. xi. 14. Jobv.10. Ep. Jer. £
m = here only. Tots Katputs ELKwY, Polyb. iii. 9. 7- n here only. Ps. cvi. 34. cxlviii, 9. Jer. ii. 2] oni if.
(-pety, Rom. vii. 4, 5.) ohereonly. Ps. cii. 5. exliv. 16. see Rom. xv. 24. p ch. ix. 19 al. fr.
Ps, cxxxv. 25. qch. ii. 28 only. Isa, xxix. 19.
ins avtos D: aft oreu., E137. ndedov H 1 p tol Thl-sif, so also D (see above).
emtdue D.
14. akovoas Se omg (so Syr) oc aw. D. [In & the as of BapvaBas is supplied perhaps
by corr!. | eautwy ABN 13. 36: txt CDOEHLN! p rel Chr Qe Thl. aft aut.
ins rat D', rec euserndyoav (corrn to suit es tT. oxAov), With C3HL rel Thl-fin :
txt ABC'DER ac p 13. 36 vulg Syr sah arm Chr Thl-sif-comm. for ers, em C.
15. for Aeyoutes, pwvourtes D'. ins ec (es ?) bef te Al. om 2nd ka D.
vu bef ecu. C 38. 93.113 Chr; om vu. H ¢ 137: aft avOp. 13. for uuas,
vu tov Oeov D flor Iren-int. ‘emoTpednre, i insg ows bef amo, D flor Iren-int :
emisTpepyte, insg wa bef amo, K. rec Toy 8. Toy ¢. ‘(alteration for more precision :
see note), with HL rel Chr: tov 0. ¢. D!: @. tov ¢. X!: txt ABC D-corr EX’ ak p 13.
40 Ath Thdrt. tov wornoavTa D.
16. for os, o D. for mayta, kata D',
17. «arto. ABCN? a p! 13 coptt Ath: kavye DE (probably corrections : the ye or the
to. being deemed unnecessary): txt C3 HLN! p? rel 36 Chr Thdrt @e Thi. for
eauvtT., avrov ABEN? c: txt CDHLN? 138 rel eh Chr Thdrt.—adgn«. bef cauvt. D.
rec ayabotowy (altern to more usual word), with DEL rel Chr Thdrt: aya@ormay H:
txt ABC Ath. rec uw, with a al: om AN‘ p 13 vulg eth Iren-mss?: avros
Syr sah Leo: txt BCDEHLN'! rel flor spec : syt Ath Thdrt Thl “Tren. 5.5. bef vet.
AN p 13. 73 lect-12 vulg «th Iren-int-mss?. eumipmrrov DE. om tas D!:
ins aft Kapdias D®. rec nuwy (corrn, the assertion seeming to be of general
application to the speaker as well as his hearers), with AHLN?® 13 rel copt xth Chr
Leo: avtwy Syr sah: txt BCDEX'befk1lo p am(and demid flor fuld tol) spee syr
Ath Thdrt Thl-sif Iren.
garlands may have been to hang on the ééerf3noav—rushed forth, into the crowd.
doors of the house where the Apostles 15. patatwy| viz. deav: the words
were: or for manifold purposes connected of ref. 1 Thess. éreotpépare mpds Toy Bed
with the sacrifice. ‘Ips denique fores, amd tay cidéddAwv, are remarkably like
ipsee hostiee, ipsee aree, ipsi ministriet sacer- these. Ocdv Caévta, without the
dotes eorum coronantur.’ Wetst. tovs articles, is characteristic of Paul : see Rom.
avud@vas are not the gates of the city, ix. 26; 2 Cor. iii.3; vi.16; 1 Thess.i. 9;
but the doors of the outer court of the 1 Tim. iii. 15; iv. 10 al. It also occurs
house: see ch. xii. 13. 14. ot awé- Heb. iii. 12; ix.14; x. 381; xii. 22; Rev.
orodor| See note on ver. 4. The Apos- vii. 2. 16.| Compare Rom. iil. 25, 26,
tles were within: on being told, they and ch. xvii. 30. 17.] Compare Rom.
ABCDE
HLNa b
erghk
lop1ls
™M ovpa-
volev...
ABCDE
HLNab
efghk
lmop
13
14—20.
~ , ,
ravta Aéyourec "police *Katéravaay Tove oy ove
un" Ovew avroic. 19°’
’ A
Covrec avtov tefynkevar. 2" ?
~ » ,
7y exavorov “s&n\Oev cov tw BaovaBa °c AéoBnv.
20 only. Gen. xlvi.1 al. fr.
Xxiv. 20. w ch. y. 26 reff.
Neh. xiii. 20.
a =ch. ix. 6 rett. bch. x. 9 reff.
18. yoyis D coptt.
es Ta tia C: ik m p 13. 36 syr-marg arm.
MNPAZEIS ATOSTOAQN.
ExnA\Gav 8: amo "Avrioy tac Kal
ir af oF S - \ , ‘ ” \ w
Korlov lovoatot, Kat wetoavteg Tove OyAove Kal ™ Ai-
, ‘ ~ a »
Oacavtrec tov TavXov * eaupov Mead
~ , ’
wm tne woXEwe, vopi-
, \ -
kukAwoavrwy O& TwY pa-
0 ~ , s a ’ Q > ~ , Q r ry
ntwy avtov “avaotac sicnAfey sic thy moAW, Kal
katemavoayto Cl,
159
t “ rch. xxvii. 7
a
TOU $, 16. Rom.
We fat WIPE.
iv. 18 (from
Prov. xi. 31)
only.
s = here only.
trans., Heb.
iv.8. Ps.
Ixxxiv. 3.
intrans.,
Heb. iv. 4
(from Gen. ii.
2), 10 only.
tch. xx. 20, 27.
Rom. xv. 22,
u dat., 1 Cor. x.
v absol., Luke xi. 22. Eph.ii.7. Jamesv.1. Proy.iv.15. Josh.
x ch. viii. 3 reff.
z= John x. 24(Luke xxi. 20. Heb. xi. 30. Rev. xx. 9) only. 2 Chron. xxiii. 7.
y Loke xiii. 33. ch. xxi. 5, 30.
e ch. xi. 25 reff.
at end ins aAAa@ mopeveo bat exactov
19. at beg ins S:atpiBovtwy (so D?: om Se D!) avtwy Kat SidacKovTwr, omg 6e folle, DE
abfkmop 13. 36. 40; so, but om ka, C; and, but om d:dacKkovTay, syr-marg arm
Cassiod. [emnA@ay, so txt ABN p.]
a. Kk. t. tovd. E vulg Cassiod: o: am. at. k. uk. kat covdator 15. 18. 180.
mTeioavTes, emicetoavtes D syrr: om 2nd ca D-corr.
Ties tovd. am. tkov. K. avT. D, Tw. ar.
for
Kat diadeyouevwy avTwy
wappnoia eweroay T. OXA. awooTHvat ax (om al) avTwy AeyorTes oT1 ovdev adnOes AEyoucly
ahve Tavra pevdovrat Ca k m p syr-marg arm.
180. om egw XI,
ABDX®& p 13. 40.
AtGoBoAnoavres A 15. 18. 36.
rec voucaytes, with CEHL rel 36 Chr (Kec Thi: txt
rec TeOvava: (corrn: the contracted form was the more
common: so Meyer), with DEHL rel Chr He Thi: txt ABC a k p13. 36.—7reév. bef
aut. D.
20. kukAwoaytes D!: txt D?.
rec aut. bef 7. waé., with EHL: +. wae. avrov
(see ch ix. 25) D'(and lat): txt ABCD8& ¢ h k m? p13 Chr.—avtev L.—E adds avrouv.
ins Avotpav bef moAw D.
for 7, tnv D'.
i. 19, 20. The words otpavdbev derobs 5:-
dovs had a remarkable applicability in a
country where we have seen from Strabo
(on ver. 6) that there was great scarcity of
water. He relates that in one city of
Lycaonia, where water was reached by
digging the wells very deep, it was sold for
money. The idea of Mr. Humphry, that
the conelusion of this speech is a citation
Jrom some lyric poet, seems improbable on
other accounts, and is rendered more so by
the above-noticed propriety. 19. qei-
cavtes Tos OxA.| &mioTo yap AuKdoves,
&s kal *"ApiorotéAns waptupet. Schol. on
Homer, Il. 5.88, 92. They stoned him,
not in the Jewish method, but tumultuously
and in the streets, dragging him out of the
city afterwards. He refers to this
stoning, 2 Cor. xi. 25, drat éArdoOnv.
20.] ku«X., not to bury him, but, as would
naturally be the case, in mournful anxiety
and regret. avaotdas| The prima
facie, and I think the right impression is,
that this recovery was supernatural. Itis
not indeed so strongly implied, as to leave
no doubt : especially asa blow from a stone
would be likely to stun and occasion the
appearance of death. AépBnv] See
above, on ver. 6. Strabo, xii. 6, says of it,
Ths & “Ioavpinjs eoTw ev mAevpais 7
MépByn, wddiwTa TH Kammadoriy émue-
om 7oAw to moAw next ver (homeotel) &'.
gvy is written by D%, D! has perished.
ukos, TO Tod "AvTimdtpov Tupavvetoy Tov
AepBhrov (ct. Cicero, Epp. xiii. 73, ‘Cum
Antipatro Derbete mihi non solum hospi-
tium verum etiam summa familiaritas
intercedit’) ... éd nudv 5 Kat Ta *Ioavpa
Kk. Thy AépBnv “Apiytas elxev, emibewevos
7G AecpBitn, kK. aveAay avtéy. And Ste-
phanus Byzantinus, AépBy ppovpioy “Ioav-
ptas kal Auny (for this, evidently an error,
the French translators of Strabo propose
to read Aiuvn. There is a large lake, now
called Ak Gé6l, near the presumed site of
Derbe, see C. and H. i. 239) .... tives 5€
AérBetay, 6 éort TH TOV AvKadvav porn
uprevdos. (Wetst.) From this variety of
the name, AéAfera, Mr. Hamilton thought
the modern Divlé might be Derbe. Mr.
Lewin (i. 167) objects, that there is no lake
near Divlé:. but this objection only affects
the conjectural emendation mentioned
above. From Derbe not being enumerated,
2 Tim. iii. 11, with Antioch, Iconium, and
Liystra, as the scene of any of Paul’s suffer-
ings, we may perhaps infer that none befeil
him there. They may have fled to
Derbe, as being in a different jurisdiction
from Lystra; the latter being comprised
in the Roman province of Galatia, whereas
Derbe seems to have belonged at this time
to Antiochus, king of Commagene. See
Lewin, i. p. 168; Strabo, xiv. 5; Dio, lix.
160
da constr., ch.
viii. 25 reff.
e trans., Matt.
MPAZEIS AIMOZTOAQN.
XIV. 21—28.
’ - / ‘ , , ’ \ ,
214 evary yEALG a MEVOL TE THY TOALW EKELYNY Kat © waOnrev-
xiii. 52 fs ee pate ; ay Aw ees
(Exiih 57 gavTEeG ( (KavOUg umeorpepav ete ny voTpay Kal &¢
intr.) XXVill. * , i ’ \
: 19 only + Ikoveov Kat ac Avtiwoyeav, ~~ emTisTnollovreg Tac
= ch. xii. 12 . = ~ i - k ? t Lette
ff.
gh, vit 2 Wuxac TOV palate, mapakaXovvrec cupevew TY
eff. = Dn Lt i
ni nsw. mwlore, Kat OTe ™ Oca ToAAWY OrXihewv "Set nuac ”° ec-
32, 41 only t.
@ Kings 1.6.) e\Oety acc TH °F Bactrstav rou” Ocov. 73" Xetpotovisavrec
i=ch. xi. 23
xiii. 42 al fr. §
\ > Ce = 2 \ Ul s , t rails
kconstr., here OF GUTOLG KAT EKKANGLAV mpea[durépoue, TT OOCEVSAMEVOL
only. Jer. li.
(xliv.) 25.
Sir. xxviii. 6. ‘
is vO x
TOES MOB OS ~~ WETLOTEVKELOAV.
E/LULEVWV,
Xen. Mem.
év) Gal. iii.
10, from Deut.
xxvii. 26. Heb. viii. 9 (ch. xxviii. 30) only.
John x. 2,9. Rom. v.12.
v.20. Mark x. 23. Johniii.5 al. Paul, never.
r = ch. xv. 21 reff. s=ch. xi. 30 reff.
v 2 Cor. vi. 5 reff.
xiii. 6 reff. Josh. xviii. 4. zch. xi. 19 reff.
u XN. ¥, a w ef) ? ‘\ '
ETA VNOTELWV TaovE EVTO AUTOUC TW KUOlW
‘ Katépnoav “cic ArraXtay,
lch. xiii. 8 reff.
Heb. ix. 12 only. Jer. xvii. 25.
w Luke xxiii. 46. ch. xx. 32, Ps. xxx. 5.
a
1c Ov
24 cat Y OueAOdvrec tHV Ttstdiav nAPov
ec TlappuAtav, 25 cat > A\aAnoavtec Ev Tlipyy Tov ” Aayo
> ~ ba oes
KakeWsv amétAevoav etc
m Matt. vii.13 ]. Luke xviii 25.
n ch, iv, 12 reff. o Matt.
p ch. xix. § reff. q 2 Cor. viii. 19 only t.
t absol., ch. x. Y reff. u = 1 Tim. iv. 14 al.
5 ; x ch. x. 43 reff. y ch.
ach. xvi. 11, 22 reff. b ch. xiii. 4 reff.
26
Q1. evayyeArCouevan (corrn aft ver 7: "see also ch xi. 20) ADEH a: txt BCLN® p rel
36 vulg Chr.
D-gr.
for re, 5¢ D 40. 96 coptt.
for ix. umTeaTp., TOAAOUS uTEedTpepoy D.
for THny TOA. €x., Tous Ev TH TOAEL
om tnv D 93. 113 Chr Thl-fin.
rec om eis bef ux. and avr. (as unnecessary: the circumstantial repetition of «s
is original), with DHL vulg E-lat Chr (ec Thi: ins bef i. but om bef avr. B(Mai) :
om bef ix. but ins bef avr. m: txt AC E-gr 8 a p 13. 36. 40.
22. ins cai bef mapax. C ac 69. 100. 105. 137 Syr arm (ec Thl-fin: wapak. te D-gr
83 vulg(not fuld tol).
[for eupevew, € evwevery(sic) XN. |
eAfew D-gr.
23. ree mpeoB. bef kar exkA., with EHL rel Chr: txt ABCDN a k m p 13 vulg Syr
arm. kata D.
D ce 78. 137.
24. 51eA0. de D copt.
mposevt. be D: Ka mp. c f vss.
aft deA@. ins evs &.
avtous L. TEMLOT EVUKATLY
nrbay D. ins tTyy bef
rau. (to correspond with rnv mo.) BCEX p 13. 40: om ADHL rel Chr.
25. e:s mepynv A pamdemid: ers rqv wepyny &' (and 3 ?).
kuptov ACN (k) p 13. 40 vulg Syr syr-w-ast arm; Tov Beou E.
at end, D 137 syr-w-ast add evayyeA:Comevor auTous.
26. om amemAcvoay B'-txt (insd in marg).
AB'ICDEN. ]
8; lx. 8; Jos. Antt. xix. 5. 1. 21.
iméotp.| They were not far from the
famous pass, called the ‘Cilician gates,’
which leads direct into that province : but,
notwithstanding all that had befallen him,
Paul prefers returning by the churches
which he had founded, to a short and easy
journey to the coast by his own home.
22. hpas] Is not this a token of the pre-
sence of the narrator again? My own
conjecture would be, that he remained in
Antioch during the journey to Iconium,
&e., and back. The events between those
two limits are much more summarily re-
lated than those before or after. In an art.
in the Journal of classical and sacred philo-
logy, Camb., March, 1856, where the justice
of the above conjecture is called in ques-
tion, the writer says, ‘ here 5? juas eiserd.
&e. is the language of the preachers them-
selves, as the word dr: shews:’ and proceeds
to remark justly on the transition from the
oblique to the direct narrative, as especially
characteristic of St. Luke’s style, and cor-
aft T. Aoyoy ins Tov
LatTaAtay, SO
roborative of the unity of authorship be-
tween different parts of the Acts, and be-
tween the Acts and the Gospel. But if
so, should we not rather look for spas
than juas? The writer, I am glad tosee,
joins with me in rejecting the ‘common’
explanation (see Prolegg. § i. 13) that juas
is used by the writer ‘as a Christian, and
of all Christians:’ to what then would he
have it referred? I would rather, regard-
ing the ér: as marking a transition to the
direct narrative, take 7u@s as an insensible
translation into the first person on the
part of the narrator, speaking of an exhor-
tation which he heard and felt. 23.
xetpor. ] ‘cum suffragiis creassent, Erasm.:
not necessarily as the meaning of the word
conventionally,—which had passed to any
kind of appointment, see ch. x. 41: but by
the analogy of ch. vi. 2—6. See ref. 2
Cor. The word will not bear Jerome’s
and Chrys.’s sense of ‘laying on of hands,’
adopted by Roman Catholic expositors.
Nor is there any reason here for departing
ABCDE
HLNab
efghk
lmop
13
AVE 2. TIPAZEIS AMOSTOAQN. 161
> , “ ~
Avrwyeaav, olev joav * qapadecopéevot T Xaourt Fou °p eee
1 Pet. ii. 23.
feovu etc ro “ Eoyov ae ew\npwoar. 71 rapayendpevor Bit. (Deut
pee o& Kal Bowen: yay iures a sexAnatay J avhyyedrov ¢ ooa ane a ae
HIND, éroinoev 0 Ose | per’ avta@rv, Kat Ore” Hvortev roic COverw a ¥ ce
ae * diay miorewc, 8! SiérpxBov dé ypovov ™oux ™ * ot yor SS iO Fet
P13 guy Tote pabnraic. Pa alix &.
XV. ! Kai tiwec °KxateAOovrec aro tic lovdaiac éo1- “ssi *
SasKov TOUC ade pode Ore ea un 3 mepitunOnre TW Deut. axvic
q ” 9 v, = . aN aed
yevouevne ouv | kukei. 72.
et rw Movstwe, ov dvuvacbe owOnvat. kako le 7a:
= , \ a
T sracewc Kal * Zytnaewe ™ ovK ™ odtyne tw TlavA@ Kat rw only. Gen
xxiv. 12.
k = 2 Cor. ii. 12 reff. Ich. xii. 19 reff. m ch. xii. 18 reff. n= Rev. xii. 12.
och. viii. 6 reff. p J Cor, vii. 18 reff.
vi. |. r=ch. xxiii. 7, 10. (xxiv. 5 al.
1Tim.i.4. vi. 4. 2 Tim.ii. 23. Tit. iil. 9 only ft.
= ch. vi. 14 reff. constr., Tobit iii. 3.
Ci 2 Mace.
Prov. xvii. 14.) "Du
8 Jobn i iii. 25. ch. xxv. 2U.
27. cuvagavtes D: cvvayortes p.
; rec avnyyeiAay (corrn to aorist as more
usual), with HL rel vulg He Thi:
avnyyeAov p: avnyyeAav m: amnyyeiAav Ek Bas
Chr: avnyyeAov D: txt ABCN 13 Syr copt. o Geos bef eror. DN ¢ 96. 133. 180
sah. for wer’ avTwy, avrois(par tly erased by D-corr) wera Tov Wuxev avtwr D.
28. rec aft duerp. ins exer, with EHL rel Chr: om ABCD p 13. 36. 40 vulg wth
arm.
Cup. XV.1. aft tovdaias ins Twy memictevKoTwy amo THS aperews TwY Papioaiwy
8. 137 syr-marg (see note). rec mepiteuvnabe (Meyer thinks the aor, in the sense
of the futurum exactum, may be an emendation. I shd rather think the present to have
been the corrn, as being the simpler, and not therefore ‘ the more genuine, as Bloomf.),
with EHL rel Chr: txt ABCDN p 13. 36. 40 Constt Ath Epiph (rep:Qunre B!: but
corrd eadem manu: see table). ree om 2nd tw, with C? 9r 3 DEHL rel Constt
Ath Chr Gc Thl: ins ABC!8& p: tov 170. Kat Tw €Bet uw. mepimarnte D syr-
marg. e@ve (but v erased) &. dSuvnongba C: -veobe 36. 180.
2. for ovv, 5 BC D-gr Labhk p 36 Syr coptt: txt AEH rel vulg D-lat syr Chr.
{
EKTATEWS D-gr: evoTtacews |.
E 68 vulg copt Jer:
from the usual ineaning of electing by show
of hands. The Apostles may have admitted
by ordination those presbyters whom the
churches elected. mposevé. pe. vyoT.
belongs to rape@., not to xetporor.
25. ’Attddevav| A maritime town at the
mouth of the river Catarrhactes, in Pam-
phylia, not far from the border of Lycia,
built by Attalus Philadelphus, king of Per-
gamus, in a convenient position to com-
mand the trade of Syria or Egypt. It is
still an important place, called Satalia.
(Winer, RWB. C. and H.i. p. 242.) To
reach it they had to cross the plain from
Perga. 26.] 88ev, as being the centre
whence their apostolic commission had
spread. 27.] pet adtav, with [i. e.
in dealing with] them, see reff.: not to
them, as usually: nor per ipsos, as Beza,
&e. O@vpav mwiot.| The same meta-
phor is used in the reff. by Paul, and
shews, perhaps, his hand in the narrative.
On xpov. ov« dAty., see chronol.
table in Prolegg.
Cuap. XV. 1—35.] DIFFERENCES RE-
SPECTING THE NECESSITY OF CIRCUM-
Vou. II.
rec cu(ntnoews, with 13 (Ke Thl-fin: om
“txt ABCDHLN p rel 36 syr sah arm Constt Chr Thl-sif.
CISION FOR THE GENTILE CONVERTS.
COUNCIL OF THE APOSTLES AND ELDERS
AT JERUSALEM. 1. twes} Called in
Gal. ii. 4, wapelsaxTot Wevdaderqor, oftives
mapesnA@ov KkaTackoTjoa Thy eAevbeplay
may hy €xouev ev xpioTt@ “Inood. See
the addition in var. readd. probably from
ver. 5. Doubtless it represents the fact.
In spite of the special revelations which
had accompanied the reception of the first
Gentiles into the church, the strong
Judaizing party adhered to their old pre-
judices respecting the necessity of con-
formity to the law of Moses. With this
party Paul was in conflict all his life; and
even long after, we find it raising its head
again in the sects of the Ebionites and the
Nazarenes. Neander (Pfl. u. L. p. 185,
gee notices the account in Josephus (Antt.
xx. 2. 4), where Izates, king of Adiabene, is
converted to Judaism by a certain Ananias,
who, for fear of a commotion among his
people, allows him to remain uncire ume ised
= hen a certain Eleazar, madvu qepi ra
matpia SoKav akpiBys elva, prevails on him
to perform the rite, for that without it
M
162
t act. absol.,
here (1 Cor.
xvi. 15) only.
1 Chron, xvi.
‘
BapvaBa To0c avToue,
BaovaBav Kal Tivac
uch xi. 2 reff.
Ezra vii. 6,
7.
veh. xviii. 15. * Curnmaroc Tovrov.
RXiii. 29.
xxv. 19.
xxvi. 3 only.
Ezek. xxxvi. y
37 A. (not F.)
onl
w ch. xx. 38.
xxi.5. Rom.
NIPAZEIS ATMOSTOAQN.
otoXove Kat mec Purépouc ELC
oy pev
aoav peyaAnv rasw Toicg adeAgoie.
REPAY Mey
aY¥.
» ~ A
‘zratay avaPaivew TlavAoy Kat
” , , ~ ‘ . >
aXXove && avtwy Tpoc Tove a7o-
e 7 \ ~
[eoovcaAnu TEOL TOU
/ 4 a
ouv ™ mporenplevrec uTro
/ \ VA
The exkAyalac * SmoXovTo thy te Powwikny Kat Lauaoetav,
, , x ’ x ~ , ~ A per ear) ,
ExOmpyoumusvor Thy * extatpogny Twv EOvev" Kat * Exotouy
4» Faoayevouevot
Taoayevou
° f Kaper € Q c 7 c ‘ ~ > , ‘
BPiue. Of Ete leoovoadyu mapsoey Onoav UTO THC EKKANolac Kal
3 John 6 +. ~ > , \ ~ , 7 ay 2 Dt ,
feta x1. TwVY ATOOT oAwy Kal TWV mpea[suTEepwy, avnyyét av TE
al. Jos.
Antt, xx. 2.5, x ch. xiii. 6 reff. y ch. xiii 41 (from Hab. i. 5) only. z here only.
Cant. vii.10. Ezek. xlvii. 11. a= Lukei. 68. Job xl.15 (20). gofov mocovytes rows tmmracs,
Xen, Anab.i 8.18. b ch. ix. 26 reff. c¢ Mark iv. 20. ch. xvi. 21. xxii. 38. 1 Tim. v.19.
Heb. xii. 6 (from Proy, iii. 12) only. Exod. xxiii. 1. d ch. xiv. 27 (reff.).
om Tw bef Bap. DE. for mpos avt., suv avtas D-gr Syr sah: avtots 97.
for eratay to mpos D syr-marg have eneyev yap o mavAos pevew ouTws Kafws eTLOTEVTAY
SuoxupiComevos (om D- -lat) oc S€ eAnAvOoTes amo tepovocAnu TapnyyetAay avTos Tw
TavAw kK. Tw Bapy. Kat Titov adAoLs avaBaively Tpos .. .
ef autwy bef addous XN.
ins orws KkpiO@wow em autos bef rept D 137 syr-
has alios ascendere apostolos Ke.
C 180. om es bl ce: ev E.
w-ast (ex avtwy D? 137).
3. exmeupd. E.
36.
rec om Te (as unnecessary), with AEHL rel Chr:
ins thy bef cau. DH bd fmo Thi.
4. .epocoAvua AB k p: txt CDEHLX® rel 36 Chr Cc Thi. (13 def.)
om zpos D-lat, and in conseq
ins tous bef mpecB.
ins BCDN p
Sinyoumevo: XN): txt N-corr!-3.
rec
amedex Onoay (appy a corrn, as being the usual word, cf Luke viii. 40, ch xviii. 27,
XXvili. 30,—and see reff), with CEHL Chr ec Thi: rapedo@ncay D!; umed. 36. 180;
mposed. k al: txt ABD2N p.
mire -lat; weyws D!.
Ist «at 8: ins X-corr!.
he could not -be a Jew. On the idea that
Cerinthus and Ebion were the tiés here
spoken of, see the patristic reff. in Dr.
Wordsw.’s note. 2.| Compare Gal.
ii. 5. érafay avaB.| I assume here
what scems to me to be almost beyond
the possibility of question (see note to
chronological table in Prolegg., where I
have given the reasons), that this journey
was the same as that mentioned Gal. ii.
1—10. In that case, Paul there (ver. 2)
says that he went up kara amoxdAupuw.
In this expression I cannot see it’ neces-
sarily implied that the revelation was made
to himself, but that there was some intima-
tion of the Holy Ghost, similar perhaps .to
that in ch. xiii. 2, in accordance with which
the church at Antioch sent him and Barna-
bas ;—there being rpopfra: there, by whom
the Spirit spoke His will. TLvas
a)Aovs | Titus was one, Gal. 11. 1, 3, and
that, in all probability, in order to give an
example of a Gentile convert of the uncir-
cumcision endowed with gifts of the Holy
Spirit. Titus is not mentioned in the Acts :
but only in 2 Cor., Gal., 2 Tim., and the
epistle addressed to him. 3. ™po-
mend. | This seems to have been something
of an official escorting of them on the way,
add peyadws CD? 137 syr-w-ast sah Ambr Cassiod :
for vro, aro (perhaps originally, as in C, a corrn to suit
amedex6., and thence adopted even in copies which read maped.) BC 36. 180.
amnyyeiAavtes D!:
om
amnyyetday Te D-corr b. om Te R?.
and perhaps parting from them withsolemn
commendation to God: not, as Morus and
Heinrichs, ‘rebus ad iter suscipiendum in-
structis,’ which would hardly be thus spe-
cified, being a matter of course. At all
events, it shews that the mind of the church
was with them, not with the Judaizers.
This was also the case in Phoenicia and
Samaria, as is shewn by acu below.
4.) On their arrival at Jerusalem, there
seems to have taken place an_ official
reception of them and their message, in
public. There they related—as a most
important datum for the determination
of the question — God’s dealings with
them (see on ch. xiv. 27), and recounted
the places where churches of believing
Gentiles had been founded. This having
taken place, a protest was entered on
the part of the Pharisee believers,—in
no way doubting the truth of these
conversions, nor in any way disparaging
the ministry of Paul and Barnabas,—
that it was necessary to circumcise adrovs,
those of whom they had spoken, and to com-
mand them to keep the law of Moses.
It may be objected, that this view would
not be consistent with Paul’s statement,
Gal. ii. 2, dveO€uny abtois Td evayyéAtov d
3—7.
oe ©, ) A d? , ) ? ~
ooa 0 Veoc” ETOLNOEV MET AUTWY.
~ Pee . ~ g
TWY amo THC
] - ‘ 7 /
tTnpew tov vonov Mwuotwe.
SMA te x \ e , n
GATOOTOAGL Kat OL moea[BUTEOOL
gr
TOUTOU,
TPAZEIS AMOSTOAQN.
een = ’ I
atogsewc Twv Daoiwaiwy " weTtoTEVKOTEC,
2 Col |
Aéyovrec Ore Oet | WeoITEMVELY avTOUC,
163
5 e? , ,
eLaveotnoay oe TLVEC e Mark xii. 19 9
L. only. Gen.
xviii. 16.
xix. 32, 34.
f ch. xii. | reff.
k ’
maoayyéAXew TE ech. v. 17 reff.
6 m , s e habsol., ch.
suvny Inoay TE OL xvii-i2, 81.
3 = \ an + mt ie ts
20,25 al.
toe meat Tov © AOYOU i veri.
. kech.i. 4 reff.
7 roXXne Oe ° cuv@yrhsewe yevonérne 4 avaarac != Matt. xix.
ji t ‘ , ‘ wv - ’
Herooc¢ elev TOOG aUTOUC Avooec adeApot, Upetc ETL-
isd i > ~ . , ~
oracbe ore ap * huepwv © apyalwy “ev viv
17. xxiii. 3.
1 John ii. 3,
4. Prov. iii.
r e€&eAeearo eaeeeet iv. 5
reff. constr.,
ch. xiii 44 reff. n=here only. Wisd. ii. 17. o =ch. viii. 21 reff. pch.
Xxvili. 29 y.r.onlyt. (-tetv, ch. vi. 9. -tn7TNs, 1 Cor. i. 20.) q=ch.i. 15. v.34 al. 2 Chron.
xx. 5. r=ch. x. 30 reff. (2.) Ezek. xxxviii. 8. s see Isa. xx xvii. 26. t Matt.
v.21, &c. Lukeix. 8, 1¥, ver. 21. ch. xxi. 16. 2Cor.v.17. 2 Pet. ii.5. Rev. xii. 9. xx. 2only. Ps.
1 Chron, xxviii. 4, 5.
emo. bef o 0. D 38. 96. 137. 142.
u = Mark vi. 4 al. constr., 3 Kings viii. 16 compared with 2 Chron. vi. 5, notas
v with inf., ch. i. 24 (Pet.).
2 Chron. vi. 6.
at end ins (from ch xiv. 27) kat ort
nvoitev Tos €Ovect Yupay miotews C3HL abd f g Thi-fin.
5. for e€av. to amo, D syr-marg have o: 5 mwapayyetAavres avtois avaBaivery mpos
Tous mpeaBuTepous etaveoTnoay AcyovTes Tives amo (ef. KATA TWY aMOTT. OVTES amo SYT-
marg: D om Aey. follg.)
27.29. 99 Jer.
for ott, ws E.
aft tives ins avdpes A.
for re, 5¢ D!: txt D3(?).
memiotevkotwy L b |? o
G6. rec for te, d< (alteration of the characteristic te to more usual copula), with
ADEHLY rel 36 coptt Chr: txt BC d p 13 vulg eth Syr.
om 2nd a D. for
Aoyou, (ntnuaTos E 137 syr-marg: pnuatos 65.
7. rec ov¢nt., with HL rel: (ytno. ABN acc p 13. 36. 40 coptt: txt CDE.
avecTyoEV EV xy, TETP. Kat ermev D!: avaoras D*: aft avrous ins ev mv. ayiw 137:
om ev g,, and kat D-corr. om ot XN}.
Knptoow év Tors 20veciv, Kat tdtav Sé Tots
SoKotoy, uhmws eis Kevoy Tpéxw 7) Edpamor.
But I cannot see any inconsistency, if the
words used in both cases be accurately
weighed. To the exxAnola, amdoTodo,
and mpeoBvtepo: Paul and Barnabas gave
a simple recital of how God had dealt with
them among the Gentiles: but Paul did
not lay before the whole assembly the
Gospel which he preached among the Gen-
tiles, viz. the indifference of the Mosaic
law to their salvation (Gal. i. 7—9), for
fear of its being hastily disparaged or re-
pudiated, and so his work being hindered
(unmws x.7.A.). But, in private inter-
views with the chief Apostles, James, Peter,
and John (Gal. ii. 9), he did unfold the
whole freeness of this Gospel, and so
effectually, as to prepare the way for their
full and public accordance with him at the
council. 6.] The Apostles and elders
only are mentioned as having assembled :
in which case may 7d mAAOos (ver. 12)
must mean tay mpecfutépwy, and the
decision of ver. 22 must have been arrived
at in a larger assembly. But most pro-
bably the deliberation of the Apostles and
elders implied the presence of the brethren
also, who are intended by wav 7d 7A.,—
and there was but one assembly. The ob-
jection, that no one place could have held
them, is nugatory: the official presence
of all is assumed continually in such cases,
rec o 0. ev nuw eed. (corrn of order :—
where the assembly is open to all.
Aoyouv] matter (in this case) of dispute:
see rett. 7.] A promiscuous debate,
not perhaps without some angry feeling,
ensued on their first coming together,—and
among the multitude, as is implied in ver.
12,—man disputing with man. _—‘[lé€rpos]
Partly on account of the universal deference
paid to him, but principally because of his
peculiar fitness to open the apostolic deci-
sions on the subject, from having been
made the instrument of the first public and
approved reception of the Gentiles.
tpets érior.] In Peter’s speeches in ch. x.,
this phrase occurs at the beginning of a
sentence, ver. 28, and duets ofdare, ver. 37 :
and we have traces of the same way of
expressing the personal pronoun in his
speeches, ch. ii. 15; ill. 14, 25. Such
notices are important, as shewing that
these reports are not only according to the
sense of what was said, but the words
spoken, verbatim. ad’ jp. apx.| In
regard to the whole time of the Gospel up
to that day (about 20 years), the date of
the conversion of Cornelius, at least fifteen
years before this (ef. Gal. ii. 1, and_ notes
to chron. table in Prolegg.), would very
properly be so specified. The length of
time elapsed is placed by Peter im the
strongest light, to shew that the question
had in fact been settled by divine inter-
ference long since. Notice (in reff.) the
M 2
164
weh.i.16(Pet.) ¢ BL 5
reff. Oo Oeoc era TOU
x here only. |
see Col. 1.
re 34 (Per) es
only ft.
Herm. Past. yroorne €0¢
11.4. 3.
z constr., ch. x.
43 reff.
a 1 Cor, xi. 29.
James ii, 4.
Ezek. xxxiv.
17, 20.
b= Matt. xviii.
15. Rom. ii.
16+. Wisd.
iv. 10. xvi
10. xviii. 23
only.
ech. xiii. 8
re
d= Eph. v. 26.
Tit. ii. 14.
James iv. 8.
Sir. xxxviii. 10. ech. x. 33 reff.
Xv. 5. xxiii. 26. 4 Kings xviii. 14.
i Jer. xxxiv. ( xxvii.) 8, 1}. xxxy. (xxviii.) 14.
Rom. xvi. 4 only. ch. v. 30 reff.
27. John xix.17. Gal. vi.2,5. 4 Kings xviii. 14.
Rom. xiv. 2only. Job xv. 22.
q inf. pass _absol., Matt. xviii. 25.
sch, Xii. 17 reff. LP, Exod. xiv.
ayiov KaQwe Kat tiv’
¢ - \ aes
NUG@Y TE Kal auTwy,
> ~ -
avrov. 19 © yup
Ay.
vyov em Tov
Mark vy. 43.
14.
TIPAZEIS AIOSTOAQN.
" doyou TOU ace is Kat TIOTEVOAL.
* guagripnoey auroic, dove TO zed TO
9 Kal
c ee U
TH WLOTEL
ey > 0
OVUV TL
"kal!" ov "7 00T OV KAKELVOL.
f2 Cor. x. 9 reff.
h = Gal. v. 1.
m = ch. vi. 10 reff.
AY.
8
* Suéxpivev > werako
d 0 / ‘ ol
kaUVaptoacg Tac Kaoolac
ovley
‘meoalere tov Oedv, ® exfctvar
k , d - 4) - a ” e
i OV TWVY BPaAUYTWY, OV OUTE OL
?
: ate ‘wey oure mete © lox boape "Pasracat; 3 1 adXa
ova TC oe Tov Kupiou Inoou
: muoTevomen 4 owOnvat
12s Ealynoev O€ may TO ‘rAnfoc,
gver.28. Matt. xxiii.4. Luke
Matt. xi. 29, 30. 1 Tim, vi. 1 (Rev. vi. 5) only.
Mark ix. 42) Mt. Luke xv. 20. xvii. 2.
n Matt. xx. 12. Luke xiv.
p with inf. (absol.),
kch, xx. 37.
och. xiii. 43 reff.
misTEvw TOV Xpovov didateww oe, Xen. Anab., vii.7. 47. with 671, Rom. vi. 8 al.
rch. xxvii. 25 only. seech. i, 11 reff. Rom. iii. 2.
t = ch. ii. 6 reff.
and nu. corrn for up. as it seemed more according to ecclesiastical propriety for Peter
to describe the selection as made “from us apostles,”
than “from you the whole
church ”’), with EHL rel (h o vu.) vss He Thi Iren-int Ambr Rebapt: nuew o 6. e&. D!
(ev nu. o 6. e&. D-corr! c) 187: om ev. vu. m 99 Syr sah eth: txt ABCR a(nuw) k p 13
Constt. om Tov bef crou. D'E 96:
8. o de kapd. o 0. D.
ins D’.
Steaptupnoer C.
om avtos E vulg sah Ambr
Rebapt.—ree aft dovs ins avros (supplementary addn), with CEHL 36 ‘Constt Chr
rec ovdey, with ACDEN rel 36 Chr: txt BHL b gk 1m.
Tren-int: er avrovs D Jer: txt ABN p 13 Did.
9. xa: om Al,
om te D.
10. at beg ins ka E eth.
11. rec om tov (with c ?):
om ovy(appy) C.
ins ABCDEHLN® rel Chr Thdrt Gc Thl.
ino. ins xpiorov, with CD a m 138.36 Syr copt zth-pl Constt (ec Thl-fin :
rel p am demid fuld syr sah eth-rom Chr Thdrt Tert.
om (vyov X!(ins corr! ?).
ree aft
om ABEHLN
motevoouey D!-gr &.
12. cuveatarebenevwy Se Twy mpeoBuTEpwy Tols UTO TOV TETPOU ElpNuEvOLS ETErynoEV
may K.T.A. D syr-w-ast.
eorynoay Cc.
aray EK al fm 13 Thl-fin.
idioms, &c., peculiar to Peter :—éfeAe. faith :’ but by their faith, or by the faith
with inf.,— 81a 7. ordu.,—Kapdi0yv. (most
probably) ;—or characteristic of him, 7ret-
pat. 7. Oedv,—[Kab|as nal juiy (ch. x.
47: so &smep ral, ch. iii. 17; xi. 15),—
apxalwy now, compared with ev apxij
ch. xi. 15. Compare also with meipa¢. 7.
Oedv,—Kwadoa T. bedv, ch. xi. 17.
év viv] among you. If macy be read,
then ‘ among us (Apostles) ? see var. read.
There is no ellipsis of ‘ me’ after efeA.:
the E.V. expresses the construction rightly.
8, 9.| The allusion is throughout to
spiritual circumcision, as the purifies ition
of the heart. God, who saw deeper than
the mere fleshly distinction between Jew
and Gentile, who knows that the hearts of
all are unclean, and that the same all-suffi-
cient sacrifice can cleanse them ali, if
applied by faith (compare the remarkable
parallel, 1 Pet. i. 18—22 inel.), put no
difference between us and them, but has
been pleased to render them spiritually
clean. TH mlorer, not simply ‘dy
in Christ. 10.| metp. (as KkwAdoa,
ch. xi. 17), tempt, by putting obstacles in
the way of His evidently determined course.
émOetvat, infin., marking the in-
tended result of meipacete: cf. Ba de Oéeuy,
Bi & iévar, waoritey 8 eAdav, Ke. See
Bernhardy, Syntax, p. 365. Cuyov |
See ref. Gal. Peter could not be so much
referring to the mere outward observance
of ceremonies, which he himself and the
Jewish converts thought it expedient to
retain,—but to the imposition of the law,
as a condition of salvation, on the con-
sciences of the disciples. So Neander (Pf.
u. L. p. 214). This being so, ofte...
Baordoa will refer, not to the bwrden-
someness of ceremonies, but to the far
more grievous burden of legal death, of
which Paul cries out so bitterly in Rom.
vii. 24,—and says, Gal. v. 3, MapTupouat
+ + Tavtt avOpamr@ TEpITELVOMEVY, bre
Sdeutérms éotiy Sdov Tov vOpov TOTAL.
11.] Seeing that we all in common
, , ~ Q A 4:
4 CROP Oe poe akovoat ae ssid TOV aeen
a
kat o * kage.o- pate
klm
p13-
8—16.
‘ ”
Kat nkKovov BaovaBa kat TlavXou
IIPAZ EIS ATMOSTOAQN.
165
u ee , e
ESN YOUMEVWY OG ua bere bis.
, , € . ~ Vik oe Oat , ~ of Luke xxiv.
ET OINGEV e Oeoc ne Kal ie ev tole EOveow Ot ieee g
foe 3 8. ch. x. 8.
autor. meta O& TO * ovynoat aurouc amexolOn ‘laxwBoc Jad. i i,
7 vch. vii. 36
Néywv “Ar8pee ace) pot, axovoaré pov. | Suuedy * e&- Bay nr
nyloaro
44) ~ X \ y ~ > , > ~
EUVWYV aov TW gpa auTou.
vousw ol * Né-you TOV
16 Mera ravra
Isa. xxv. 1.
c here bis only.
zch. v.9 reff.
AmOs is. 11.
BapvaBav kot mavdoy eknyoupevor D!:
13. avaoras ta. evrev D Syr.
14. for eweok., emedctato E:
Me ree Kkalloc yéypamrat
’ avastpibw Kal © avotkooounow THY q OKn-
efeAct. c! 137! :
C. rec ins em: bef Tw ovou., with HL rel copt Gc:
onl
“ka0wc mpwrov o Ocd¢ * emecxibaro dase eé x — Lake i. 68,
\ , z 78. vii. 16.
15 Kal TO UTW oungw- constr. ellipt.,
here only.
Jer. XXxix.
(xx xii.) 4
v.r. see
Luke i, 25,
y Ps. vii. 17.
a Luke i:i. 4. Dent. xiii. 3. b ch, v. 23 reff.
d = here only, and Amos I. c.
txtD>:
efeAck. kat 13. ef cOvwy bef AaB.
om ABCDEX p 13. 36. 40
vulg syrr sah Constt Chr Procop Thl-sif-comm Thl-fin Iren-int Jer Rebapt.
15. for rovtw, rovro HL o 13:
covow D!: txt D3.
believe that the grace of Christ is the suf-
ficient, and only cause of our salvation, it
can neither be reasonable nor according to
God’s will, to fetter that grace with super-
fluous and vexatious conditions. See nearly
the same argument retorted on Peter him-
self, Gal. ii. 14 ff. Kaketvot are the
Gentile Christians, not our fathers ;—their
ground of trust is the same as ours: ow7's,
no more than theirs. 12.| The mul-
titude (see above) then,—and not before,
on account of their mutual disputes,—
being tranquillized by Peter’s speech,
quietly received from Paul and Barnabas an
account of the seals of signs and wonders
by which God had stamped the approval of
their ministry among the Gentiles. The
miracles at Paphos and Lystra would be
among the principal of these. 13. |
avrovs, viz. Pauland Barnabas. Both had
spoken : doubtless wonders, unrecorded, had
been wrought by the hand of Barnabas,
which he had recounted. *TdxwBos |
See note, ch. xii. 17, and the prolegg. to the
epistle of James. I assume here, that this
is James the Just, the brother of the Lord,
the author of the Epistle: and though an
améotoAos (Gal. i. 19: see also note
on ch. xiv. 4), not one of the twelve.
If we may presume to judge from the
character of his Epistle, to say nothing of
the particulars which tradition has handed
down concerning him, his decision would
come with remar rkable w eight on this occa-
sion. For he is, among all the sacred
writers of the N. T., the representative of
the strictest adherence to and loftiest ap-
preciation of the pure standard of legal
morality. All that the law was, from its
intrinsic holiness, justice, and goodness
ovtws D'(and lat) sah Iren-int: txt D*.
ouvowyn-
(Rom. vii. 12), capable of being to Chris-
tians, he would be sure to attribute to it.
And therefore when his judgment, as well
as that of Peter, is given in favour of the
freedom of the Gentiles, the disputers, even
of the Pharisaic party, are silenced. There
does not seem to be in the following speech
any decision ex cathedra, either in the
&kovcaTré mov, or in the éyw Kplyw (ver.
19): the decision lay in the weightiness,
partly no doubt of the person speaking, but
principally of the matter spoken by him.
14. Supewv | James characteristically
uses this Jewish form of the name: so also
Peter himself, 2 Pet.i.1. The name occurs
Gen. xxix. 33, LXX; Luke ii. 25; ii. 30;
ch. xiii. 1; Rev. vii. 7: the name Simon,
elsewhere used in the N. T. for Peter, is
found in 1 Chron. iv. 20 (Heb. Sener,
LXX-vat., Seuwedv, F.). ™® dv. |
for His name: dat. commodi. On emeck.
AaB., see reff.: the infin., as ém@etvai,
ver. 10, note. AXady, answering to the
Aads, so well known as His by covenant
before. 15. tovTw]| Neuter, to this:
not, ‘to Him,’ in which case we should
expect not of Adyot tov mp., but of mpo-
pjra (Mey er). 16—18. | The citation
from Amos is made freely from the LXX:
differing widely in the latter part from our
present Hebrew text, which see in loc.
E. V. In all probability the LXX had
another reading before them, substituting
perhaps ‘ix 32yp for “nx wih, and OW for
oi. The existing Hebrew MSS. contain
several minor variations, for which see
Kennicott and De Rossi in loc. Of tiis
we th at least be sure, that James, even
if (as I believe) he spoke in Greek, and
quoted as here given, would not himself
166 IIPAZEIS AIOSTOAQN. 5.4
e Rom. xi. 3
only, from
a ake c ieee N Ka ase Ag. , Wee oO w a
oe avotko ounjow, i avopUwow aurny’ TwWC av
p ?
ae at Zntnowow ot “KataAouroe tay avOowrwy Tov KUOLOV,
xvii. 35. omN / x pa?) j Sara a k ? , ‘ ” 7
g=Romiii.l, KaL TavTa Ta EVYN, ep vuuc EWLKEKANTAL TO ovopa
‘om Fs. Xi. . .-
5 r jrares > , , , ¢ - ~ l s
(iukex.s0, MOU E% aUTOUC, Neyer KUpLOG O TOtwy TaUTa i yvwora
51. Heb. xii. my 2? ? a ~ 19 5 Ne! Ne oy ' . 0 X ~ -
17, 1Pet.i. AT alwvoc. 10 EyYW — KOLW fy TapEvoyYAELY TOLC
nie Sf, p > \ ~ > q? , q? \ ‘ , 20 ? ‘
Kara iis. azo tay evwy ETLGTOEPOVGLY ETL TOY Gecv, ““ adXa
i coustr., Mark pe > - 5 me hit ue ff) as ~ u ay
Vii. 25, Rey. " emioreiAat auTotg¢ “Tov ameyeovat | ato} Twy adAtoyn-
vii. 2. Levit.
xv. 4. k James ii. 7 only. Ich. i. 19 reff. m ch. iii. 2). Luke i. 70. Gen. vi. 4.
o here
1 Mace. x. 34.
r ch, xxi. 25.
t = with amo,
uhere onlyt. (-yetv,
nw. inf,, ch. iii. 13. xx. 16. xxv. 24 (xxvii. 1). 1 Cor. ii. 2. v 3 (vii. 37.) Tit. iii. 12. 2 Mace. xi 25.
only. w.dat.,Job xvi.3. 1 Mace. xii. 14 Diod. Sic. xiv. 274 w.ace. , Jer. Xxvi. (xlvi.) 27.
Demosth. p. 242. 16. p ch. xii. 1 (xxvii. 44). q ch. xxvi. 20 reff.
Heb. xiii. 22 only. 3 Kings v. 8 A. (not F.) only. s constr., ch. iii. 12 reff.
1 Thess. iv. 3. v. 22 only. (Luke vii. 6 al.) Jobi.1al. without, ver. 29 ret.
Mal.i. 7,12. Dan.i.8. Sir. xl. 29.)
16. wera Se D'(and lat). etiotpeyw D. kateotpeupeva B: -oTpaupeva (so
ixx-A) 8% 13 Procop: avecraupeva HE. oikodounow (2nd time) C!(appy) 68.
17. om av Ea k Chr,. for xvp., Qeov D eth. om o BR}. for o Trowyr,
momoe D!: txt D8. rec aft tav. ins mayra, with H 36 Syr Chr: pref., EL
ef glsyr Thl-sif: om ABCDX m p 13 vulg copt «eth Constt Iren-int Rebapt.
18. rec at endadds ect: tw Oew mavta Ta epya avtov, with EHL rel syr Constt
Chr: yvworor an’ a. (add cor D vulg syr-marg Iren) tw kvpiw (om syr-mar @) To epryov
avtov AD vulg syr-marg Iren-int : txt BCR a p 13. 29. 36. 57. 63. 65. 100. 105. 133.
180 coptt arm. (In the presence of so many apocryphal insertions as we find in the
Acts, taking into account also the great variety, and seeing in it [cf many more
variations in Scholz ad loc] an argument against the genuineness of the words,—seeing
also that no possible reason can be given for their omission, if originally genuine, I
have followed the authority of BCX, as also have Scholz and Tischendorf. Lachmann
has adopted the reading of AD al [see above], which, as Meyer observes, is evidently
vay Aaveid my TETTWKULAY, Kal Ta * KaTeoKappéva auTine ae
an emendation of still later date than the rec.)
20. om Ist tov H.
(nor would the Pharisees present have al-
lowed it) have quoted any rendering, espe-
cially where the stress of his argument lay
in it, at variance with the original Hebrew.
The prophecy regards that glorious
restitution of the kingdom to (the Son
of) David, which should be begun by the
incarnation of the Lord, and perfected by
His reign over all nations. During the
process of this restitution those nations, as
the effect of the rebuilding, should seek the
Lord,—to whomsoever the gospel should
be preached. ‘There is here neither asser-
tion nor negation of the national restoration
of the Jews. Be this as it may (and I
firmly believe in the literal accomplishment
of all the prophecies respecting them as a
nation), it is obvious, on any deep view of
prophetic interpretation, that the glorious
things which shall have a fulfilment in the
literal Israel, must have their complete and
more worthy fulfilment in the spiritual
theocracy, of which the Son of David is
the Head. 17. ep’ ous er.eKA. |
Notice the same expression in the Bpistle
of James (ref.). 18.| The variation of
reading here isremarkable. The text which
I have givenis in all probability theoriginal,
om amo (as unnecessary ?) B D-gr & p 180 E-lat Gc: ins
and the words inserted in the ree. have been
intended as a help out of their difficulty.
Not onlyare they wanting inseveral ancient
MSS., but they bear the : sure mark of spu-
riouencss!_aenitald variations in the MSS.
where they do occur. The sense, and ac-
count of the text seem to be this: the
Apostle paraphrases the 6 mo@y [rdvra |
tavta of the LXX, adding yraord ar
ai@vos, and intending to express ‘ saith
the Lord, who from the beginning revealed
these things,’ viz. by the prophet (of old,
see reff.) just cited. The addition in the
rec. has been made to fill up the appa-
rently elliptical yuword amr aidvos, which
not being found in the passage of Amos,
was regarded as a sentence by itself. These
last words, Kup. 6 mot. Tad. yr. aw ai., May
perhaps be an allusion to the mystery
of the admission of the Gentiles into the
church, which was now being revealed prac-
tically, and had been from of old announced
by the prophets: ef. Rom. xvi. 25, 26; Eph.
iii. 5, 6, &e. 19.] émurrpépovery, not
as KE. V. ‘ ave turned,’ but are turning :—
the converts daily gathered into the church.
In wapevoxA. there is
‘preter, . . . inswper, molestiam creare ?
no meaning of
ab
8 Ek- cdfgh
klmo
p13
17—22.
, ~ Vv > , \ ~ ~
MaTWY TWY ELOWA WY Kal T7C ¥ Toovelac kat TOU
IIPAS EIS AMOSTOAQN.
167
~ WViKTOU v Rom. ii, 22.
A 1 Cor, x. JY
‘ ~ ef 9) ~ 4 ’ ~
Kal TOU almaroe. Mwavone yao * eK yevewy 7 aoXatwy a
‘Zs \ IA ‘ ae 2. ,’ ‘ wv , ~
KaTa TOAtV TOUG KNOvVoGOVTAaG au7Tov EXEL €v TALC DU
<b ‘ = Lai b? va 99 ,
aywyatc¢ KaTa Wav oaPParov ava ylVWOKOMEVOC. > Tore
¢ £0 E -~ ? oN \ - , ‘ dt
EC OSEV TULC ATOOTOGAOLE Kal TOLE Toa [3urepare Ouv orn
li. 4. pee aay seciver.7 refi.
constr., ch viii. 5 reft. bch. xiii. 27 (reff.).
dch. v.11. Rom. xvi. 23.
AC E-gr HI 18 rel vulg Constt Chr Iren-int.
z Luke viii. 4. ch. xiv. 23. Tit. i. 5
1%. 1 Cor, vi.
18 al. Hos,
a
x ver, 29. ch.
xxi. 25
only t. see
1 Kings xvi.
14,15. Sir.
. a= and
c=vv.25, 28. Lukei.3. Esth. i. 19.
1 Cor. xiv. 23. 2 Chron. xxx. 24 Ald.
om Kat Tov myiKTOU (appy, as
Meyer, because in Levit no such command is formally expressed) D Iren-int Cypr
Tert Jer(who says it was in some mss) Ambrst(who ascribes it to Greek interpolators).
om last rov AB p 13.
at end ins kat oa (add av al) un Oerovew (-wow
al) eavtors (avr. al) yiweoOar erepors uy motte Dabeo 7. 27. 29. 60. 69. 98-marg 106
sah eth Iren-int Cypr.
21. ex. Tous «np. Cm: exer T.K. avtov e[xet] D: three letters lost, erased by D-corr.
v
for avtoy, avrou(sic) N!.
but simply ‘molestiam creare:’ see reff.
20.) émorethat, to send an ém-
oroAn: then rod ar., of the purpose of such
epistle,—to the end that they may ab-
stain, ce. aducy. belongs to ciddAwy
only. Meyer understands it to refer to the
four genitives, the pollutions of (1) idols,
(2) fornication, (3) things strangled, (4)
blood. This he rests on the non-repetition
of ard before Tis mopy. But in this case
the members do not correspond. The Gen-
tile converts needed no command to abstain
from the pollution of idolatry : and the use
of the Alexandrine verb aa:oyeiy in reff.
shews it to apply most naturally to pollution
by eating. The aad. rt. «id. are the things
polluted by being offered to idols, about
which there was much doubt and conten-
tion in the early church :—see Exod. xxxiy.
15, and 1 Cor. viii. and x. 19. THs
mwopvetas| It may seem strange that a
positive sin should be made the subject
of these enactments which mostly regard
things in themselves indifferent, but ren-
dered otherwise by expediency and charity
to others. In consequence we have the
following attempts to evade the simple
rendering of the word: (1) Beza, Selden,
Schleusner, explain it of spiritual fornica-
tion in eating things offered to idols: (2)
Morus and Heinrichs, of the committal of
actual fornication at the rites in idol tem-
ples: (8) Salmasius, of the sin of the
whore-master : (4) Calovius, of concubin-
age: (5) Lightfoot, of marriage within the
forbidden degrees : (6) Teller, of marriage
with heathens : (7) Bentley would read xor-
pelas, ‘swine’s flesh ? (8) woprelas has also
been conjectured (probably not by Bentley,
as stated in Meyer, De W., and this work,
edn. 1):—see other renderings in Meyer
and De Wette. But the solution will best
be found in the fact, that mopyela was
universally in the Gentile world regarded
on the same footing with the other things
mentioned, as an adiddopor, and is classed
here as Gentiles would be accustomed to
hear of it, among those things which they
allowed themselves, but which the Jews
regarded as forbidden. The moral abomi-
nation of the practice is not here in ques-
tion, but is abundantly set forth by our
Lord and his Apostles in other places.
amvuxtov| as containing the blood,—see
Levit. xvii. 13, 14. aiparos| blood,
in any shape: see Gen. ix. 4; Levit. xvii.
13,14; Deut. xii. 23, 24. Cypr., Tertull.,
and others interpret the word of homicide,
which is refuted by the context. 21. ]
Living as the Gentile converts would be in
the presence of Jewish Christians, who
heard these Mosaic prohibitions read, as
they had been from generations past, in
their synagogues, it would be well for them
to avoid all such conduct and habits as
would give unnecessary offence. Other
meanings have been proposed: as ‘ that it
was superfluous to command these things
to the Jews, for they would hear them
in the synagogues’ (so an ancient Schol.,
Lyra, and Neander), —whereas no question
whatever was raised about Jewish con-
verts :—‘ neque est metuendum, ut Moses
propterea antiquetur,’ Erasmus, al. : ‘ Pu-
dori vobis foret et ignominiz, si vos, ho-
mines Christiani.... hac in re inferiores
a Judzis deprehenderemini, quod vos com-
munione cum epulis sacrificialibus poly-
theismo favere videremini, quum illi Judai
.... monotheismo adhereant tenacissime,
eumque quavis septimana sibi inculcatum
audiant,’ Heinrichs. ‘Nam quod ad
Mosen attinet, non possunt, qui ex Judais
sunt, queri, eum sperni ab alienigenis nostri
gregis, quando in nostris (?) non minus
quam in Judaicis conventibus Moses, ita
168
e John vi. 70.
xv. 16, 19.
ch. vi. 5.
: enon: Kix,
fLuke xxii. 26.
Heb. xiii. 7,
17, 24
3 Kings ix. 5.
Sir. xxxv. >
(xxxii.) 1.
g ch. ix. 30 reff.
h constr., ch.
xxvii. 3 reff.
ich. xi. 50 reff.
k ch. xi. 1 reff.
22. edotacev D!.
DPAZEIS AMOSTOAQN.
amooroAot Kal ol moeaPvrepor *
om e& avtwy A.
Chr c Thi-sif: ins ABCEX ac p 13 Thl-fin.
XY:
Myoupevouc
ade pot row “Kata THY
"Avrioxerav Kal Duplay kat Kirtxtav * adeApoig Totc ee
om tw (for uniformity) DHL rel
ins tw bef Bapv. a c 13 Thl-fin.
rec emuxadoupevoy (explanatory corrn), with H rel Chr ec Thi: txt ABCDELN
p 18. 36 Constt.
BapvaBay fuld eth:
rec BapoaBay, with a 36 rel syrr Chr Ec Thi:
txt ABCEHLR® b e m p 13 am coptt Constt.
BapaBBav D:
nyoupevois XN}.
23. rec aft avtwy ins Tade (addition as the variations shew), with EHLN® p 138. 36
syr Constt Chr ; emoroAny mepiexovoay tade CD wth-pl (but D has emor. bef 5. x. a.) 5
ETLOTOANY Kat TeMWavTes Tepiexovoay 137 syr-marg ; ovtws Syr; emioT. ovtws sah:
rec ins xau ot bef adeAg. (see note), with KHLN® rel
om ABCDR'! p 13 vulg arm Ath Iren-int .
om Ist tors C!(appy) 18.
ABR! vulg copt «th-rom.
36 syrr coptt «eth Constt Chr ec Thi:
Pacian Vig.
tos €& €0. bef ad. D.
ut ab antiquo factum est, legitur, et quidem
sabbatis,’ Grot., Hammond. On the read-
ing of the law, &c., in the synagogues, see
ch. xiii. 15, note. 22.| éxeEapévous
must not (with Kuin., al.) be taken for
exex OevTass ; the 1 aor. middle can never
have a passive signification : see Lobeck’s
note on Phrynichus, p- 319: where he
gives a collection of seeming instances of
such usage and explains them. Such
irregularities of case in words in apposition
as we have here (amootdAos .... exdcka-
péevous .... ypawavres ... .) will not
surprise any one versed in HellenisticGreek.
See e.g. Luke i. 73, 74; ch. xxv. 27; Heb.
ii. 10; also ch. xxii. 17, eyévero dé Hou bTro-
orpevayTt K. Tposevxojevov wou
.. . yeverOar pe ev exotacer. . . . and
ref. (th). BapoaBBav}| Of this Judas
nothing further is known than that (ver.
32) he was a ‘ prophet’ (see ch. xiii. 1).
Wolf and Grotius hold him to have been
the brother of Joseph Barsabas, ch. i. 23.
Ythav] otherwise Silvanus (S:Aova-
vés): the former name in the Acts, the
latter in the Epistles of Paul. He also was
a ‘prophet’ (ver. 32). He accompanied
Paul on his second missionary journey
through Asia Minor and Macedonia (ver.
40—ch. xvii. 10),—remained behind in
Bercea (xvii. 14), and joined Paul again
in Corinth (xviii. 5; 1 Thess. i. 1;
2 Thess. i. 1), where he preached with
Paul and Timotheus (2 Cor. i. 19). The
Silvanus (1 Pet. v. 12), by whom the
first Epistle of Peter was carried to
the churches of Asia Minor, seems to be
the same person. ‘Tradition however
distinguishes Silas from Silvanus, making
the former bishop of Corinth, the latter
om
for «iAuciav, KiAcay A, kiAceiay D.
of Thessalonica. On ~ the hypothesis
which identifies Silas with Luke and
makes him the author of the Acts, see
Prolegg. to Acts, § i. 11. B, y. I may
repeat here, that in my mind the descrip-
tion of Silas here as one of the 7yovmevor
ev Tots adeApors, of itself, especially when
contrasted with the preface to Luke’s
gospel, would suffice to refute the notion.
It has been also supposed [by Burmann]
that Silas [»u>oa] is the same name with
Tertius, who wrote the Epistle to the Ro-
mans, Rom. xvi. 22: but without reason :
see Winer, RWB., “Tertius,” and Mi-
chaelis, Introd. vol. iv. p. 89, Marsh’s
transl. 23.| The omission of kat
of before ddeApol, found (see var. read.)
in all the first MSS., can (as Neander
observes against De Wette) hardly have
been occasioned by hierarchical conside-
rations, seeing that it occurs as early as
Treneeus, and that it would be equally
against the strong hierarchical view to
call the presbyters mpeoB. adeApol, writ-
ing, as they were, to the dadeAdoits.
It seems very much more probable to
me that the words «al of were inserted
to bring the decree into exact harmony
with the beginning of ver. 22. In this,
the first official mention of rperBurepor, it
is very natural that the import of the term
should be thus given by attaching adeAgol
to it. See, on the whole, Dr. Wordsw.’s
note.
churches in Cilicia, coupled with the fact
of Paul’s stay at Tarsus (ch. ix. 830—xi. 25:
see also Gal. i. 21), makes it probable that
Paul preached the gospel there, and to
Gentiles, in accordance with the vision
which he had in the temple (ch. xxii. 21).
Kutuiay] This mention of
tH exkAnota * exAcEapévovc avdooac && avrov réupat etc ABCDE
, , t a o , ‘ 7
AvrTiwyétay ovv tw TlavAw kat BapvaBa,
kadobuevov Bapoa)3pBay Kal Lira, avopac
gv TUIC * adeApoic, ABD jacana ova XEtpoe avrav Ou
HLNab
‘Tobéay Tov c ats h
mo
p13
23—26.
Over | Xaloey. 24
TIPAZ EIS AIOSTOAQN.
169
~
’ A , :
” Ereon nKovoapey Ore Tivec ” €& Huwv | 3eh pe
n? , O22 Che a ,
e&eAOOvrec éeraouSav upac Aoyouc P dvackevalovrec Tac
Wuyac vuov oic ov 16 AaucOa, 7 ' edo0Lev Hue
Xa vuwr, otc ov * decrecAaneba, edokev muly yevo-
26. James i.
lonly (2John
10,11. Isa.
xviii. 22) t.
Esdr. viii. 9.
2 Mace. ix.
‘
, g ° ‘ r? ”
Béevotc onoOupadov exAeSamevoue avooac men pac 7TeOoC 2 ee
c ~ Cy ~ t2 ~ € - , \ ,
upag ouy ToOL¢ ayaTNToIC Nuwy BapvaBa Kal TlatAw,
’ , ~
avlowmorc z TapadeowKkoatv rac ‘ puyac autwy * UTip
26 u
1 Mace. xv. 3.
i. 7. v. 10.
Ezek. iii, 19.
Rom. i. 7. xvi. 5, 8, 9.
ix. 20 al.
24. Rom. xvi.4al. Exod. xxi. 23.
24. for emeidy, em Se N'.
Vig: eA@ovtes L.
r ver. 22 (reft.).
eferapatay D! al.
n Matt. ii. 6. 1 John ii.19. Deut. xiii. 13.
Prov. xii. 25. 1 Taperter ge,- +.
(see ch, xvii. 6.) tiv Ankudov kabeAwy K. cvagkevdoas, Thue. iy. 116.
1 Cor. x. 14. Phil. ii. 12 only.
= 1 Cor. xiii. 3. Dan. iii. 28 (5).
x ch. ix. 16 reff.
for nuwy, vuwy &}.
ch. xiii. 46.
xiv. 12,
1 Cor. i. 21,
22 al. L.P.
(Matt. xxi.
46 v. r.)
o=—ch, xvii. 8,13. Gal.
p here only t.
: q Mark vii. 36 al.
sch. i. 14 reff. t w. gen. (Matt. xii. 18).
Ps. cxxvi. 2. u= Matt. xiii. 45. Gen.
w= Matt. ii. 20. Jobo x. 11. ch. xx.
Ore. . » Xen. Mem. ii. 6. 17.
om e&A8. BX! a! arm Constt
rec aft vuwy ims AeyovTes mepiteuver Bat
(add de E Bede-gr) kat tnpew Tov vouoy (gloss from vv 1, 5), with CEHL syrr wth-pl
(wepiteuvew avtovs ta texva Chr-edd) Iren (aft SieoreA.): om ABDN p 13 vulg
coptt zth-rom Constt Ath Epiph Vig Bede.
SieoretAoueda D!: txt Dt.
25. exretapevors (grammatical correction) ABL p 13 rel: txt CDEHN b f g 1 36
Constt Chr (ec Thl.
xatpew] Not a rendering by Luke
of the Hebrew ny>w, as Grotius; for the
Epistle was certainly written in Greek, as
intended for Gentiles. The only other
place where this Greek form of salutation
occurs in the apostolic document (we have
it in the letter of the chief captain Lysias,
ch. xxiii. 26) is in James i. 1, which Bleek
has remarked as a coincidence serving to
shew his hand in the drawing up of this
Kpistle. 24.] Neander remarks (Pil.
u. L. p. 223, note) that é& hpev ef. is a
presumption in favour of the reading «al of
adeApot above: for that these men could
hardly have gone out from among the
Apostles and elders. But such a suppo-
sition is not necessary: 7u@v implies the
church, the a5eAgol of whom they were the
mpeaBurepo, whether ral oi be inserted or
not. avack.]| See ref. Thucyd., where
it will be seen that it implies turning up
the foundations :—for Brasidas cleared the
ground and consecrated it. Cf. Passow,
sub voc. The words Aéyovtes Tept-
téuverbar Kk. Thpeiv Tov vduov, inserted in
rec. after Suav, are manifestly, in my view,
an interpolation, from the desire to spe-
cify in what particulars these persons had
sought to unsettle the souls of the Gentile
brethren. The defence of the clause set up
by Meyer and De Wette,—that if inter-
polated it must be from ver. 5, not from
ver. 1, and that this is improbable,—is best
answered by observing that in E, one of the
principal authorities for the insertion, the
Set after mepitéuvecOar betrays in very
fact that the interpolation was from ver. 5,
as also, but in a less degree, does the Aé-
yovres. The reasons given by Meyer and
De W. why the words should have been
omitted,— the similarity of ending ind-MON
for nu., vuwy D-gr.
and vé-MON,—or to square it with ver. 1,
seem to me nugatory. The former is very
improbable,—and the latter would have
required the preservation of Aéy. 7ept-
téuverOa. The variations also in the
clause are strong presumptions against it.
The persons to whom the epistle was ad-
dressed would very well know what it was
that had disturbed their minds, and the
omission of formal mention of it would be
natural, to avoid prominent cause of offence
to the Jewish converts by an apparent de-
preciation of circumcision and the obsery-
ance of the law. 25. | yev. 6po8up. may
mean either ‘ assembled with one accord,
as (perhaps) ch. i. 14; or ‘having agreed
with one consent’ as Meyer. I prefer the
former meaning. So we have adverbs as
predicates after verbs substantive, e. ¢.,
elvat Siapepdvtws, Plat. Legg. x. p. 892 c,
katvmepbe yiverOat, Herod., ke. See Bern-
hardy, Syntax, p. 337. Bapv. «. Ilava. |
Paul has generally been mentioned first
since ch. xiii. 43. (The exception, ch. xiv.
14, appears to arise from the people calling
Barnabas Jupiter, and thus giving him the
precedence in ver. 12, after which the next
mention of them follows the same order.)
But here, as-at ver. 12, we have naturally
the old order of precedence in the Jeru-
salem congregation preserved. 26.
mapaS. tT. y.| See reff. The sacrifice of
their lives was made by them: they were
martyrs in will, though their lives had not
as yet been laid down in point of fact.
This is mentioned to shew that Paul and
Barnabas could have no other motive than
that of serving the Lord Jesus Christ,
and to awaken trust in the minds of the
churches. But, although this was so, the
Apostles and Elders did not think proper
170 IIPAZEIS AMOSTOAQN. - 4's
- g 2 , - ’ c ~ , ~ _ 7 >
ya Mat «-« TOU OVOMATOE TOU KUPLOU TLwY Inaov KOloToU. aT-
. 57. A i
2h X24 eoradkausy ovv lovdav cat Sidav, ¥ cat * avrove * da
— ii. x , Pa ANY ‘ 5.350 % r 5 ia ‘ ~
seo niaerelt ak ond amnayyetAAovTag Ta auTa, eooGev yao Tw
constr., ch.
vi. Ji rett.
b ver. 10 reff.
c = Rev. ii. 24
(Matt. xx. 12.
, \ td Led \ /
ayly TvEvpaTL Kal NL pnoev mAéov
Cc / s -~ da? ,
Bapoc, TAnv twv “ eravayKec,
2 emitiPeobat Uw
,’
29 ¢ amex eoOat f tewAo-
ny ; , ‘ Da ‘ ~ ‘ ' = ’ r
2 Cor is? Ourwy Kat aiysarog Kat ®amvektwy Kat ® ToovEtac e& wy
1 Thess. ii. 6) - i¢ ‘ ej , k vere A 30 t
onlyt. Sir QeaTNOOUTEC | EaVTOUC EV moackere. eppwols. Ou
xii. 2
(2 Mace. ix. 10) only.
(émavaykuatns, Job iii. 18 Symm.)
ver. 20 refi ] f 1 Cor. viii. 1 reff.
Isa. lvi. 2. i = 2 Cor. vii. 11 reff.
(ch. xxiii. 30 rec.) only. 2 Mace. xi, 33.
26. wapadcdwxaow D.
meipaguov DE 137 syr-marg.
27. aft Aoy. ins moAAov E.
syr sah eth-pl: om wth-rom: txt D?.
j see note.
7yv Wuxnv D Iren-int.
amayyedourtas D-gr.
dhere onlyt+. Jos. Antt. xvi. 11.2. Demosth. kar. Tijroxp. p. 706. 22.
egen., 1 Tim. iv. 3. 1 Pet. ii. Llonuly. Jer. vii. 10. [w.amo,
g ver, 2u (reff.).
h Lake ii. 51 only. = Ps. xi. 7.
not as Eph. vi. 21. 2 Macc. ix. 1. k here
at end ins ers mavTa
ravta D': hee D-lat
28. tw mv. tw ay. ABNk p 13 Clem: txt CDEHL rel 36 Constt Cyr-jer Chr Bas, He
Thl Cypr Pacian.
mAevov D 105.
tovtwy, with EL rel Chr Gc:
[after nuw XN! has written «x, but marked it for erasure. }
for vuw, nuew D!: txt D§(?).
pref BCDHN a m p 13 vulg Constt Th] Iren-int: om A
rec aft Twy emavary. ins
15. 18. 36. 43. 180 Clem, Epiph, Cyr Orig-int Pacian-mss (tovtwy seems to have been
a marginal supplementary gloss, which some inserted before, some after twv emavay-
xes).—om toy D'!X! 13: ins D?(?).
29. rec x. muixrov (alteration for uniformity with ver 21), with A7EHLN? 13. 36 vulg
Constt Chr @e Thi Vig: om D Cyr-jer Iren-int Cypr Tert Ambr Pacian Jer (see on ver
21): txt A'BCN! p coptt Clem, Orig.
at end ins kat ova pn OeAeTE eauTots
yever Oat erepw un morerte (cf ver 20) D(morery D!: -exv Tai[sic] D*) a e 25, 29. 32. 42.
57. 69. 105. 106. 1387 syr-w-ast wth Iren-int Cypr.
CDHL eth-rom: mpatnre E Thi-fin.
for ef, ap D. mpakate
D adds Pepomevor ev Tw ayiw TvEevpaTL:
also Iren(ambulantes in sp. s.) Tert(vectante or rectante vos’ sp. s.).
to send only Paul and Barnabas, who were
already so deeply committed by their acts
to the same side of the question as the
letter which they bore,—but as direct au-
thorities from themselves, Judas and Silas
also, who might by word confirm the con-
tents of the Epistle. On the present part.
(amayy.) see reff. and Winer, edn. 6, § 45.
1. One account of it is, that during the
mission implied in é@meordAkauev they
would be arayyéAAovtes. But a far more
probable one, that the pres. part. here, as
so often, designates merely, carrying rather
a logical than a chronological force: “ as
announcers of.” 27.] Ta avra, as
above, the contents of the Epistle (and
any explanation required): not, as Nean-
der, ‘the same things as P. and B. have
preached ? 8va Adyou, by word of mouth,
as opposed to ‘ by letter,’ decides against
this interpretation. 28. TO ay. Tv.
kal p.| Not = 7 ay. my. ev ju. (as
Olsh ),—but as, in ch. v. 32, the Holy
Spirit, given to the Apostles and testifying
by His divine power, is coupled with their
own human testimony,—so here the de-
cision of the Holy Spirit, given them as
leaders of the church, is laid down as the
primary and decisive determination on the
matter,—and their own formal ecclesiasti-
cal decision follows, as giving utterance
and scope to His will and command. The
other interpretation weakens this accuracy
of expression, and destroys the propriety of
the sentence. Neander, in his last edn. of
the Pi. u. L. (p. 224, note), has given up
the rendering of his former ones, édofev
yap (7B aylw mvevpatr) kal juiv, ‘It seemed
good (by the Holy Ghost) to us also,’ i.e.
as well as to Paul and Barnabas. It was
plausible, but quite untenable. Such am-
biguity, in such a document, would surely
be out of the question. The judgment
as to what things were émdvayxes is implied
in édofev, Ke. éwuTi@. had been used
by Peter, ver. 10. 29.) On the con-
struction of améxeo@at with ard in ver. 20,
and with a simple gen. here, Tittm., de
Syn. N.'T. p. 225, says well that the differ-
ence arises ‘non quoad rem ipsam, sed
modo cogitandi, ita ut in priori formula
sejunctionis cogitatio ad rem, in posteriori
vero ad nos ipsos referatur.’ His following
remarks are worth reading. e— ov,
from which things; not, as Meyer, ‘ac-
cording to which precepts ;’ see John xvii.
15. ev mpat.| Not, ‘ye shall pros-
per:’ but as kad@s émolnoas, ch. x. 33;
3 John 6,—ye shall do well. See
the curious additions in var. readd.
27—35. ..
UPAZEIS AMOSTOAQN.
171
A = | oe , m - , ,
Mev OUV atoAvlévrec Karna 0ov ELC Avrwyeay, Kal lh, xiil. 3 reff,
31 avayvovrec Oe " eyapnoav
33 xy
é , \
eornotsay. TOMOaVTEC be
Zz ty 3
MET
’ 7
auTouc.
" guvayayovrec 10 °wAnboe ” ExédwKav thy Yémurodny.
" earl ™ * raoakAnoet.
32 ’Tovdac te Kal Didac, ‘Kat ‘ avrow" mpopyrat ovrec, ‘dia
Aoyou moAXov * rapekadeaav tove adcApove Kal
> , , . ~ > ~ ‘ ‘ ,’ /
ELONVIC ATO TWY adeA pa TOOG TOUC atooreiAavrac
35 IlavAoce b& Kat BapvaBac * duérptBov ev
m ch. viii. 5 refi.
n ch. xiv, 27
reff.
o ver, 12.
p = Lake iv.
17. xi. 11, 12
1 Mt. xxiv.
380, 42 (ch,
xxvii, 15)
enly. Esth.
ix. 2k,
q ch. ix. 2
reff,
r 1 Cor, xiii. 6
w ,
eT -
: Xedvor areAvOnaay
ceff.
Jonah iv. 6.
5s Rom. xv. 4, 5
reff, Isa.
Iwii. 18.
> ’ , ‘We
Avrioxeta vddcKorTec Kal evayysAZouevot mera KL t ver. 27 (reff).
e ~ =
. ETéowy ToA\Awv Tov * Noyo TOU Kuolov.
Deut, xiii. 6.
Xpovoyv ovdéva.
w ch. xiv. 22 reff.
see 1 Cor. xv. 2.
80. aft amwoAv@. ins ev nuepais oAvyas D.
Thl-sif: txt ABCDN a p 13. 36. 40 vulg eth Thl-fin.
emidedwkay EK.
y=ch xx.3. 2 Cor. xi. 25.
xi 3lenly. Gen. xxvi. 2h. see ch. xvi. 36 reff.
c= ch, xvii. 7 reff.
a ch, xi. 27 reff.
v ch. xvi. 40,
xx. 2al. fr.
x ch. xviii. 23. Demosth. p. 302, 06d" éwoingay
James iv. 13. Prov. xiii. 23. « Heb.
a ch. xii. 1Y reff. b ch. viii. 4 only.
rec nAGov, with EHL rel Chr Ge
ouvayorvtes D!: txt D?.
82. elz (for te) de, with D-gr vulg E-lat syr copt Thl-fin: om sah wth-rom: txt
ABC E-gr HLN p 13 rel D-lat Syr wth-pl Chr Qe 'Thl-sif.
E: aft ovres ins wAnpers tvevmatos ayiov D.
pioay CE 73: txt ABDHL N-corr! p 13. 36 rel Chr: om kat erear. R!.
for ovres, vrapxovTes
om moAAov D 18. €TETTI-
33. rec for amoor. avtous, amoatoAous (perhaps an explanatory gloss, substituted
Sor the genuine text ;—but more probably a mistake, owing to axoar. being common to
the two words), with E(and Bede-gr) HL rel syrr copt Chr: txt ABCDN a p 18. 36.
40 vulg sah eth-rom Thl-fin Cassiod Bede.—& had eavtous, but the « has been marked
and then erased.
[84. rec edote Se Tw o1AG emimervat avtov (explanatory anticipation of ver 40), with
CD 18 rel sah syr-w-ast arm (ic Thl-fin (ce:Aea D: mavaw eth: for emmenvat, susti-
nere eos D-lat: for avtov, avrovs CD!, mpos avrovs D-corr'
p am(and demid fuld al) Syr copt Chr Thl-sif).
: om ABEHLN cdghlm
add further wovos Se iovdas
exopevén D vulg-ed arm(not ed-1805) Cassiod. |
35. o Se mr. D.
D}, is supplied by D‘(?).
éppwo0e] The customary ‘ valete’ of the
conclusion of epistles. 31. mapa-
kAyjoet] It does not appear, because
mapexaddeoay follows in the sense of ‘ ex-
horted,’ that this word need mean ‘ ea-
hortation.” There was (De W.) very little
exhortation in the letter: and it is much
more natural to render it consolation here :
it was the matter of their joy, which surely
could not be said of the orders to abstain
given in the letter. 32.| mpod. ovr.
gives the reason for their superadding to
the appointed business of their mission the
work of exhorting and edifying. On
mpop., see ch, xi. 27; xiii. 1; Eph. ii. 20,
and notes. 33.] mov. xp., having
continued some time: see reif.
[34.] On every account it is probable
that the words forming this verse in rec.
(see var. readd.) are an interpolation. For,
(1) MSS. evidence against them is weighty,
especially as D, in the case of insertions in
the Acts, is of very low authority. (2) The
abdtod is avrovsin C and D, and av’rois and
«7661 insome cursives; and Dandthe Vulg.
kat meta er. D!: txt D*.
at end «v., which has perished in
add pdvos 5€ *Iovd. exopevén; the former
shewing the copying of an indistinct mar-
ginal gloss which was not understood, and
the latter betraying the secret of the whole,
viz. that the notice was interpolated to
account for Silas being found again at
Antioch in ver. 40. (3) Internally con-
sidered, the insertion is very improbable:
coming after dareAt@noay unexplained
(which from its voice and tense implies
that the dismissal actually took place and
they departed) and followed by TMaiaAos 8€
after @ofe 5 7G Siag. On Silas’s subse-
quent presence at Antioch, see note, ver.
40. We learn from Gal. ii. 10, that @
condition was attached to the cordiality
with which the Gentile mission of Paul
and Barnabas was recognized by the chief
Apostles: that they should remember the
poor, i.e. the poor at Jerusalem :—that
the wants of the mother church should not
be forgotten by those converts, whose Ju-
daical bond to her was thus cast loose.
This was an object which Paul was ever
most anxious to subserve. See Gal. l. c.
172
d ch. x. 48 reff.
e see Luke
xxii. 32 (and
note). rn oc
f = Luke ii. 15.
ch. xiii.2.
1 Cor. vi. 20.
Gen. xviii. 4.
g ch, vii. 23
reff.
h ch. xiii. 27
~ '
TOU Kuplov,
reff.
ich. xiii. 5 reff.
k Gen. xliii. 27.
see Matt. iv.
TIPAZ EIS AMOSTOAQN.
~ k
K TWC EXOUVOLV,
XV. 36—41.
A 7 ~~
36 Mera o¢ ° rwae ° nuépac Elirev TOC BaovaBay Tlav-
°’EmotpéPavrec Sn FemiokeWwuela trove adeApove
Kata woAw tTacay év aic ‘ katnyyetAapev Tov * Noyov
37 BaovaBac 62 eDovArro
~ /
' cuvapaX ae kat Lwavynv tov Kadovpuevov Maoxov'
38 TlavAoe 8: ™nklov tov
Tlaupvdrtac Kat wy ° auveAOovra avroic Eg TO
n ? tL > , , ~ ? ‘
aTOOTaVTa AT QAvuTWY aTOo
pv ‘
eoyov, mn
xvi. 18
Ich. xii, 25 , - aa) \
en ouvTapaAapPavew Izovrov. EYEVETO eer” mapo&va-
m = ch. xxviii.
22 (Luke vii.
7. 2 Thess.
Ad: Tim
Maik Zs
iii. 3. x. 29)
only. 1 Macc. xi. 28.
reff. p-ch xiii. 2. xiv. 26.
Luke ix. 33.) Ezek. xliii. 21 only, but not =.
18. xx. 6 oulyt. Xen. Anab. vy. 6, 21, 23.
, 7] s? - > N >
fOoc, WCTE atoywotoOnvat autoucg aT
n Luke ii. 87. iv. 13. ch. xii. 10. xix.9 al. Ps. lxxix. 18.
Phil. i. 22 al. i
Deut, xxix. 28. Jer, xxxix. (xxxii) 37 only. (-vveo@as, ch. xvii. 16.)
adAnrwy, Tov
Heb, TE BapvaBav : maoaXaPovra tov Maoxov “ exwAevoat etc
o=ch. i. 21
r Heb. x. 24 only.
s Rev. vi. 14 only. (d:ax.,
Num. xxii. 41. uch. xvili.
q ch. Siii. 7 al.
t = Matt. xvii. 1.
36. rec ava. bef mp. Bapy., with DEHL rel: txt ABCN m p 13 vulg Thl-fin.—ins
o bef rava. D. for 5n, Se XN}.
rec aft Tous ad. ins nuwy (not perceiving the
sense of T. adeAp.), with HLN rel wth @e Thl: om ABCDEN a p 13. 36. 40 vulg
syrr coptt arm Chr.
mao. bef woA., with DEHL 13. 36 rel vss Chr: txt ABC k m copt.
for katnyy., exnpvéauev C 15. 18. 36. 180 (Syr copt ?). j
aft adeAp.add rovs D ¢ 36. 137. 180 Syr syr-w-ast.
rec
os D.
ins to bef 7ws KE.
87. ree «BovAevoato, with HL rel Chr (ic Thil-sif: eBovAevero D: txt ABCEN ac
e p 18. 36. 40 vulg syrr copt eth Thl-fin.
cuvrapaAapBave A (13).
rec Toy (in place of ka), with HL 13 rel Syr sah wth (Ze Thi-sif: om Dac: kat tov
BX p: txt ACE h k 36 vulg syr copt arm Chr Thl-fin.
k p 18. 40.
38. for nfiov, ove eBovAeTo Acywy D.
: om azo maup. C2.
tol.
KN €lval Ovv auTols.
om ayras D.
rec suumapadaBew (corrn for conformity to ver 37), with EHL rel Chr He
Thl: txt ABCN a ec p 36.—[cuvz7., so AB'CEN. |
emuxadouuevoyv CD ed
amnoctatyoayta(sic) A: amootynoavTa
aft epy. add eis 0 emeupOnoay D
for un curt. T., D has toutoy
39. rec for de, ovy (corrn to suit the sequence of the mwapokt. on the last verse), with
CEHL rel 36 syr Chr: txt ABDN p vulg coptt.
mapadaBwy T. &. ewrevoev D.
and note.] 35.] Su8dcKovrtes, to those
who had received it,—evayyeAlopevor, to
those who had not.
36—Cu. XVIII. 22.] Pavt’s srconp
MISSIONARY JOURNEY (unaccompanied by
Barnabas, on account of a difference be-
tween them) THROUGH Asta MINOR TO
MACEDONIA AND GREECE, AND THENCE
BY SEA, TOUCHING AT EPHESUS, TO JE-
RUSALEM AND BACK TO ANTIOCH.
36. peta Sé twas Hp.| How long, we
are not informed: but perhaps (?) during
this time took place that visit of Peter to
Antioch mentioned Gal. ii. 11 ff. when he
sacrificed his Christian consistency and
better persuasions to please some Ju-
daizers, and even Barnabas was led away
with the dissimulation. On this occasion
Paul boldly rebuked him. See, on the
whole occurrence, notes to Gal. 1. ¢.
Sy, see above, ch. xiii. 2. év ais, be-
cause magav méAw involves a_ plurality :
so Xen. Mem. i. 2. 62, édy ris pavepds yé-
yntat...Tovros Odvards cor Hh Cypla:
amoxwpynoa K. tore Bapy.
cf. Herm. ad Viger. p. 40. 38. nkLov |
Not as Vulg. ‘rogabat:’ but ‘aquum
censebat,’ as Beza. It gives Paul’s refusal
in the strongest manner. The position of
the accusatives also forcibly expresses his
decided rejection of one who had not dared
to face the dangers of the untried country
before. But Paul thought proper (as to)
one who had fallen off from them from
Pamphylia, and had not gone with them
to the work, not to take with them that
man. We may well believe that Paul’s
own mouth gave originally the character to
the sentence. Tov atroort.| See ch.
xiii. 13. It hence is evident that his de-
parture was not by the authority of the
Apostles (as Benson). 39.] 6 TataAos
e(nter Td Slkatov, 6 BapyaBas 7d piddv-
@pwrov, Chrysostom: who also remarks
on their separate journeys,—euol doxe? Kat
kata otveow yeyevnoba Toy xwpicudr,
kal mpos GAANAous elmety Sti ered) eyw
ov BovAouat, od 5é BovAe, va wh maxad-
MeOa, Stavermduebatovs térovs. &Sste mavu
ABCDE
HLNab
edfgh
klmo
p 13
XVI. 1—3.
tac *exkAnolac.
\ ,
Kal Avoroay.
de 9) ray ’ ~ c ~
EAAnvoe, 7 oc ° Euaotuoeito “ UTO TwY EV Atbsrpoe Kat
Tkoviw aoe pov. 3
"eZehOelv, Kat ® Aa Bow
xi. 11. xii. 7. xxvii. 24 al.
g red., Matt. xiii. 31 al.
BVicioks Kees
TIIPAZEIS ATMOSTOAQN.
Kompov' *° TlavAog 88 ' émtAekiuevoe Stdav * cEnr Dev
* rapacoeic TH Xapire Tov Kvolov vT0 Tw adeA par.
41 ¥ Simpyero oe thy Lupiay kat Kidtclav, * ettatnoicww
XVI. } PKarhyrnoey 88 ste AéoBnv
“Kat woov pabntne tie Hv Exe Ovopatt
Timobeoc, vio yuvatkoc "lovdalac
173
v = here (John
v. 2) only.
Exod. xvii.
¥. 2 Kings
x. 9.
w=ch. xvi.3,
40. xx. Lal.
x ch. xiv. 26
reff.
y ch. xiii. 6
reff. Gen.
xli. 46.
zch. xiv. 22
reff.
a plaor., Rom.
xvi. 16 reff.
d ~ ‘ ‘
TLOTNC, Tatoo oe
bw. eis, ch.
- ¥ , e ~ a , ~ “ue
toutov nféAnoev o HavAoc ody avta XS! ',24
h , 3.4% i ‘ 5 x. 11. xiv.
TEOLETEMEV auTov ota TOUG 3t. Eph. iv.
: . : 13. Phil. iii.
11 only. 2 Macc.iv. 44. w. dvteKpris, ch. xx. 15 only. L.P. (w. ¢7¢, 2 Kings iii. 29 only.) ech.
dch. x. 45 retl. ech. x. 22 ret. f ch. xv. 40 reff,
of persons, here only. Nam. iii. 6. h 1 Cor. vii. 18 reff. ich.
emidetauevos D. om tov D!: ins D5, rec (for
40. cavdos E-gr.
kup.) Geov, with CEHL rel 36 syrr copt Chr: txt ABDN p 13. 40 am(and demid fuld
tol al) sah Thl-fin. azo D.
41. ins rny bef «:A. BD Thl-fin.
at end ins mapadidous tas evroAas Twy
mpesBurepwy D demid fuld(not am tol al) syr-marg arm(not ed-1805).
Cuap. XVI. 1. d:eA@wy Se ta €6yn Tavta Katnvt. D syr-marg Cassiod.
bef ers 5ep8. AB a m 13. 36. 40 syr copt.
exer bef ny D: om exer 32. 37. 57 eth.
ins Kat
ins ets bef Avot. ABN c p syr Thl-fin.
rec aft yuv. ins twos, with HL rel
Syr sah ic Thl: om ABCDER a k p 36. 40 vulg syr copt xth arm Chr Orig-int Jer.
(13 def.)
2. txoviov XN.
om tovdaas EB.
elkovtes GAANAOLs TodTO emolovy. Hom.
XXxiv., p. 262. Yet it seems as if there
were a considerable difference in the cha-
racter of their setting out. Barnabas ap-
pears to have gone with his nephew without
any special sympathy or approval ; whereas
Paul was commended to the grace of God
by the assembled church. We find
Mark ‘afterwards received into favour by
Paul, see Col. iv. 10; 2 Tim. iv. 11; and
in the former of those places it would seem
as if he was dependent for his reception on
Paul’s special commendation. 40.
StXav] He may perhaps have come down
again to Antioch (see ver. 33) in Pefer’s
company. We find (see above on ver. 22)
a Silvanus in 1 Pet. v. 12, the bearer of
that epistle to the congregations of Asia
Minor. 41. Suptav «. Ktduk.| See
note, ver. 23. Here we finally lose sight
of Barnabas in the sacred record.
Cuap. XVI. 1.] We have Derbe first, as
lying nearest to the pass from Cilicia into
Lycaonia and Cappadocia. Paul probably
travelled by the ordinary road through the
‘Cilician gates,’ a rent or fissure in the
mountain-chain of Taurus, extending from
north to south through a distance of eighty
miles. See various interesting particulars
in C. and H. i. p. 301 ff. and notes.
éxet} At Lystra: which, and not Derbe,
was in all probability the birth-place of
Timotheus: see on ch. xx. 4. This view is
confirmed by ver. 2. He had probably
been converted by Paul during his former
visit, as he calls him his son in the Lord,
1 Cor. iv. 275 2 thm 27 ena
perhaps at Antioch in Pisidia, see 2 Tim.
ili. 10, 11. His mother was Eunice, his
grandmother Lois,—both women of well-
known piety, 2 Tim. i. 5. Whether his
father was a proselyte of the gate or not, is
uncertain: he certainly was uncircumcised.
He would be, besides his personal aptness
for the work, singularly fitted to be the
coadjutor to Paul, by his mixed extraction
forming a link between Jews and Greeks.
2.] Some of these testimonies were
probably zntimations of the Spirit respect-
ing his fitness for the work; for Paul speaks,
-1 Tim. i. 18, of ras mpoayotcas em cé
mpodytetas (see ch. xiii. 1, 3). He was
set apart for the work by the laying on of
the hands of Paul and of the presbytery,
1 Tim. iv. 14; 2 Tim. i. 6, after he had
made a good confession before many wit-
nesses, 1 Tim. vi. 12. 3. AaBav rept-
ér.| As E. V. took and circumcised him.
Every Israelite might perform the rite; see
Winer, RWB., art. ‘ Beschneidung.’
81a +. *lovd.] That he might not at once,
wherever he preached, throw a stumbling-
block before the Jews, by having with him
one by birth a Jew, but uncireumcised.
There was here no concession in doctrine
at all, and no reference whatever to the
duty of Timotheus himself in the matter.
In the case of Titus, a Greek, he dealt
174 NPAZEIS AMOSTOAQN. AVE.
’ , ‘ ” , - k , ,’ , A I v7
De a IovSatouc TOUC UVTaC EV TOIC TOTOLC EKELVOIC noeioav
xi. 24 jj. xxi. ‘\ a ‘ , > ~ a 1 yee es
Ili. ch. yap amayTec TOY TaTépa avTOV, Ort “EAAny ” umnoyev.
xxvii. 2, 29 e ‘ , N , / 9 =
oly. A we 68 " Oueropevovto Tac TOAEC, ° TapEdidocay avToic
iv. 6. , ‘ , or , ces ~ >
Leonstr, 2 cor. ® puAaooetY ta ‘d0ypata ta “Kekotméva TO TWY aToO-
xii. 3,4. Job
xxi. 27.
m ch. ii, 30 refl,
nace., here
(Luke vi. 1.
xiii. 22.
XViii. 56.
Rom. xv. 24)
ve A / , ~ > ge ,
oTOA\wy Kat moa Putéowy twv ev TepocoAvmote.
oy / , - ~- / \
© At pev ovv * exxAnotar ‘€oTEpeoUVTO TH " TiaTE, Kal
15 ~ , ~ Ve FS
* eeplocevoyv tw apuw “ Kal T1péoav" 8 * &inAOoy dé rhv
am Dovyiav kat Ladarixny Xopayr, Y ewADevTec UO TOU
1 Mace. iti,
87. o = 1 Cor. xi. 2 reff. (ch. xii. 4.) p = Luke si. 28. ch. vii. 53. xxi. 24.
al. Eccles. xii. 13. g Luke ii. 1. ch. xvii. 7. Eph. ii. 15. Col ii. 14 only.
error) only. Dan. vi. ¥ Theod. r=ch.xx.16. 1 Cor. v. 3. vii. 37.
6 plur., Rom. xvi. 16 reff. t ch. iii. 7 reff. uch. xiii. $ reff.
Eccl. iii. 19. w ch. ii. 46 reff. x ch. xiii. 6 reff. —
1 Kings xxv. 26. pass., Rom.i.13. Heb. vii. 23 only, Exod. xxxvi. 6.
1 Tim. v. 21
Ezck. xx. 26 vat. (but appy
Tit. iii. 12. 2 Macc. xi. 25.
v2 Cor.ix.12. Phil. i. 9.
y = Matt. xix. 14. ch. viii. 36 al.
3. mavtes CD m: txt ABEHLRX p rel Chr Ge Thi. OTL EAANY 0 TaTHpP avToV
(corrn for simplicity) ABCX a m 13. 36. 40 sah Thl-fin: txt DEHL rel Chr Qc Thl-
sif.
4. for ver, Siepxomevor Se Tas ToAes exnpvocoy Kal Tapedidocay avTols feta Taos
Tappnowas TOV Ky inv xov AMA TapadidovTes Kal TAS EVTOAGS aToOT. (Tw am. D°) x. rpeoB.
7. ev cep. D: aft ras mod. ins KnpvooovTeEs peTAa Tad. Tap. T. Kup. ino. Xp. SyY-mMarg.
rec wapedidouy, with HL rel 36 Chr: mapedid0vcav C: txt ABDEN p 13.
rec ins twy bef mpeoB. (corrn for uniformity), with EHL rel Chr: om ABCDN a p 13
Bas Thl-fin. rec tepovoaAnm, With KHL Chr: txt ABCDX a p 13 vulg Thl-fin.
5. om 77 mot. D. mepreaoevoy KH 3. 65. 95' Chr-mss.
6. rec dieAOovres, with L rel vulg(transeuntes . . vetati sunt) Chr Ge Thi: txt
ABCDEX acdekm p 13. 36. 40 syr copt arm Epiph Did.
otherwise, no such reason existing: Gal.
ii. 3. 4. ras méd.| Iconium, and
perhaps Antioch in Pisidia. He might at
Iconium see the elders of the church of
Antioch, as he did afterwards those of
Ephesus at Miletus. If he went to An-
tioch, he might regain his route into Phry-
gia and Galatia by crossing the hills east of
that city. " 5.] This general notice,
with pey ody, like those at ch. ix. 31, xii.
24, marks the opening of a new section.
6—9.] This very cursory notice of
a journey in which we have reason to think
so much happened,—the founding of the
Galatian and Phrygian churches (see ch.
xviii. 23, where we find him, on his second
visit, ornpi(wy mavtas tovs pabnras) ;
the sickness of the Apostle alluded to Gal.
iv. 13; the working of miracles and im-
parting of the Spirit mentioned Gal. iii. 5 ;
the warmth and kindness of feeling shewn
to Paul in his weakness, Gal. iv. 14, 15,—
seems to shew that the narrator was not
with him during this part of the route ; an
inference which is remarkably confirmed
by the sudden resumption of circumstantial
detail with the use of the first person, at
ver. 10. 6. pvyiav| There were
two tracts of country called by this name:
*Phrygiam utramque (alteram ad Helles-
pontum, majorem alteram vocant).....
Eumeni restituerunt.’ Livy, xxxviii. 39.
rec ins Tny bef yaa.
It is with ‘ Phrygia Major’ that we are
here concerned, which was the great central
space of Asia Minor, vet retaining the name
of its earliest inhabitants, and on account
of its being politically subdivided among
the contiguous provinces, impossible to
define accurately (see C. and H. i. p. 280,
note 1). The Apostle’s route must
remain very uncertain. It is probable that
he may have followed the great road (ac-
cording to his usual practiceand thenatural
course of a missionary journey) from Ico-
nium to Philomelium and perhaps as far
as Synnada, and thence struck off to the
N.E. towards Pessinus in Galatia. That
he visited Colossz, in the extreme S.W. of
Phrygia, on this journey, as supposed by
some, and maintained with some ingenuity
by Mr. Lewin (Life and Epistles of St. Paul
i. 191 ff.), is very improbable (see Wieseler,
Chron. d. Apostgsch. pp. 28 ff.).
Tadatixqy x. | Themidland district, known
as Galatia, or Gallo-greecia, was inhabited
by the descendants of those Gauls who
invaded Greece and Asia in the third cen-
tury B.C., and after various incursions and
wars, settled and became mixed with the
Greeks in the centre of Asia Minor. They
were known as a braye and freedom-loving
people, fond of war, and either on their
own or others’ account, almost always in
aris, and generally as cavalry. Jerome
4—9.
¢ } , ~ a ~
aylov mvevatoc * AaAnoa Tov * Noyov ev ty Aoia,
‘bs a? 06 os a ‘ ‘ , : :
eAfovtec O& “Kata thy Muoiay
TIPAZEIS AIOSTOAQN.
175
z2ch. xi. 19 reff,
a of place, here
only. of per
son, Luke
b , ' ? 4
emeloaZov elc «THY
x. 38
B a] , An \ > c Wa > \ + ~ «08,
tWuvlav TOOEU yHyval, Kal OUK €L\aGEV AuUTOUC TO TWvEvpa b= & constr,
"Incov' 82
Towada. 9
(ch. xxiv. 7 al.) Dent. ii. 14.
ch, v. 19 reff.
(corrn for uniformity), with EHL 36 Epiph Did: om ABCDN p 13 Ces.
aft roy A. ins Tov @eov D vulg-ed spec syr copt.
bef AaAnoa D.
7. for eAOovres, yevouevny D!: -vor D».
ins ABCDEN ab! dk m p 13. 36. 40 Syr coptt Ath Epiph Did.
D Syr.
e ch. xviii. 22 reff.
ch. xxiv. 6
maosADovrec St tiv Mvuotav °xaréBnoav ete Qeeh iy a,
Job ix. 18.
Waa? ‘ ~ ‘ ~
Kat Opapa © Oia [rnc | VUKTOG TW Tatdw dconstr., Mark
vi. 48 only.
fch. vii. 31 ref. g see
ins undevt
rec om de, with HL rel Chr ce Thi:
for emeip., nbedav
rec (for ets) kata (perhaps merely a mistake, occasioned by kata rT. uve.
before : if an intentional alteration, the reason is not clear), with HL rel Ge Thi-sif :
txt ABCDEX ¢ k m p 13. 40 Epiph Chr Cyr Thl-fin.
om 2nd tnv D.
rec mopeverOa (corrn for the less usual inf. aor.), with CDHL 13 rel Chr He Thi-sif:
txt ABEX m p 36 Cyr Did Thl-fin.
rec om ingou (see note), with HL rel sah
Chr @e Thl; «vpiov C' demid: txt ABC?DEX m p! 18. 36. 40 vulg syrr copt «th arm
Jer Orig-int Vig.
8. SucAortes D.
9. ev opamatt D-gr E-lat Syr.
(in the introduction to book ii. of his
comm. on Galatians, p. 429) says that
their speech was like that of the Germans
in the neighbourhood of Treves : and per-
haps Aveaoviott, ch. xiv. 11, spoken of the
neighbouring district, may refer to this
peculiar dialect. But Greek was extensively
spoken. They were conquered by the con-
sul Cn. Manlius Vulso, 189 B.c. (Livy
Xxxvill. 12, see 1 Mace. viii. 2), but retained
their own governors, called as before te-
trarchs, and afterwards kings (for one of
whom, Deiotarus, a protégé of Pompey’s,
Cicero pleaded before Czsar) ; their last
king, Amyntas, passed over from Antony
to Augustus in the battle of Actium.
Galatia, after his murder, A.D. 26, became
a Roman province. The principal cities
were Ancyra,—which was made the metro-
polis of the province by Augustus,—
Tavium, and Pessinus: in all, or some of
which, the Apostle certainly preached.
He was detained here on account of sick-
ness (8° acdéveray THs capKds, Gal. iv. 13).
See further in Prolegg. to Gal. § ii.
kwAvOevtes | By some special intimation,
like that in ch. xiii. 2. *Aoia| This
name, applied at first to the district near
the river Cayster in Lydia (Aciw év Aeuou,
Kaivotplov aug) pée@pa, Hom. Il. f. 461),
came to have a meaning more and -more
widely extended, till at last it embraced,
as at present, the whole vast continent,
forming one of the quarters of the globe.
But we never find this meaning in Scrip-
ture. The Asia of the Acts is not even
our Asia Minor,-—which name is not used
till Orosius (i. 2, p. 16) in the fourth
century A.D.,—but only a portion of the
western coast of that great peninsula. (A
KkaTqvtTnoay D-gr.
om é1a C.
rec ins Tns, with CEHLN p 13
full account of the history of the territory
and its changes of extent will be found in
C. and H., i. pp. 275 ff., and in Wieseler,
pp. 32—35. I confine myself to its im-
port in the Acts.) This, which was the
Roman province of Asia,—Asia Propria,
Plin. v. 28,—as spoken of in the Acts,
includes only Mysia, Lydia, and Caria,—
excluding Phrygia (ch. ii. 9 and here:
1 Pet. i. 1 it must be included) as in
Pliny 1. ¢.,—Galatia, Bithynia, Cilicia,
Pamphylia, Lycia. See ch. xix. 26, &e.
7. Bebuvtay] At this time a Roman
province (senatorial: Hadrian, whose fa-
vourite province it was, took it from the
senate). When they were come to (i. e.
to the borders of) Mysia, they attempted to
go into B. The expression my. *[qood
is remarkable, as occurring in all the great
MSS., and from its peculiarity bearing
almost unquestionable trace of genuine-
ness,—the idea being quite untenable that
the word *Incovd has been inserted here,
and nowhere else, on doctrinal grounds.
If the report of this journey came from
an unusual source, an unusual expression
would be accountable. 8.| waped-
@dvres must from the context mean ‘having
passed by, i.e. as regarded their work
of preaching (cf. ch. xx. 16),—and not
‘having passed by’ as avoiding it; for
they could not get to the coast without
entering Mysia. I adhere to this interpre-
tation, notwithstanding what has been said
against it by Dr. Bloomfield (Gr. Test.
edn. 9). For this sense of mapépxoua,
which is not figurative at all, but involved
in the literal, cf. Hom. I]. @. 239: Aristoph.
Vesp. 636, 7: Plat. Pheedr. p. 278 fin.
Tpwada} Troas (Alexandria Troas, in ho-
176
IIPAZEIS ATOSTOAQN.
5.8
os ” eee, , e ‘ j ~ oa \
heh. ii.Sref. h wpOn, avyo Makedoy tic Eatwe ‘ rapakadwv auTov Kal
k Luke xvi. 26. j , ’ 1 , (aed
Heb. 1.20’ Aé-ywv “ AtaBac etc Makedoviav | BonOnoov nuiv. 1° we
only. 1 Kings . fe ~ ne n? , o? ce
1 Matt, xv. 25. of TO opapua ELOEY, evlléwe eCntnoapev eGed ew ° ELC
Mark ix. 22,
24. ch. xxi.
28. 2 Cor. vi
2, from Isa. xlix. 8.
o 1 Cor. ii. 16 reff.
Heb. ii. 18. Rev. xii 16 only.
p ch. xiii. 2 reff.
rel Chr: om A?(and appy A') BD 40.
rel 36 syrr Chr :
txt B D-corr EX m p 138. 40 vulg.
rnv Makedoviar, ° oupPiPaZovrec ore moockékAnrat nuac
m = ch. xiii. 8 reff. nch, xi. 25 reff,
rec win bef Tw mavdAw, with ACD!HL
ins wse: bef aynp D Syr sah.
rec Tis bef waxedwy, with HL rel syrr Chr: txt ABCDEX m p 13 Thl-fin.—
rec aft avnp tis ins nv, with HL rel Chr ce Thi-sif:
aft waredwv tis ABCD°’Ra m p13
Thl-fin (these variations of position shew the word to be spurious, inserted to fill up
the imagined constr, it not being observed that avnp &e is in apposn with opapa): om
D'E 3. 47. 95'. 103 Syr copt eth arm.
syr-w-ast sah.
syrr eth: om DHL rel copt Chr, Ge Thi.
aft eoTws ins KaTa To Tposwmoy avtov D
ins na bef mapaxadwy (supplementary corrn) ABCERN a p 13 vulg
om avtoy D.
10. for ws to ott, SieyepOers ovy Sinynoato To opawa nuw Kat evonoaperv ott D, simly
sah. e€ntnoamer(sic) X.
nour of Alex. the Great: now Eski Stam-
boul) was a colony juris Italici (see on ver.
12), and a free city, and was not reckoned
as belonging to either of the provinces,
Asia or Bithynia. Whether it was for this
reason that Paul and his companions visited
it, is uncertain. He may have had the
design of crossing to Europe, if permitted,
which the subsequent vision confirmed.
See ch. xx. 5; 2 Cor. ii. 12; 2 Tim. iv. 13.
9.] The vision seems to have ap-
peared in the same way as that sent to
Peter in ch. x. It was an wnreal appari-
tion, designed to convey a practical mean-
ing. The context precludes our under-
standing it as a dream. Maxedav |
known probably by the affecting words
spoken by him. There would hardly be
any peculiarity of dress by which a Mace-
donian could be recognized. 10.
eLatyocapev| by immediate enquiry for a
ship. This word is remarkable as the in-
troduction of the first person in the nar-
rative: which however is dropped at ch.
xvi. 40, on Pavul’s leaving Philippi, and
resuined again, ch. xx. 5, on occasion of
sailing from Philippi. Thence it continues
(in all places where we have reason to
expect it: see below) to the end of the
book. On the question, what is implied
by this, we may remark, (1) That while
we safely conclude from it that the writer
was in company with Paul when he thus
speaks, we cannot with like safety infer
that he was not, where the third person
is used. This latter must be determined
by other features of the history. For it
is conceivable that a narrative, even where
it concerns all present, might be, in its
earlier parts, written as of others in the
third person, but might, when more inti-
macy had been established, or even by
om ty (for uniformity with es par. above :
but
preference only, be at any point changed
to the first. Andagain, the episodes where
the chief person alone, or with his principal
companion or companions, is concerned,
would be many, in which thenarrator would
use the third person, not because he was
not present, but because he was not con-
cerned. This has not been enough attended
to. IPfit be thought fanciful, I may refer
to an undoubted instance in the episode,
ch. xxi. 17, yevouévwy judy eis ‘Iep., to
ch. xxvii. 1, @s 5& éxpidn +. drome
juas, ...; during the whole of which time
the writer was with or in the neighbour-
hood of Paul, and drops the we, merely
because he is speaking of Paul alone. (2)
One objection raised by De Wette to the
common view, that Luke accompanied Paul
from this time (except as above), is, that
several times Paul’s companions are men-
tioned, but Luke is never among them.
On examining however one of the passages
where this is ; done, we find that after the
enumeration of Sopater, Aristarchus, Se-
cundus, Gaius, Timotheus, 'Tychicus, and
Trophimus, we are told, odto: mpoeA@dvtes
guevoy Has ev Tpwad:: so that the writer
evidently regards himself as being closely
associated with Paul, and does not think
it requisite to enumerate himself among
the companions of the Apostle. This may
serve as a key to his practice on other
occasions. On the whole, and after careful
consideration of the subject, I see no reason
to doubt the common view, that Luke here
joined the Apostle (whether, as Wieseler
suggests, as a physician, on account of his
broken health, must of course be matter of
conjecture, but is not improbable), and
from this time (except from ch. xvii. 1—
xx. 5), accompanies him to the end of the
history. See the question of the author-
ABCDE
HLN ab
cedfgh
klmo
p 13
10 —12. NIPAZ EIS AIOSTOAQN. 177
(4
0 O<0c 11
q
>
evay yeAicacbar avrovc. " avay Oévrec Sz a conste.. ch.
Sees § ’ sur? 7 ; ; i ee ee
avd Towadoc * evOvdpounoaney cic Lanoloakny, ry te‘
12° a ® Peek 3 sch. xxi. 1
exeiBev te stg Didtwmoue, , 24, .,
15. xxi. 18
(vii. 26. xxiii.
11) only.
w here only t¢.
2% , > -
7 LOVON) €lc NearoAw,
ut > ‘ , ~ v , ~ 7
TIC EQTL TOWTN THC peplooc THC Maksdoviac ToAte, ks KO-
Proy. xxvii. 1. u ch, x. 4) reff. vch. viii. 2) reff. Ezek, xlv. 7.
that was the first this the second mention) BCELN ak p13 Thi-sif: ins AH rel He
‘Thl-fin. om ynuas Xl. rec (for Geos) kupios, with DHL rel syrr sah Chr Ge
Thl-sif Iren-int: txt ABCERX a1 p 13. 36 vulg copt 2th Thl-fin Jer. © avrous A
13 Thl-sif: tous ev rn maced. D.
11. rec for Se, ovy (corrn to suit the sequence on the foregoing ver), with BCHL rel
36 syr-txt sah (ie Thl-sif: txt A(D)EX m p13 vulg syr-marg copt Chr Thl-fin.—77
de emaupioy ax. (avax8. D*) aro D 137 syr-marg. rec ins tys bef tpwados, with
HL rel Thdrt @e Thl: om ABCDEN ¢ m p 13. 40 Chr. for Tn Te, Ty Se (altera-
tion of the characteristic te, which now, in Luke's own narrative, begins to be again
very frequent) ABCELN a b ck mop 13 syr coptt: cat rm D: txt H rel vulg Syr
zeth Chr Ge Thi. aft emovc. ins nuepa D. veavy ToAW ABD.
12. kakedev (alteration, see above) A B(sic: see table) CDEX a m p 13. 36 Thl-fin:
ex. 5¢ L137 syr sah: txt H rel vulg Syr copt weth Chr He Thi-sif. for mpwr.,
kepadn D Syr. om Ist tns B: om t7s pep. D c 14). 96. 105. 137. 142 syrr wth
Chr: pepis E-gr. om 2nd rns (to make the sense clearer: waxedovias TOA. ex-
pressing ‘Macedonian city’ better than tys makedovias moA.) ACEN a m p 40: ins
ship of the Acts further discussed in the
Prolegg. § i. 12—14. 11.] They had
a fair wind on this occasion: in ch. xx. 6,
the voyage in the opposite direction took
Jive days. This is also implied by ed@vdp0-
unoauey: see ref., where it has the same
sense, viz., ran before the wind. The
coincidence of their going to Samothrace
also shews it: determining the wind to
have been from the 8. or 8.S.E. It is only
a strong southerly breeze which will over-
come the current southwards which runs
from the Dardanelles by Tenedos (C. and
H. i. p. 336): and this, combined with the
short_passage, is another mark of the vera-
city of our narrative. They seem to have
anchored N. of the lofty island of Samo-
thrace, under its lee. eis NedtroAvy |
In an E. by N. direction, past the island
of Thasos. It was not properly in Mace-
donia, but in Thrace, and twelve (ten,
C. and H. i. 339, from the Jerusalem Itine-
rary) Roman miles from Philippi, which
was the frontier town of Macedonia strictly
speaking: see below. It was by Vespa-
sian, together with the whole of Thrace,
attached to the province of Macedonia
(Winer, RWB.). Some Roman ruins and
inscriptions serve to point out the Turkish
village of Cavallo as its site. As regards
the reading, te or Sé, at the end of the
verse, and éxei0év Te or KaxetOev in ver. 12,
I have retained re in both places ; because
in the first D has «af for it, and in the
second, B. ‘These variations very much
invalidate the testimony of the MSS., and
render it probable that the characteristic
Vou. Le
ze is original in both places. 12.
iAlarovs |] Philippi was built as a mili-
tary position on the site of the village
Krenides (also called Datos, Appian, Bell.
Civ. iv. 105, of 5& @idurma wéAts early, h
Adtos avoud¢ero mdéAat, kal Kpnyides ere
mpo Adrov' kpivat yap eior mepl TE Addyw
vaudtwy modAat), by Philip the Great of
Macedon. The plain between the Gangites,
on which the town is situate, and the
Strymon, was the field of the celebrated
battle of Antony and Octavius against
Brutus and Cassius (ef. Dio Cassius, xlvii.
41 ff.: Appian, ubi supra): see more
below. ‘There is now an insignificant
place on its site retaining the name Filiba
(or Philippigi ?). Winer, RWB.
awpoT THS pepiSos THS MaxeSovias
awédus | The first Macedonian city of the
district. It was the first Macedonian
city to which Paul and his companions
came in that district,— Neapolis properly
belonging to Thrace. And this epithet of
mpotn would belong to it not only as re-
garded the journey of Paul and Silas, but
as Wieseler remarks (Chron. d. Apgsch.
p- 37, note) as lying furthest eastward, for
which reason also the district was called
Macedonia prima, though furthest from
Rome. ‘The other explanations are, (1)
‘chief city,’ as E.V. But this it was not:
Thessalonica being the chief city of the
whole province, and Amphipolis of the
division (if it then subsisted) of Macedonia
prima :—(2) mpétn is taken as a title of
honour (Hug, Kuin., De Wette), as we
find in the coins of Pergamus and Smyrna
178 TIPAZ EIS AIMOSTOAQN. bh
5 3 ’ < We , a , x ' e /
xch xi 19 Awvia. Nev Of Ev TauTy TH moAet * dtarpiPovrec Y nuépac
ch x. 48 reff y , = cones - 2 , 4290 alte
z Lake iv. 16. ’ rwae, 18 Ty TE “ ImEpa TWD * caPbParwy * eEnADouev * EEw
ch. Xiu §
ge) ~ b , . , id > , d ‘ Ss
ouly, Exod. rye” TUANCS Tapa TorapLoy, ov © evomiZero © Tpocevyy Elvat,
ch. xx. 7 reff.
Luke xiv. 5 al.
c = here only t. Jos. Antt. xiv. 10. 23.
BDHL Chr ce Thi. (138 def.) nuny D': txt D*. for tavty, avtn D-corr
HL rel Chr ec Thi: txt ABCD'EN a k p 13. 36 Syr.—ry bef aury b o.
13. for re, 5¢ Daco 13 vulg E-lat syr coptt Thl. rec for muAns, moAews (per-
haps a margl expl of rns mudns: perhaps an error), with EHL rel 36 syr wth-rom
Chr: txt ABCDN ap 13. 40 vulg coptt. ins tov bef roray. D1 142 Thl-sif.
evourCopev ABC 13. 40 copt wth-rom (-auey C): evourCev N: edoxes D Epiph (altera-
tions from misunderstanding : see note): putabant arm: videbatur vulg: txt A'(appy)
a Matt. xxi. 17.
2 Macc. xiv. 4.
Heb. xiii. 13.
d ver. 10 only {.
b Luke vii. 12. Heb. xiii. 12. Ruth iv. 1,
EHL rel 36 Chr Ge Thl.
(but not in the case of any city out of Asia
Minor): (3) méAts KoAwy. are united
(Grot.),—‘ the first city which was a
colony.’ But there could be no reason for
stating this: whereas there would be every
reason to particularize the fact that they
tarried and preached in the very first city
to which they came, in the territory to
which they were sent. pepidos would
seem to import that the division into Mace-
donia prima, secunda, &c., made long before
this by Zmilius Paulus (Livy, xlv. 29), still
subsisted ; this however is not necessary :
pepis might be merely a geographical sub-
division. Dr. Wordsworth finds his solu-
tion of the difficulty in “the Hellenistic
sense of the word pepls, viz. a frontier or
strip of border land, that by which it (?) is
divided from some other adjacent territory:
see Ezek. xlv.7.” But this supposed sense
may be questioned. Certainly in the place
cited pepis has no such meaning. It there
represents p97, which is merely a part or
portion. Kkohwvia | Philippi was made
a colonia by Augustus, as a memorial of his
victory over Brutus and Cassius, and as a
frontier garrison against Thrace. Its full
name on the coins of the city was Colonia
Augusta Julia Philippensis. A Roman
colony was in fact a portion of Rome itself
transplanted tothe provinces (Aulus Gellius,
xvi. 13, calls them ‘ ex civitate quasi propa-
gatee—populi Romani -quasi effigies parve
simulacraque’). ‘The colonists consisted of
veteran soldiers and freedmen, who went
forth, and determined and marked out their
situation, with all religious and military
ceremonies. The inhabitants of the colonize
were Roman citizens,and were still enrolled
in one or other of the tribes, and possessed
the privilege of voting at Rome. In them
the Roman law was strictly observed, and
the Latin language was used on their coins
and inscriptions. They were governed by
their own senate and magistrates (Duun-
viri, as the consuls at Rome: see on
otparnyol below, ver. 20), and not by the
mposevxnv A2CR p13. 40 copt eth: evxn m 99: txt
governor of the province. The land on
which they stood was tributary, as being
provincial, unless liberated from tribute by
the special favour of the jus Italicum, or
Quiritarian ownership of the soil. This
Philippi possessed, in common with many
other coloniz and favoured provincial towns.
The population of such places came in pro-
cess of time to be of a mixed character :
but only the descendants of the original
colonists by Roman wives, or women of a
people possessing the civitas, were Roman
citizens. Hence new supplies of colonists
were often necessary. See article ‘Colonia ’
in Smith’s Dict. of Antt., and C. and H.
i. pp. 341, f. év tatty TH woAet |
In this city,—as distinguished from the
suburban place of prayer to which they
afterwards, on the Sabbath, é&A@ov ew
Tis TUAns. Perhaps ravtn may have been
changed to av7#, to make the contrast
stronger. ev avT# TH médre, as distin-
guished from ééw tijs mUAns, would be too
strong an expression for the calm simplicity
of St. Luke’s narrative style. 13.
mota dv | a (or, the) river; viz. the small
stream Gangites, or Gangas: Leake, p. 217,
cited by Crand H. i. 341; not, as Meyer
and De Wette, the Strymon, the nearest
point of which was many miles distant.
The name Krenides, formerly borne by the
city, was derived from the fountains of this
stream. From many sources we learn,
that it was the practice of the Jews to hold
their assemblies for prayer near water,
whether of the sea, or of rivers: probably
on account of the frequent washings cus-
tomary amongthem. Thus a decree of the
Halicarnasseans in Joseph. Antt. xiv. 10.
23, allows the Jews Tas mposevxas Troteio-
Oa mpos TH Oaddoon Kata Td maTpioy EBs.
Thus Juvenal, speaking of the ‘madida
Capena’ at Rome, adds, ‘ Nunc sacri fontis
nemus, et delubra locantur Judeeis,’ iii. 13.
And Tertullian, de Jejuniis, ch. 16, vol. ii.
p. 976, ‘Judaicum certe jejunium ubique
celebratur, quum omissis templis per omne
ABCDF
HLNab
edfgh
klmo
p13
_—
13—1L5.
Ne ’ ’ ~ ~
Kat © kaficavrec eXaXovpev raic
, Cp ae
14 kal tic yuvy Ovopmart Avéia,
IIPAZEIS AIOSTOAQN.
. ToppvooTwAie¢ TOXEwe
179
e abs, Matt. v.
1. xiii. 48.
ch. xiii. 14.
1 Cor. x.7.
Usa, xxx. 8,
suverDvbcate yuvarsiv.
' hi 0 ‘ i , ” e . :
Ouareipwr, oeonevn TOV Ocov, NKOVEV, nC Oo KUpLOc f ch. i. 6 reff.
* SinvorEev TY Kapdiay | roocé tc AaA 4 Y
0 pocexyev roic AaXoupevote v70 |
g here only ¢.
s hch. xiii. 43
reff.
ich. xviii. 7,
5 “ WK q fc * ~
tov IlavAov. we 6: EBarricOn, Kat 0 ™viKoc aurnc, }niv. dob
n , n , 9.9 , ‘ “ k=L k Xxiv.
mapekadeoev " éyouoa Ei Kexpikaté pe ? miatny Ty 45. (ch. vi,
56 reff.)
2 Macc. i. 4.
2. Mark v. 12 al.
1= ch. viii. 6 reff.
Al(appy) BEHL rel 36.
disapproving) xth.
14. ins tys bef roAcws D.
vulg Chr Qe Thl-fin. om tov BD.
o=ch. xiii. 46 reff.
ouveAnaAvduias D.
ins nt1s bef nk. E.
m = ch. x. 2 reff. n Matt. viii. 5. xviii.
p here only. see 1 Cor. iv. 17,
aft cvvedd. add nuw CE NURS
neovoey D!-or Lack13
15. ins autn bef x. 0 oc. EX? d h 36. 38. 93. 97. 106-marg 113. 177. 180 demid fuld
syrr sah arm Chr.
litus quocumque in aperto aliquando jam
precem ad celum mittunt.2 And ad
Nationes, i. 13, vol. i. p. 579, he speaks of
the ‘ orationes litorales’ of the Jews. See
also Philo in Flace. § 14, vol. ii. p. 535.
ov évop. mpos. eivar] Where a
meeting for prayer was accustomed to be:
i. e. ‘where prayer was wont to be made,’
as E. V. That this is the meaning here, is
plain from the use of évopifero etvat, which
could certainly not be said if the mposevxh
were in this case a building dedicated to
prayer. Were there no such qualification,
we should understand the word of a zpos-
EVKTHpLov oY synagogue, as frequently used :
Twas 5 oikovs éavTois KaTacKevacavres
4) Témous TAaTE’s Pdpwy dixny, mposevxas
TavTas é€kdAovy" Kat hoav ey TO maddy
mposevxayv tomo. évy Te Tots "lovdatos tw
moAews, Kal ey Tots Sauapeiras. Epi-
phanius, Her. 80, § 1, p. 1067: and again,
soon after, aAAa kal mposevxiis Témos év
Zikluots, ev TH vuvi kaAouméevyn Neawdrci, ew
THs ToAEwWS, ev TH TEdidd., @stard oNMElwy
dvo, Oeatpoerdys, ovtws év adpt Kk. aidpio
TOT® €oTl KaTacKevacbeis, itd Tav
Zauapetay mavta Ta TGV “lovdalwy jumov-
Hevwv. Josephus, Vit. p. 54, says, ouv-
dyovTat TAyTES eis Thy Mposevx ty, MeyLoToV
olknua woAvy bxAoy éemidéEacOat Suvduevor.
The aposevxh here was probably
one of the open places spoken of in the
above extracts from Epiph. The close
of the verse also agrees best with an open
place of resort. There seem to have been
tew, if any, Jews in Philippi: this assem-
bly consisting merely of women attached
to the Jewish faith. We hear of no oppo-
sition arising from Jews. There appears
(ch. xvii. 1) to have been no synagogue.
14. ropdvpémedts | The guild of dyers
(vt Badets) at Thyatira haye left imscrip-
tions, still existing, shewing the accuracy of
our narrative.. The celebrity of the purple
ins mas bef o ax. D a 43. 69 wth.
dyeing of the neighbourhood is as old as
Homer: as & bre tis 7° edépayta yuh
golvixe pinvn Mnovls 7é Kdetpa, maphiov
Euuevar trmwv, Il. 5. 141. So also Clau-
dian, de Raptu Proserp. i. 270: ‘non sic
decus ardet eburnum Lydia Sidonio quod
Jemina tinxerit ostro’ (Lewin, i. 242).
Thyatira was a city of the province of
Asia. Thus, although forbidden to preach
the word in Asia, their first convert at
Philippi is an Asiatic. Lydia is a proper
name, not ‘ita dicta a solo natali,’ as
Grot.: though its origin may have been
that. It was a common female name.
See Hor. Od. i. 8; iii. 9. oeB. 7. 0. |
A proselyte ; see reff. N. T. Tkovev,
was listening,—when dijvoitev, the act
of God, took place. Suyvorgev | ‘cor
clausum per se: sed Dei est id aperire.’
Bengel. tT. Madovpevots| It appears
rather to have been a conversation (€Aadod-
bev, we spoke—and not rdv Adyov) than
a set discourse: the things which Paul
was saying. 15. éBamr., Kk. 6 olkos
avt.| It may be (as Meyer maintains) that
no inference for infant-baptism is hence
deducible. The practice, however, does not
rest on inference, but on the continuity
and identity of the covenant of grace to
Jew and Christian, the sign only of admis-
sion being altered. The Apostles, as Jews,
would have proposed to administer baptism
to the children, and Jewish or proselyte
converts would, as matter of course, have
acceded to the proposal ; and that the prac-
tice thus by universal consent, tacitly (be-
cause at first unquestioned) pervaded the
universal church, can hardly with any
reason be doubted. See note on 1 Cor.
vii. 14. ei Kexpixate| If ye have
judged me; modestly alluding to the deci-
sion respecting her faithfulness implied by
their baptizing her, and assuming that such
a judgment had been passed. Similarly ei
Ih
180
g =ch. xxi. 7, P
’ i , NOG zie ‘ Of ate
8 reff, ui élval, ELCE OVTEC stg TOV OLKOV fou
, tenes
‘ mapePacaro nuUac.
r Luke xsiv.
2vonly. Gen. kal
xix.
1 Kings
XXViil. 23.
s constr., ch.
xxi. 17 reff.
t ver. 13.
uch. xii. 13 al. 94
Gen. xx. 17.
v = John vii.
20. viii. 45,
&c. ch, xix.
t x
etc TiyVv 7 POcevy ny
4 :
“av0wva * vravtnoat
TapEyev TOLC
IIPAZEIZ AIMOSTOAQN.
u
mawSionn v Twa
b maa) 1¢ / 17
Kuptotc aurng MaVTEVOMEVN.
, Cre a ,
1 -atakoAovOynoaca TW [lavAw Kal iv, “exoalev © Atyousa
XVI.
#4 Hee
6 éyévero 08 TO SEVGMenEI, npoy
“ €xousav Tveupa
“TEU, nrUe % eoryaoiay moAXny
auryn
we a F = ~ ~ 2am One ?
13. Odror ot avlowmot SovAor tov ® Osov rou * vbiorou eo,
w here only t.
eonlyt. , ; : See eee a ; a
“Tue (uk. olrivec | KatayyéAXAovow nu * odoy ' owrnolac. 18 -ovro
v.6r.) Xiv. 31. qy » , k >. N trey 1a \ 1 =
Jobn iv. 51. O& Emote Ew TOAXAC Tméoac. | dtaTrovnDeic Sz 0 TlavAvc
i. 20, 30.
xii. 18 onlyt. Tobit vii. 1.
iv. 1%) only. L.P. (Gen. xxix. 27.)
b = Matt. x. 24. Luke a $. Judg. xix. 11.
cals. Jer xvii.16. 1 Mace. vi. 23 only.
Dan. iii. 26 Theod. 4 Kings x. 23.
h sie ‘xiii. 5 reff. i here only.
Ich. iy. 2 (reff.) only.
for kupiw, Oew D-gr wth.
mewate CHL rel 36 Chr ce Thi.
16. ree om tnv, with DHL rel Chr:
oxovcay X!.
ABC!D!8 p vulg Orig Ambr.
13. 36 Orig. vu XR}.
17. kataxoAovbovea B D-gr & 36. 180.
D!-gr: expagoy D!-gr: txt D*.
for katayy., evayyeACovte D (-Tes D').
y ch. xix. 24.
the person speaking), with BD E-gr 8 ab 0 86 vulg syrr xth-pl Thdrt,
Xen. Mem. iii. 10.1.
g Mark v.7 || L. Heb. vii. 1.
see Matt. xxi. 32.
z = here bis. ch. xix. 24(25. Luke xii. 58. Eph.
a = ch. xvii. 31. xxviii. 2al. Ps. xxix. 7.
ec here only. Deut. xviii. 10. d Luke xxiii. 55
ech. xiv. 14 reff. fch.iv. 29. Tit.i.1. Rev. vii.
Gen. siy. 18. see ch. vii. 48.
Luke xx. 21. ch. ii. 28 al. k ch. xiii. 31 reff.
* uévere (corrn to more usual?) ABDEX p 13:
vuas &'.
ins ABCEN p 13. 40 Orig
rec mudwvos (see note), with D-corr! EHL 13. 36 rel tol Chr :
rec amavtnoat, with ADHL rel Chr:
mapetxeTo C,
Thi-fin.
txt
txt BCEN p
for avtns, 51a Tovrov D}(and lat).
om tw B Orig. ins kat bef expac.
om avépwmo D!(and lat!) Lucif: ins D°.
rec uu (alteration, as better suiting
: txt AC?7HL
p(sic) 18 rel E-lat coptt 2th-rom Orig Chr Thdrt-ms Eustath (ec Thl Lucif.
18. om Ist de H sah. om o ABN:
nmets avakpwdueba, ch. iv. 9. 16.]
This happened on other occasions ; not on
the same day, as Heinrichs and ‘Kuinoel
fancy. In that case (besides other objec-
tions), if they had gone back from the house
of Lydia to the place of prayer, the word
would certainly have been efeA@évTwy, and
not mopevouevwy. In ver. 15 is implied
their taking up their abode with Lydia :—
in this verse that they habitually resorted
to this place of prayer to teach, and that
what follows happened on such occasions.
It may be remarked that the E. V. of
mopevoevwy eis (THY) mposevxyyv, ‘as we
went to prayer, has given rise to a curious
abuse of the expression ‘ going to prayer,
in the sense of ‘ beginning to pray, among
the lower classes in England. €Xov-
cay tvevpa wuQwva} On the whole sub-
ject of deemoniacal possession, see note on
Matt. viii. 32. This was a case in which
the presence of the spirit was a patent
Sact, recognized by the heathen possessors
and consulters of this female slave, and
by them turned to account ; and recognized
also by the Christian teachers, as an in-
stance of one of those works of the devil
which their Lord came, and commissioned
them, to destroy. All attempt to explain
away such a narrative as this by the sub-
terfuges of rationalism (as e. g. in Meyer,
and even Lewin, i. 243, and apparently
ins CDEHL rel 36 Chr.—emortp. de 0 7. Tw
Hackett, p. 222), is more than ever futile.
The fact of the spirit leaving the girl, and
the masters finding the hope of their gains
gone, is fatal: and we may see, notwith-
standing all his attempts to account for it
psychologically, that Meyer feels it to be
so. mv0wva | Plut. de Defectu Oracul.
p- 414, says &smep tobs eyyartpyvOous
Evpuxdéas (from a prophet, Hurycles),
maAa, vuvl Mv0wvas mposaryopevomevous.
It is difficult to decide internally between
the probabilities of ri@wrva and miOwvos :
I have retained the ancient reading, both
from its external authority, and because
I find so many Commentators explaining
mv0wy to be a name of Apollo, or the
serpent Python, that the alteration into
the gen. may thus be easily accounted
for. Dr. Wordsworth has an interesting
note on the probable reason for this new
term appearing in the narrative, now that
St. Paul is brought directly into contact
with Greek and Roman divination.
17.] éxpafev, used to cry out: several
occasions are referred to. The recogni-
tion of Paul and his company here by the
spirit is strictly analogous to that of our
oa by the daemons, Matt. viii. 29; Luke
. 34: and the same account to be given
of both: viz. that the evil spirit knew and
confessed the power of God and His Christ,
whether in His own Person or that of His
ABCDE
HL ab
edfgh
klmo
p 13
16—21.
IIPAZEIS ATOSTOAQN. 181
Pees ia Wee , = ‘ % +
Kat "emtorpepac tw mvevaate eitev " TlapayyéAXw cor ° Ev m~=ch.ix. a0,
>| 2 > ~ ~ -
oOvouaTt Insov XelaTou P eEeNOciv ar
I avrn Te
urn Ty wpa.
\ som constr., see
cat? e&nADev , re,
rs Mark viii. 6.
aurne.
19°97 \ Seth jt > ~ e
LOOVTEC OF OL KvoloL autncg OTL EG= ch. x42.
1 Cor. vii. 10.
i fey 2. \ ~ ? , ~ ,
nADev 4 *EAmic THE * Epyaciac avror, * erafIduevor TOV }.Tim.¥.15.
Josh. vi. 6.
och. iv. 7 reff.
- \\ , | ietod ? ,
HavAov cat Lidav ‘idxvsav ete THY “ayoody emt Todc peh. vil 7
$ refi.
” 90 Ao ‘ ? ‘ =
aoxovrac, “Kal mTpocayayovtec auTouc Toc “oT paTnyotc q Lake ii. 88.
e
xxiv. 33. ch.
xxii. 13 only.
<7 v ” x , , -~ a 7
eimav Ovrot ot avOpwrot * extapaccovew Huw THY TOAW Dan. ii.6ll
> ~ ©
Tovdaior Y yraoyovrec, 2l
Vii. 21. x. 21. xii. 12. xiii. 31. xx.19 only. L. Dan. v. 6 only.
h. sace., ch. ix, 27 reff.
XViii. 1U. xxi. 6,11) only. Jer. xlv. (xxxvili-) 13. see ch. xxi. 30. ‘
12. v Matt. «viil. 24. Lake ix. 41. ch. xxvii. 27. 1 Pet. iii. 18 only. Gen. xlviii ¥.
Eph. i. 18. iv. 4. Col. i. 23.
w = here &c. 5 times only. (ch. iv. 1 reff.)
zch, xiii. 5 reff. ach, vi. 14 reff.
amv. Kat Statov. D.
efeAGe 13.
mapayyeAw Ca: mapayyérw p.
DHL 13 rel He Thl: om ABCEN c h p Eustath Ath Chr Thdrt.
for c&ndO. aut. T. w., evdews etnAd. D wxth-rom.
a iv. 30 [83]
\
kat *katayyéXX\ovew 2£0n a Theod.) only.
w. év, Lake
rconstr., Gal. v. 5.
t = here (John vi. 44. xii. 3:
uch, xvii.17. Ezek. x
x here only. Ps. lxxxvii. 16. y ch. ii. 30 reff.
rec ins Tw bef ov., with
wa efeAOns D:
19. kat iSovr. B Syr eth: om Se A! D-lat.—os de esday o: Kup. Ths mwedionns o7t
amectepnoat Ts epy. avT. ns etxav di avtns D.
uniformity), with ABEHLN p 13. 36 rel Eustath Chr: om CD 1.
eoupav EK.
20. mposayayovras D!: txt D-corr'.
servants. 18. Statrovnfeis | Not mere
annoyance is expressed by this word, but
rather holy indignation and sorrow at what
he saw and heard; the Christian soldier
was goaded to the attack, but the mere
satisfaction of anger was not the object,
any more than the result, of the stroke.
It is doubtful here, in mere grammar,
whether the dat. 7G mvedpate is to be
constructed with émorpévas or with elev.
But considering 1) that the spirit could
hardly be the object of a bodily movement
on the part of the Apostle, except as re-
presented by the possessed damsel, and 2)
that émotpépw is never elsewhere found
with a dative, but always with a pre-
position, eis or mds or emi, it is much
best to take 7@ mveduare with eizev,
and believe it to be thrown forward before
its verb for the sake of emphasis.
19.] Her masters (a partnership of per-
sons, not plur. for sing. They may have
been the heredes of some one to whom
she had belonged) perceived that the hope
of their gain had gone out (with the
demon). émud. ... etd«. gives the
idea of force having been used. So we
have ‘obtorto collo ad praetorem trahor,’
Plaut. Pon. iii. 5. 45. Paul and Silas
only are apprehended as having been the
principal persons in the company. When
De Wette says that, if Luke here were
the narrator, he must say something of
Timotheus, as he mentions him ch. xvii.
14, xviii. 5,—and yet holds (on ver. 10)
that Timotheus himself is the narrator,
he forgets that the same reasoning will
apply to him also, if it applies at all,
rec ins Toy bef oA. (corrn for
nAxvoay C:
Lemay, so ABEHN p. |
which I much doubt. When two persons
of a company are described as being ap-
prehended, we do not need an express
assertion to assure us that the rest were
not. ér. T. Gpxovtas said generally :
they dragged them to the forum to the
authorities,—afterwards specified as otpar-
nyol. 20. otpatnyois} The Duum-
viri of the colony, of whom at Capua Ci-
cero says, ‘cum in ceteris coloniis Duuwm-
viri appellentur, hi se Preetores (orpar-
nyovs) appellari volebant.’ De Leg. Agr. c.
34. ‘ Messinenses,’ says Wetstein, ‘etiam
nune (cir. 1750) Pretorem sive Praefectum
urbis Stradigo appellant. The name, as
a rendering of Pretor, had come from the
Greek title of similar magistrates; so Aris-
totle, Politic. vii. 3, év rats uixpais wéAcot
pla mep) rdvtwy (apxh)* Kadovar 5€ oTpar-
nyovs kal moAcudpxous. "loud. Umrap-
xovres.... ‘Pap. ovo] The distinction
between dwdpxwy and &y seems to be,
that the former is used of something which
the speaker or narrator wishes to put for-
ward into notice, either as unknown to his
reader or hearer, or in some way to be
marked by him for praise or blame:
whereas the latter refers to facts known
and recognized, and taken for granted by
both. Thus, we may notice that, when
the fact of Paul and Silas being Romans
is announced to the jailor, it is not av@.
‘Pwuatous dvtas, but brdpxovtas ; whereas
here, both parties, the speakers and the
addressed, being indisputably Romans, we
have ‘Papalois ovow. The account of this
may be, that irdpxw is predicated of some-
thing of which the speaker informs the
182
> by c=
pha ae ouk °&&corw ape
xxii. 26. 99, \
“gia xiv.4 ovew’. Ka °
: ‘
Sanne “ oTpaTn you
Mark iv. 20.
1 Tim. v. i9.
Heb. xii. 6
(from Prov.
iii. }2) only.
paBeiZeuy,
IIPAZEIZ AIMOZTOAQN.
KVIy
* mapadey coBat OVvee Tote ‘Popator
GUVETEOTH 0 oxAoc Kat aura, Kal ot
* reoiongavrec auTwy Ta iuaria ExéAevov
3 ,
woA\ac TE
Sia Qevrec avroic © a\nyac
n " tBadov cic” puAakny, ' rapayyetAavrec TW “SeopopvAake
Exod.x xuil.l. - > Viaee a n ’ ,
a here ouly +, aspahwog ™ rnpElW avTOUC 24 Oc maoayyéAlay To.avTny
Nom. xsi.
alii dione: ).
c here only t.
AaBo v
a ‘ , a
" (BaXev avuTOUC ELC THY
\
= Eswtéoav puAakny Kal
2M 38 ‘ > ’ ree ? ‘ , we \ \
on 8 cove mooac PnopaAdtoato avtwy eic To “EvXov. cara o&
f 2 Cor. xi. 25 5 A is 4 ; t , ne
ovlyt. Judg. 7g “wegovuxtiov LlavAoc kat Diag ' TEOCEVYOMEVOL | ULVOUY
k 380. ‘aa id = \ J © wos 96 x
Sher axiis. TOV Oedv' ‘ernkoowrro 6& avTwy ot “ décptot.
h Matt. v. 25.
apy
xviii. 30. Luke xii. 58. xxiii 19,25. Rev. ii. 10. (see Jer. xliv. [xxxvii.] 21.) i w. inf. pres., ch. i. 4
reff. k here, Ne. 3ce only +. (see Gen. xx xix. 21, &c.) 1 = Mark xiv. 44 (ch. is. 36) only t.
(Gen, xxxiv. 25 only.) Tobit vi. 4. m= ch. xii. 5, 6 reff. n ch. v. 28 reff + o Heb. vi.
only. Levit. xvi. 2 (25). p Matt. xxvii. 64, 65, 66 only. Isa. xli 10. Wisd. xiii. 15. q = here
only. Job xxxiii. 11 vat. F. (not A.) r= ch. xxvii. 27. Heb. iii. 8, from Ps. xciv. 8. s Mark
xiii, 35. Luke xi. 5. ch. xx. 7 only. Ps. exviii. 62. tabsul.,ch. x 4 reff. uw. acc., Heb. ii.
12 only. Isa. xii. 4. Bat iii. 23 Theod. absol., Matt. sxvi. 30 | Mk. oniy. 1 Macc. xiii. 47. v here only t.
(-poaacs, 1 Kings xv.
2.)
Paul, Eph. iii. 1 alt. lib. x. 34. xiii. 3 only.
21. ra €6vn D'(and lat!) 15!: 7@n G: sectam tol Lucif.
deEacat ovTe ToL., pw. utapxovow D.
w Acts, here bis, ch. xxViii. 16 v. r.,
Lam. iii. 34.
17 al3, Matt. xxvii. 15, 16 || Mk.
x ch, ii. 2. xxviii. 6 only. Josh. x. ¥.
@ ovk e€&. nuas Tapa-
22. Kat woAus OXA. TuveTETTHTAY KaT. avT. KpaCoyTes ToTE (Kat D%) a D.
[mepipné., so AB1'CDEHLX® p 13. |
23. for re, 5¢ B p 40 E-lat copt.
TnperoOa D.
24. for os, o de D.
ABCDERX a m p 13. 36. 40.
rec (for AaBwv) e:Anpws, with HL rel Chr Ge Thi:
for eBadev, eAaBev A.
for mapayyetAavtTes, wapayyivas Te X!.
txt
rec avtwy bef nod.
(corrn of order), with C?7-DEHL rel 86 Chr: txt ABC'X p13: nopadicevto D!.
ev Tw EvAw D al,
25. om to X.—kata be wecov tTns vuxtos D!': txt D3.
ins kat bef ot Secu. C Orig.
ins o bef oiAas C.
hearer, some prior knowledge which he
possessed and now imparts,—eiul being
predicated of the bare matter of fact. See
ch. on 27, 29 ; xxi. 20 (for both) ; Xxll. 3;
Gal. ii. 14 al., for irdépywy: and for dy,
aa ili. 4; iv.9 bis; Rom.v. 10 al.
* Versute composita fuit hee criminatio ad
gravandos Christi servos: nam ab una
parte obtendunt Romanum nomen, quo
nihil erat magis favorabile ; rursum ex no-
mine Judaico, quod tune infame erat (espe-
cially if the decree of Claudius, expelling
them from Rome, ch. xviii. 2, had at this
time been enacted) conflant illis invidiam :
nam, quantum ad religionem, plus habe-
bant Romani affinitatis cum aliis quibus-
libet, quam cum gente Judaica.’ Calvin.
21. €6y ...]| “Dio Cassius tells us
that Meecenas gave the following advice to
Augustus :—7Tb peéev Oeiov maven mayT os
abrés re céBov kata Ta TadTpia, Kal Tovs
tAAous Tay avayKale’ Tovs dé feviCov-
Tas TL. wept avTd kal puloer Kal Kddace
and the reason is alleged, viz. that such in-
novations lead to secret associations, con-
spiracies, and cabals, Garep hag jrovap-
xia cuppeper.” (C. and H. i. p. 356.) So
Julius Paulus, Sentent. vy. a 2, cited by
Wetst., ‘Qui novas et usu vel
incognitas religiones inducunt,
ratione
ex quibus
ins o bef zavAos D bo.
Secuor D!: txt D%.
animi hominum moveantur, honestiores de-
portantur, humiliores capite premuntur.’
22.| The multitude probably cried
out tumultuously, as on other occasions
(see Luke xxiii. 18; ch. xix. 28, 34; xxi.
30 ; xxii. 22, 23),—and the duumviri, with-
out giving them a trial (a«atapitous,
ver. 37), rent off their clothes, scil. by the
lictors (tots faBdovxo1s exéAcvoay Thy
eoOiTd Te TepiKatappjga Kal tais pap-
dors TH bua ~alvery, Dion. Hal. ix. 39).
The form was, ‘Summoye, lictor, despolia,
verbera.’ Seneca (C. and H. i. 357). See
also Livy, ii. 8; Valer. Max. ii. 28, in
Wetst. Erasmus fancied that the duum-
viri rent their own clothes from indigna-
tion: but, to say nothing of the impro-
bability of sucha proceeding on the part of
a Roman magistrate, a man could not very
well arepppatas his own garments.
24. 7d EvAov] Also called K&Aov, modo-
Kaxn, and modoorpaByn, and in Latin,
nervus : so ‘noctu nervo vinctus custodi-
bitur,’? Plaut. Cap. iii. 5. 71. Eusebius
(v. 1, vol. ii. p. 16, ed. Heinichen) men-
tions, speaking of the martyrs in Gaul,
Tas ev TG LVA® Siataoeis TaY TodaY em
TEUTTOV diarewonevwy TpUTNUa.
25. mposevx. tpv.] Not as E. V., ‘prayed
and sang praises, —but, praying, sang
ABCDE
HLN ab
cdfgh
kimo
p 13
OOo
22—30. TIPAZEIS ATMOSTOAQN. 183
3) y ee , ¢ za ies \ ab
& ° GELOMOC EYEVETO MEYyac, wore “aad ) F E re gee
y MEyac, WC evOnvat ra Oeugdra "a4 ae ey
ev. vi, 12
~¢ , Ae , A di Sod e
TOU Seopwtnotov nvewy Onoav O& Taoayonpa at Dioat al. Ezek.
oS \ s \ > ‘ ws XXXvViii. 19.
Wacoal, Kal TavTwy Ta * Seopa avin. 78 feurvoc O€ z ch. iv. St ref
hb , cs ? CSC rare “ a Ps. 1xxxi. 5.
yevouevoc 0 ‘SecpoptrAak Kat ida avewypévac Tag "here day.”
, ~ ~ kl , ‘ - mase., Heb,
fioac THC pvAakne, oTAacapevog THY ‘™ way atoav ned ev 10. Rev
b S n? ~ ,
EqUTOV — avatoeLy, voutcwv
28 p
i. 10.
one p ZA if F xxi. 13, 1
ex@epevyéevat Tove “ deapiouc, ° dS 3) 25
O , \ ~ c ~ ly. Gen.
Epwvnaev O& gwvy peyadyn oO TlavAoc Aéywv Mnéev xxix. 22)
- bis. 21, 8,5
te ‘ -
q - . , , r? ,
moacye gsavtp “kaxdv’ dmavrec yap éopev ' evOGde. alli rt
eneut. pl.,Luke
29 ad Ma Ba , ‘ A
* Airnoac oe pwra “ eicernonoev, Kat ’ Evrpomoc yevo-
viii. 24. ch.
plrevoc “or oO €TEGEV Tw II vA \ sy 30 ‘on rere eed
¢ - €guct,
poc f avAw Kat 2tAa, “Kat *moo- Aero,
1.15. Ezek,
ii.25.
f= ch. xxvii.
‘\ > i / A Ca en ~
ayaywv aurove ew Epn Kopror, TL pe O€t TotEly iva owlw 5
40 (Eph. vi. 9. Heb. xiii. 5, from Deut. xxxi. 6) onlyt. (Eek. i. 25 F.) g here onlyt. Esdr.
iii. 3 only. h ch. 1.18 al. i ver. 23. k Mark xiv. 47. Num. xxii. 31.
las above (k) only. Josh. v. 13. m ch. xii. 2 reff. n =ch. v.33 reil. o absol., Heb, ii.
3. x11. 20 only. Isa. 1xvi. 7. (Rom. ii. 3 reff. Judg. vi. 11.) p Luke xxiii. 46, Rev. xiv. 18.
q = and constr., w. Tocéw, ch. ix. 13. r Luke xxiv. 41, John iv. 15, 16. ch. x. 18. xvii. 6 xxv.
17, 24 only t. s Matt. vii. 10. Luke i. 63. ch. xii. 20. xiii. 21. 8 Kings xix. 4. t = here
only. 1 Mace. xii. 29. vuKtos émeyevouerns Gos Exav wsTep voutCetTur... , Xen. Hellen. v. | 8.
u here only, Amos v. 1s} only. Sus. 26 Theod. v=ch. vii. 32 rel, w = Mark iii. 11.
vii. 25. Luke v. 8. viii. 28, 47 | Mk. (Matt. vii. 25) only. Ps. xciv. 6. x ch. xii. 6 reff.
26. rec avewx0., with HL rel Chr: nvoxé. AEX p 13 Orig: txt BCD m Thl-fin.
rec for 2nd de, re (perhaps to avoid the recurrence of d«,—perhaps because the
copulative is more natural), with CHL rel vss Chr: txt ABDEX ac! hk m p 13 syr
coptt Thl-fin. om tapaxpnua B Lucif Cassiod. avedvén D'N}, ‘
27. for ef. Se, nat e&. D Syr wth. decpopuaas(sic) &. T. Oup. bef avewy.
C vulg(not am demid fuld). ins ka bef omac. D-gr'. rec om Tv, with
AEHLN p? 13. 36 rel Chr: ins BCD p!. [queda., so ABCELN p.] aveXew C!,
exmepuyevat A.
28. wey. bef pwn AB D-lat am coptt.—zavaos bef ney. pwr. B.
13 Thl-sif. momons Li. ins tt bef kakov D-gr.
29. dwra Se etnoas D. for yev., urapxwy C! D-gr c k? 40, aft amposer.
ins mpos tovs modas D! vulg Syr syr-w-ob sah Lucif. rec ins tw bef oAa (corrn
Sor uniformity), with AC*EHLN p 13. 36 rel: om BC'D.
80. x. mponyayey avt. ctw D: add rovs Aomovs acpadtrauevos kai(om kat D-corr)
om o BC'R
D syr-w-ast.—mpoaywy &'.
praises, or in their prayers, were singing
praises. The distinction of modern times
between prayer and praise, arising from
our attention being directed to the shape
rather than to the essence of devotion, was
unknown in these days: see Col. iv. 2.
‘Nihil crus sentit in nervo, quum
animus in ceelo est.’ Tertullian ad Mar-
tyres, c. 2, vol. i. p. 623. The
imperfects shew that they were singing,
and the prisoners (in the outer prison)
listening, when the earthquake happened.
26. wavtwv Ta Seopa aveby | i. e.
of all the prisoners in the prison: see
below (ver. 28), amavres ydp eopmev ev-
@ad5e. Doubtless there were gracious pur-
poses in this for those prisoners, who before
were listening to the praises of Paul and
Silas ; and the very form of the narrative,
mentioning this listening, shews subsequent
communication between some one of these
and the narrator. Their chains were
loosed, not by the earthquake, but by mi-
raculous interference over and above it.
for edn, evmev autos D coptt.
It is some satisfaction to find, that neither
Meyer, De Wette, nor Kuinoel have at-
tempted to rationalize this wonderful ex-
ample of the triumph of prayer. See some
excellent remarks on Baur’s attempt to do
so, in Neander, Pfi. u. L. p. 302, note 3.
27. nped. Eavt. avatp.| The law
de Custodia Reorum (Wetst.) says, ‘Ad
commentariensem receptarum personarum
custodia observatioque pertineat, nec putet,
hominem abjectum atque vilem objiciendum
esse judici, si reus modo aliquo fuerit elap-
sus. Nam ipsum volamus hujusmodi pene
consumi, cui obnoxius docebitur fuisse, qui
fugerit.’ Mr. Howson notices, by the ex-
amples of Cassius, Brutus, Titinius, and
many of the proscribed, after the battle,
that Philippi is famous in the annals of
suicide (p. 361). 29. data} Not as
E. V., ‘alight, but lights, neut. plur.
30. mpoay. avr. €& | Into the outer prison:
not perhaps yet outside the prison, which
(from davayayév, ver. 34, when he takes
them to his own house) seems to have been
>
184 IIPAZEIS AMOZSTOAQN. AVE
. t Weeks ’ Cae! ‘ , ’ - \
yehiixa? 317 8&8 cimay Miorevoov Y emt rov Kvoiov “Incovy, Kat Sadia 9
zch. x. 2 reff. , ‘ Ne a oP, 5) \ Wey ’ ~
ach. xi. 10 reff. owIioy Gu Kal oO 7 OlKOC Gov. 32 Kai * chadnoav auTwW ee.
= John xix. 5 : > = 1 x ms me. ty ~ > 4 ’ ~ :
a
arias me ov TOU pubes, ouv sae ToIC y Tip OLGA ARO Ee p13
ech. xxiii. 23. 33 X
d ch. ix. 37 « Kal " maga aBov avutouc év exelvy ta * wpa ™me “vuKrog
rei.
= ean
Bar aye pie tAoucev “amo TwY ™inyor, Kal Gordan avr 0c Kal ot
feb ti Frc avrou mavtec ‘aoa a
ch. in. 7 4
ech. a 39 reff ? xpnua,
34 i, avayayov mae avrouc ELC
‘
h = Mark viii. , h | <-
Fee, Tov olKor mapeOnkev 'spameZav Kal *nyadXtaro mav
vi. 22. AS om ‘ Bec 35° H 8 o ,
i= Matt.xv. OLKEL TSTIOTEVKWC TW EW. péoac € yevopevnce
27. ch. vi. 2 w cE
Ps. Ixxvii. 20. k ch. ii. 26 reff. lhereonly. Exod.i.i vat. only. Jos. Antt. iv. 4. 4.
m dat., = ch. xviii. 8. John v. 24. viii. 31. Rom.iv. 3, from Gen. xv. 6. Tit. iii. 8. 1 John v. 10. nch.
xii. 18 reff.
31. [e:may, so AB C(appy) DEN p. | matevoay X', for em, ets E lect-12.
rec aft moouy ins xpiorov, with CDEHL rel 36 vss Thdrt Chr: om ABX p 13
vulg copt Lucif. ins mas bef o owxos Ka g 13 copt eth arm.
32. om tov D. for kup., eov BX! eth. rec (for suv) ka (alteration for
simplicity, and to suit ov ka o ox. above), with EHL syrr Chr: txt ABCDN p 138. 36.
40 vulg Lucif (cup & p).
33. eAvoey D'(and lat): txt D?. autos bef ef. D. ins otkeror bef avtov A;
viot m lect-17: wer Thl-fin.—o oxcos avtov 40 vulg. (These exx may serve to illustrate
the practice of insertion to fill wp any ellipsis.) amavres BR.
34. Ka avay. Te D!: av. Se C 13. 36 copt syr. rec aft ox. ins avrou, with
ADEHLX® 18 rel vss Chr: om BC ¢ p 36. 40 Lucif. ins kat bef wape@nkev D'.
rec nyadAtawaty (alteration to more usual historic tense), with ABC? E-gr HLX p 13.
36 rel vulg syr copt Thl-fin :
rec mavoxt, With B?HL rel:
for Tw Oew, emt Tov Ocov D.
underground, or at all events on a lower
level in the same building. In this same
space they seem to have been joined by
the jailor’s family, e converted and
baptized them, and to have been taken (to
the well ?) and washed from their stripes ;
and afterwards to have been led up (by
stairs? see ref.) to his house, and hos-
pitably entertained. The circumstantiality
of the account shews that some eye-witness
related it. His question, connected with
the 68)v owtnptas of the demoniac in
ver. 17, makes it necessary to infer, as De
Wette well observes, that he had previously
become acquainted with the subject of their
preaching. He wanted no means of escape
from any danger but that which was spi-
ritual: the earthquake was past, and his
prisoners were all safe. Bengel admirably
remarks: ‘Non audierat hymnos Pauli, nam
dormierat, sed tamen vel antea vel postea
senserat, quis esset Paulus.’ 31. émt
7. «kvptov| Not without allusion to the
Kvptot, by which name he hadjust addressed
them. So Bengel: ‘non agnoscunt se do-
minos.’ Considering who the person
was that asked the question, —a heathen in
the depths of ignorance and sin,—and how
indisputably therefore the answer embraces
all sinners whatever,—there perhaps does
not stand on record in the whole book a
more important answerthan this of Paul:—
or, I may add, one more strikingly cha-
+
txt C'(appy) Db gh mo E-lat Syr sah Chr Ge Thl-sif.
ouv Tw oikw avtov HK: om E: txt AB'CR 13.
racteristic of the Apostle himself and his
teaching. We may remark also, in the
face of all attempts to establish a develop-
ment of St. Paul’s doctrine according to
mere external circumstances,—that this
reply was given before any one of his
extant epistles was written. Kal 6
oikés cov does not mean that Ais faith
would save his household,—but that the
same way was open to them as to him:
‘ Believe, and thou shalt be saved : and the
same of thy household.’ 33. Ehovcev
amré| A pregnant construction: ‘washed
them, so that they were purified from the
blood occasioned by their stripes:’ see reff.
This is much more natural than to take
amd (as in ard ris xapas [ch. xii. 14]
and the like) as signifying ‘on account of’
(see Bernhardy, Syntax, p. 225).
34.] avay., see reff. and note on ver. 30.
memiotevkws| Winer renders ‘as
one who has placed his trust in God :’ but,
as De W. observes, memiorevxds must give
the ground of his rejoicing (see 1 Cor.
xiv. 18 [vec.], edxapioT@. . . AaAGY, I
give thanks ...that I speak’). Thus the
meaning will be, rejoiced that he with all
his house had been led to believe (and
thus as a necessary consequence to believe
in) God. The expression remiaT. T@ OE@
could only be used of a converted heathen,
not of a Jew: in ch. xviii. 8, of a Jew, we
have enrlatevoey 7& kuplo. 35.|] What
31—38. TIPAZEIS AMOSTOAQN. 185
ey ty \ N e
améoretAav OL oTroaTnyo TOUVCE P papsdovyove, Aéyovrec 0 vy, 20, 22
Z reff,
? , > « °
9 AmoXvoov ToUC avOpwmove EKELVOUE. 36 any yeXev Oe Sa seen fi
= ch. xxvi.
e r , a vs , ‘ ‘ ~ 32 r
o despopuraé TOUC AO youe Tovtovc mpoc Tov IlavAov, BF
e Sa) | dK ee q? - AT 8 constr., John
ort anzotaAkav ot “otoarnyo. tva “azoXvbnre * viv
iii, 17.
John iv. 9
ees ELON- Gy re , , , er c = oo.
yc. ouv e&eA\Oovrec moorveabe ev © ELonvy. 37°O 8% Haver. eae
ABDE xvi. 11 reff.
2 Kings iii.
; a ‘ , ‘ Vv , c a , >?
HLNa b nN TOC avrouc * Atipavrec juac “ Onuosta * akatakolrouc,
edfghy > , e 1 e 5 ; 21. «8,
KI mo avOpwrove ¥ Pwnatove * uTaoyxorrac, ; éSaXav etc * u= Mark v.31.
p , \ ~ b , =, Li 6
Aakny, Kat vov AaOpa Huac °exBarrovow 3 4 ov yap ji. mer,
> QA ’ , ~ ,
aXXa eXovreg avrot tac ° eEayayétwoav.
w ch. xviii. 28. xx. 20 only+. 2 Mace. vi.10 only. (-<us, ch. v.18.) xch
Exod. ii. 11.)
yeh. xxii. 25. (Matt. xxvii. 32. ch. xxi. 39.
b Matt.i.19. ii. 7. John xi. 28 only.
Ps. c. 6
Xxi. 10.
d here only. see note.
? rh. xv. 33
6 arnyyeAav ad
veh. vy. 40 reff.
. xxii. 25 only ¢.
a vv. 23, 24.
Gal. iv. 80, from Gen.
Gen. xl. 14,
zch. ii. 30 reff.
ec Matt. ix. 25. ch. ix. 40.
e=ch. v.19. vii. 86.
35. nu. Se yev. cvvndOov ot cotparnyo(sic) em: To avTo eis THY ayopav kat ava-
Munodevtes Tov Tetopoy Tov yeyovora epoBnOnaay Kat arecretAay Tovs D syr-marg.
Aeyovtas D 68 Syr.
D-lat Chr.
ameoteiAay Cp: txt ABN. (13 def.)
37. om mp. avtous E wth.
sah. [eBaday, so BDX.]
at end ins ovs ex@es mapeAaBes D syr-marg.
86. Kai erseAOwy 0 Seauopvdat arnyy. D Syr.
om Tovtous (from similarity of endings) BC D-gr a 36(sic) :
for de, re E-gr sah wth.
ins AEHLN p 13 rel vulg
rec ameotaAkaow (grammatical corrn), with DEHL rel 36 Chr:
for ev tep., ets ipnyny N: om D.
ins avaitewous bef deip. D, so (but om axaraxp.) Syr
aut. nuas bef eAdovr. E:
om nu. H Me.
38. ree avnyy., with HL rel: txt ABDEX am o p 36 Chr-comm Thl-fin. (13 def.)
had influenced the magistrates is not re-
corded. We can hardly suppose that the
earthquake alone would have done so, as
they would not have connected it with their
prisoners ; they may have heard what had
taken place: but that, again, is hardly
probable. I should rather set it down to
calmer thought, repudiating the tumul-
tuary proceeding of the evening before.
paBdovxovs | The lictors,—‘bearers of the
rods,’ bacilli ; which, and not fasces, were
carried before the colonial duumviri: see
Cicero, de Leg. Agr. ubi supra, on ver. 20.
36.] Paul and Silas had returned to
the prison : whither the jailor goes, accom-
panied by the lictors (6 6€ Il. &pn mp.
avtovs, ver. 37), to announce the order.
37.] Syuooia and Ad@pa are op-
posed: the zajury had been public: the
reparation, not to Paul and Silas merely,
but to the Gospel of which they were the
heralds, must be public also. avOp.
“Pop. trdpx.| By the Lex Valeria, passed
A.U.C 254, and the Lex Porcia, A.v.c. 506,
Roman citizens were exempted from stripes
and torture: by the former, till an appeal
to the people was decided,—by the latter,
absolutely. The following passages of Ciccro
illustrate our text: ‘ Porcia lex virgas ab
omnium civium Romanorum corpore amo-
vit.’ Pro Rabirio, ec. 3. ‘Caedebatur virgis
in medio foro Messanz civis Romanus,
judices : cum interea nullus gemitus, nulla
vox alia istius miseri, inter dolorem crepi-
tumque virgarum audiebatur, nisi hee :
Civis Romanus sum.’ In Verrem, lib. v.
62, 63. ‘Facinus est vinciri civem Ro-
manum ; scelus verberari; prope parrici-
dium, necari,’ Ibid. 66. Many others are
given by Kuinoel, Biscoe, &e. On the
question, how Paul came to be born a Ro-
man citizen, see note on ch. xxii. 28: and
on drapx., note, ver. 20. Another
irregularity had been committed by the
duumviri, in scourging them wncondemned :
‘causa cognita multi possunt absolvi: in-
cognita quidem condemnari nemo potest.’
Cie. in Verr. i. 9. ‘ Inauditi et indefensi
tanquam innocenter perierant.’ Tac. Hist.
ii. 10. éxBaAX.| are they thrusting
us out? It does not follow, because
éxBdAAw has no such‘sense in ch. ix. 40,
&e., that therefore it has not here. The
circumstances must determine ; which here
seem to require this sense: the é«BadXew
AdOpa having a tinge of degradation in it,
as if said of casting out that of which one
is ashamed. ov yap} An elliptical an-
swer to a question or position, the negative
of which is self-evident: see Hartung,
Partikellehre, ii. p. 48: Kiihner, Gramm.
§ 741. 6: Hermann on Viger, p. 462.
When it occurs with aaad, it is best written
without astop between: ef. Aristoph. Ran,
58: ph oxomre w, & SeAq™ oF yap GAN
éxw Kkara@s:—ib. 193: wa toy AP od yap
(scil. vevavudynka) Gr’ Ervxov dp0ad-
pudy, and 499, pepe 5) Taxéws aliz’s ob
186 TIPAZEIS AIMOZSTOAQN. XVI. 39, 40.
f 95 S ~ f ~ « f « a = 4 cv - .
ok. ave € TOIC oTPaTHYOIC Oot pap ovxol Ta pHuata TavuTa
y.14. John ? Bnd Shi dod ° ‘p ey eae ae
iay.ii.v. epopynUnoav C& aKOVOaYTEC OTL @UALOL ~ ELOLY, Kal
ch.iv.13, ix. , , h , > , tap? , ee ey:
ng xi. eADovrec mapekaXeoav autTouc, Kal eCayayovrec HPw-
& snphing k ? -~ ee ~ , , , \
wees tev “ateAdew “ato tne -ToAEwc. 40 c<eNOdvrec OE
h = ch. XVii.9 » = " ~ i 2 =O . ‘ A my ‘
aaa oe Tug }§=pudAakne ecyAVov mwpog Ty volav, Kal
v. 3. viil. 37.
v.8. vill, 87. ™ | Soyrec * rapexaXeoav rove aced hove, kat °eknAOov.
ch. (iii. 8.) x.
as. xvii 20. XN WIT. 1? Atodetoavrec Se rHv "Augirodw kat AmoA-
<iii. 18.
andy v. ]2only. w. tva, Mark vii. 26. Luke vii. 36. w. Ow, ch. xxiii. 20.
moos, ch. x 8 ret, m = Loke viii. 20. ch. xxviii. 20. al. 4 Kings viii. 29.
o=—ch xv. 40 reff. p Luke viii. l only. Gen, xiii. 17. Isa. lix. 8.
for de, re E-gr X Syr eth. for ros, avrots ot D'. aft tavTa ins Ta
pnOevra mpos Tous otpatnyous D Syr. rec kat epoB. (corrn to more natural
copula), with EHL rel vulg Chr: txt ABN p 36. 40 copt.—o: de axovoayTes oT. pw. eo.
epoByo. D.
39. for «. eAOovr., Kae Taparyevouevot meta pikwy ToAAwY es THY pudakny I).
npwrovy A Thi-fin: -rncav KE. rec (for aweAGew amo) efeAOew, with HL rel Chr:
efeAO. ex (D)E: efeA0. aro a: txt ABN p 13. 36. 40 E.—7apexadreoay avrous eferdew
ElmovTES Nyvonoamev Ta Kal vas, oTt eoTat avdpes Sikator’ Kat etaryaryovTes TapeKadevay
avTous AEyovTEs EK THS TOAEWS TAUTS efehOaTe unmoTe Tad ouvTpadwol new eEm-
KpaCovtes kaO vnwy D, simly 137 syr-w-ast.
40. for ex, aro BN ah 38 Thil-fin. nadov D E-lat. rec for mpos, ets (see
note: and ef Mark y. 12, 13), with (none of our mss) Ee: txt ABDEHLN rel vulg
sah arm Chr Thl. rec iSovt. T. adeAgd. wapek. avtous, with EHL rel 36 vulg syrr
sah eth Chr: txt ABN p 18. 40 copt.—1.6. 7. a5. dinynoavTo ooa emoinoey Kupios avTots
k = Mark v. 17. lw.
n =ch. xv. 82 reff.
mapekadeoavTes(mapaxadeoay[ sic] te D-corr) avtovs kat D Cassiod. einACav
DX.
Crap. XVII. 1. deNovres E. for augim., moAw &': txt N-corr'. ins Tv
bef amoaa. (for uniformity) ABEX a p13: om (D)HL rel.—rnv am. x. thy apo. E.
kat KaTnAGov (om ka D-corr: Kkarndd. kat D8) ers amoAAwvida Kakebev es D.
yap GAAG meer éov. Mr. Humphry re-
marks, ‘St. Paul submitted to be scourged
by his own countrymen (five times, 2 Cor.
xi. 24): for, though he might have pleaded
his privilege as a Roman, to the Jews he
*“became as a Jew,”’ observing their cere-
monies, and submitting to their law.’
38. époB.| For the account which they
might have to give at Rome, as in Verres’
case, or even for their popularity with the
very mob of Roman citizens who had de-
manded the punishment. 39. map-
exadecav | Not ‘comforted ? but, as K. V.,
besought them: viz. not to make their
treatment matter of legal complaint. In
the request to depart from the city, the
preetors seem to shew fear of a change in
the temper of the mob. See the curious
addition in the var. readd. 40.| They
do not depart hastily, or as though forced,
but wait to reassure the brethren. pds
has probably been altered to e/s, on account
of: the verb, not because Avdiav was mis-
taken (Meyer) for the country of that name.
mapex.| exhorted, is better than
‘comforted, i. V. ‘Ihe one in this case
would imply the other. Cuap. XVII.
1.] Here (or rather perhaps at e&A@or, in
the preceding verse) we have the first per-
son again dropped,—implying apparently
that the narrator did not accompany Paul
and Silas. I should be inclined to think
that Timotheus went with them from
Philippii—not, as is usually supposed,
joined them at Bercea: see below on ver.
10. Siodevoavtes| The dds, on
which they travelled from Philippi to Thes-
salonica, was the Via Egnatia, the Mace-
donian continuation of the Via Appia, and
so named from Egnatia (‘Gnatia lymphis
iratis exstructa,’ Hor. Sat. i. 5), in the
neighbourhood of which the latter meets
the Adriatic. It extended from Dyrrha-
chium in Epirus to the Hebrus in Thrace,
a distance of 500 miles. The stages here
mentioned are thus particularized in the
itineraries: Philippi to Amphipolis, 33
miles: Amphipolis to Apollonia, 30 miles :
Apollonia to Thessalonica, 37 miles. See
more particulars in C. and H., i. pp. 368 ff.
*Apoitodw | Anciently called évvéa
680f, Thueyd. i. 100. Herod. vii. 114, lying
in a most important position, at the end
of the lake Cercinitis, formed by the Stry-
mon, commanding the only easy pass from
the coast of the Strymonic gulf into Mace-
donia. (‘Amphipoleos, que objecta claudit
omnes ab oriente sole in Macedoniam adi-
ABDE
HLNab
edfgh
klmo
pls
XVII. 1—4.
HPAZEIS AIMOZTOAQN.
187
Awviay AWAVov sic Oecaarovicny, O7ov Hv [n] ouvaywyn 4 uke iv. 16.
Num. xxiv. 1.
Matt. xxvii.
~ ? ~ -
trav lovsaiwy. 2° Kara dé 70 “ ewhdc rw TatAw eicnAGev * ae
~ 15. Mark
7 ‘ \
T™poc aurouvc Kat * ET oaBara Tola * dueAéyero avToic x: 1 only.
Sir. xx xvii.
u? ‘ ~ Vv ~ U \
avo Tw * yoapwy a Stavotywy kat * mapariBépevoe 5 ci xiii. 31
~ reff.
t ‘ ‘ y ad é as A. eS - z?
OTL TOV YOLGTOV €0et TWavely KAL avaoTynval EK VEKOWY,
ver a 2. & ’ ec ‘ e » ~ a , ‘
Kal OTL OUTOAC EOTIV O Xetoroc 0 Inoove Ov Eyw E kKaTay~
/ e @
yéidXrw vmiv.
9, Exod. vi. 27. 2 Mace. xi. 20.
ver. J1. ch. xviii. 24, 28 al.
fs reff.)
z= ch. x. 41 reff.
dhere onlyt. 79. -
ry
x Matt. xiii. 24, 31.
ach. ix. 20 reff.
ins tyv bef Oeooad. B 104.
Chr ec Thl.
2. ka kara To e1cwO0s(sic) D!(and lat) eth.
SieActaro (alteration to historic aorist) ABN p 13: d1eAexOn D E-gr
¢ 36. 40 Chr-comm: txt HL rel vulg E-lat Chr, @c Thi.
om ka D.
8. om tov D': ins D*.
P La > ~ > , Vd
4 kal rivec && autwy © éweiaOnoay Kat ™ooc-
a = ch. xxviii. 23.
1 Cor. xv. 3, donly.
Exod. xix. 7.
Paul, Rom. xv. 4.
t — ver. 17.
ch. xviii. 19.
xx.7 al.
Acts only,
exc. Mark ix.
34. Heb.
xii. 5. Jude
v = plur. absol., John v. 39.
w = Luke xxiv. 32. (ch. vii.
= ch. iv. 12 reff.
w. O71, here only.
c absol., ch. xxi. 14 reff.
b ch. xiii. 6 reff
. Tatci tay O\wy TpuskekKAnpwpevor, Philo de Fortit. § 7, vol. ii. p. 381.
om 7 (see note) ABDN p 18. 40: ins EHL rel
o mavaos D vulg Syr eth.
for amo, ex D.
rec o xp. ina., omg 2nd 6, with HL 13 rel He Thi: xp.
ino. AD p Chr,: me. o xp. Ee fh Syr copt eth Chr,: me. xp. N: txt B.
tus,’ Liv. xlv. 30.) In consequence of this,
the Athenians colonized the place, calling
it Amphipolis, éx aupédtepa mepippeovtos
Tod Stpuudvos. Thue. iv. 102. It was the
spot where Brasidas was killed, and for
previously failing to succour which Thucy-
dides was exiled: see Thucyd. iv. and v.,
and Grote’s Hist. of Greece, vol. vi. p.
625 ff., where there is a plan of Amphi-
polis. After this it was a point of conten-
tion between the Athenians and Philip, and
subsequently became the capital of Mace-
donia Prima,—see Livy, xlv. 30, where
Paulus Aimilius proclaims, at Amphipolis,
the freedom, and territorial arrangements
of Macedonia. It is now called Emboli.
*Amodwviav| Its situation is unknown,
but was evidently (see the distances above
given) inland, not quite half-way from Am-
phipolis to Thessalonica, where the road
crosses from the Strymonic to the Thermaic
gulf. Leake saw some ruins at about the
right spot, but did not visit them: and
Cousinéry mentions seeing, on an opposite
hill, the village of Polina. Pliny mentions
it (N. H. iv. 10), ‘regio Mygdonie sub-
jacens, in qua recedentes a mare Apollonia,
Arethusa.” It must not be confounded
with a better known Apollonia near Dyr-
rhachium, on the western coast, also on the
Via Egnatia. See C. and H. i. pp. 376 f.
@eooadovixny| At this time the
capital of the province Macedonia, and the
residence of the proconsul (Macedonia had
been an imperial, but was now a senatorial
province). Its former names were Emathia,
Halia, and Therma: it received its name
of Thessalonica from Cassander, on his re-
building and embellishing it, in honour of
his wife Thessalonica, sister of Alexander
the Great. So Strabo, lib. vii. excerpt. 10:
who, ib. excerpt. 3, calls it Ocacadovkela.
It was made a free city after the battle of
Philippi: and every thing in this narrative
is consistent with the privileges and state
of an wrbs libera. We read of its dijuos
ver. 5, and its woA:rdpxat ver. 6: not, as
at the Roman colony of Philippi, of pa8-
dodxo1 (lictors), and otparnyot (duum-
viri), ch. xvi. 20, 35. It has ever been an
important and populous city, and still con-
tinnes such (pop. 70,000), being the second
city in European Turkey, under the slightly
corrupted name of Saloniki. For a notice
of the church there, see Prolegg. to first Ep.
to the Thessalonians, § ii. [4] ovvay. |
The article is in all probability genuine :
implying that there was no othersynagogue
for the towns lately traversed: and shewing
the same minute acquaintance with the
peculiarities of this district as our narrative
has shewn since the arrival at Neapolis.
2. kata T. eiw8. | See marg. reff. in
K. V. Paul was most probably suffering
still from his ‘shameful treatment’ at Phi-
lippi, 1 Thess. ii. 2. Siehéy. | argued,
see reff. amd T. ypad. is best taken
with S:rede€y., not with jae see reff.
3. Sti ovTos....) See examples
of the change of construction, ch. i. 4;
xxiii. 22; Luke v. 14. The rendering
is nearly as E. V., literally, that this is the
Christ, namely, Jesus, whom I preach
unto you. So Meyer. The 4 xpiords takes
up Tv xpiordy above, and attaches to
6 *Inaois the office concerning which this
necessity of suffering, &c., was predicated.
Even the particularity of this ra8eiv
188 TIPAZEIS AMOZTOAQN. XVII.
ech sti 43 exAnowOnaav tw TlabrAW kat Tw DtAa, Tw TE“ ocPopevwy
oe "2 ‘ xii. = bem a f , >
fo Matas: “P\Anvwyv rAnboc modv, yuvak@v TE TWY TOWTWY 5 ovK
22. ch. xiii.
5ureff. Dan.
, ‘ h , \ | - is | ,
ee B odtyat, 5 CnA\woavtec 8: ol loveator Kat mooc\af3o-
gceh xii. 18 reff.
h =ch. vir. ¥
reff.
i = ch. xviii.
26. Matt. xvi.
224 Mk.t
2 Mace, viii.
-) k? ' ” ‘ ‘ ee fe: x
MEVOL TWV ayopatwy avopuc Tivac TOVNeoOVC kal ox o-
, m’? U x , ‘on? , =
TOUMOaVTEC eopupouv THY TOA, Kal ETLOTAVTEC ™
Bi Nin ve Et o'’y?s > \—p a 2 bs Isn .
OLKLa lasovoc e@nrouv auTouc Tooa yayew €l¢ TOV nov
1.
k = here (ch.
xix. 38)
only t.
Herod. il.
14ial (see v , , w? , x \‘y? 643 ,
1 ‘paloma ay OLKOUMEV HV avaoTaTWoaVTec OUTOL Kat~ EVUAOE Faoeoly,
rere only t.
m Matt. ix.23 | Mk. ch. xx. 10 only. Judg. iii. 26. Nahum ii. 3. Wisd, xviii. 19. Sir. xl. 6 only. (-Bos, ch. xxi. 34.)
n ch. vi. 12. (absol.) Jer. xxi. 2. o = ch. xiii. 8 reff. p = ch. xii. 6 reff. q ch. xii. 22 reff.
rch, viii. 3 red, s = ch. ix. 30 reff. t here bis only +. uch. viii. 7 al. ve=ch.
xxiv. 5. w ch. xxi. 38. Gal. v.12. L.P. Dan. vii.23 LXX. Ps. x.1 Aq. x ch. ix. 20 ret.
y ch. xvi. 28 reff.
6 ie Ce \ ? ‘ r ‘ marie '
fy) EVOOVTEC oe auTouc Eoupov [rov | lacova Kat Tivac
‘
~ ” e
* adeApoue ert TOUC * roditapyac, “PBowvtec OTL ol THY
v
4. emortevoay Ec 13. 40. om 2nd tw B. aft Tw o:Aata(sic) ins 77 didax7
moAAot, omg Te, D. ins kat bef eAAnvwy AD 13. 40 vulg copt. rec Toa. bef
mr., With HL rel Chr, @e Thl-sif: txt ABDEN a chk m p 13 vulg syr coptt arm
Chr, Thi-fin. for yuv. Te, Kat yuvaikes D.
5. E transposes twv aywpaiwy avd. Tr. movnpous to beg of ver. rec ins ameBouv-
res bef sovdato1, with DE b k 0 Gc; so ot arecd. aft vd. HLadfghm, and aft xa
mposkaf. c 137: om ABN p 13. 36. 40. 142 vulg syrr coptt arm. ~ om (nAwoartes
and kat, transposing mposAaB. to beg of ver, HLb df g h1lo142: txt ABEN p 138. 36.
40 vulg syrr coptt arm.—or 5¢ ames. ovd. cuvatpevavtes, omg K. TposdA., D.— (nAwcar-
Tes mposkaBouevor, omg all the rest, 66 zth. rec tivas bef avdpas, with DHLX
rel: txt ABE ahk p 13 vulg sah Thl-fin.—(tw. av. bef twr ay. D.) aft mrovnp.
ins ame:Onoavtes E. om kat oxAom. D eth. eOopuBoveay D. rec emioTavTes
re (for x. ex.), with HL rel Chr Ee Thi-sif: «a: emorevoav(sic) 13: txt ABDEN a k
m p 13 Thl-fin. tacwvos ADE dh k 1m Thl-tin, so (exe A) in vv 6, 9. rec
ayayew, with H rel Chr Ee Thi: mposayay. E ¢ 137: avayay. L 11: efayay. D-gr
104 copt wth-pl: txt ABN ab k o p 13. 36. 40, producere vulg D-lat E-lat syr.
6. esvpavy DE ab Chr: evpoy X!: txt ABHLN® p 36 Cc Thl.
om tov (as un-
necessary : or from similarity of endings, -pov Tov) ABDX p: ins EHL rel 36 Chr He
Thi. tacwvay DD),
Bowyras A lect-2.
(améBavev) x. avaoriva is reproduced in
1 Thess. iv. 4. 4. mposexdAnpod. |
were added (as if by lot, that being deter-
mined by God, who gave them,the Holy
Spirit of adoption: ds kal évepyetra: ev
july Tots miatevovow, 1 Thess. ii. 13) to
the great family of which Paul and Silas
were members. The sense is passive,
not middle. The word is not uncommon
in Philo. oeB. “EAA. ] See reff.
The aptitude of women for the reception
of the Gospel several times appears in
this book,—see above, ch. xvi. 13 ff., and
below, vv. 12, 34. 5. amposdaB. |
Having taken to them, as their accom-
plices, to assist them in the dxAorojoa
which follows. a@yopatwy | Such men
as Aristophanes calls rovnpds Kak ayopas,
— Demosthenes, epitpiuua dyopas, —
Xenophon, tov ayopatov byxAov, — Plu-
tarch, dyopalovs Kal Suvayévouvs bxAov
ouvayayeiv: see many other instances in
Wetstein, who mentions the modern ‘ ca-
naille’(canalicole). Cicero calls them ‘sub-
ties D!: txt D*.
aft Bowv. ins kat Aeyovres D.
aft Twas ims adAous E.
aft ovro ins exow D'.
rostrani:’ Plautus, ‘subbasilicani.’ These
may be alluded to in of Y:01 cuupuaeral,
1 Thess. ii. 14. (See note on ayopaitor,
ch. xix. 38.) émot., having fallen
upon,—beset. *Idgovos | With whom
(ver. 7) Paul and Silas lodged. He ap-
pears, perhaps (?), again with Paul at
Corinth, Rom. xvi. 21, but did not accom-
pany him into Asia, ch. xx. 4. 6.
modttapxas| The following inscription,
found on an arch at Thessalonica, is given
from Boeckh, No. 1967, in C. and H. i. 395:
ToAEiTapXouvTwY Lwaimatpov Tov KAeco-
marpas Kat Aovkiov Tlovtiov Zexovvdov
TlovBAtov PAaoviov SaBewou Anunrpiov
tov ®avitov Anuntpiov tov NikomwoAews
Zwidov Tov Tlapweviwvos Tov kat Mevioxov
Tasiov AytAAnwov Tloterrov.... Here
we have this very title applied to the Thes-
salonian magistrates, shewing the exact
accuracy of our narrative ; and, curiously
enough, we have three of the names which
occur here, or in the Epistles, as companions
of Paul: viz. Sosipater (of Beraa, ch. xx.
ABDE
HLN ab
cdfgh
kimo
p 13
5—10.
o
IIPAZEIS AIOSTOAQN.
189
« qe oto "Ta - \ id , a? ,
OUC UTOOECEKTAL Ladowy" Kal OUTOL TaYTEC © aTEVAaYTL = nea ee
“pee! é . 6.
TwWY Soyuatwy Kaisapoc Todascovaw, Pactréa NéyovteEc
James ii. 25
onlyt. Tobit
ev * , ~ de’? \ ‘ ” 1 vii. 8.
eteoov eivat Inoovy, eee erapatav dé tov “ OXAov Kat 1 Maco. xvi.
5 only.
ee , > ’ - ae 7 .
TOUE mToXtrapyac akxovovtag ravuta, * cat ‘AaBdvrec 70 * HN ONY
e ‘ f
* ikKavov
‘ ao Ins ‘ ~ ~ Hines ve
maoa Tov lasovoc kat twv AoiTwy " aréAvoav
(Rom. iii. 18
reff.) 2
Kings x. 17
: vat.
avrovc. 19 ot 8 GdeA pot evOéwe | Sa vuKToc * eCémepap bch. xvi. 4 reft
4 -~ ‘ s , , ef
tov te LJavAov Kai rov DiXav ete Béootay, otrwee ' rapa-
ech. xv. 24 reff.
XXvVi. S2 ret,
f ch. ii. 33 reff.
ich. v Iv reff.
c=ch. i. 2u.
Zi. 17. xiii.
35. av. 35 al.
d ver. 13,
g — hereonly. see Lev. xxv. 26. h=ch.
k ch. xiii. donly. Cen. xxiv. 54, 36, 59. 1 absol.,
Luke xii. 51, xix.16. John iii. 23. ch. v. 21, 22. ix. 3%. x. (32] 33, 1 Cor. xvi. 3 al. fr. Gen, xiy. 13.
7. [mpagoovow, so ABDEHLN abe df ghk1lo p18 Chr ec Thl-sif.]
€TEpov
bef Aeyovres exvar A B(sic: see table) Nac fh k 13 vulg syr: Aey. ew. er. E: txt
DHL rel vss Chr-comm (ec Thl-sif.
8. for tov oxA., Thy moAw E.
(-tas D2) rav. D.
10. om ev. dia vurr. A.
4: see Rom. xvi. 21, and note) ; Secundus
(of Thessalonica, ch. xx. 4) ; and Gaius (the
Macedonian, note, ch. xix. 29). THY
oix.avacr. | The words presuppose some ru-
mour of Christianity and its spread having
before reached the inhabitants of Thessa-
lonica. 7. otto. mavtes| All these
people, i.e. Christians, wherever found.
A wider acquaintance is shewn, or at least
assumed, with the belief of Christians, than
extended merely to Jason and his friends.
amévavtTt . . tpaoa. | Not ‘do this in
the face of the decrees,’ which would require
touto with mpdoo., but as E. V. The
ddyuara.in this case would be the Julian
‘leges majestatis.’ Baothéa K.7.A. |
This false charge seems to have been
founded on Paul’s preaching much at Thes-
salonica concerning the triumphant mapov-
ota of Christ. This appears again and
again in his two Epistles: see 1 Thess.
1.10; 11. 19; ii. 13; iv.183—18; v. 1, 2;
2 Thess. i. 5, 7—10; ii. 1—12: and par-
ticularly 2 Thess. ii. 5, where he refers to
his having often told them of these things,
viz. the course, and destruction of Anti-
christ, by whom these Jews might perhaps
misrepresent Paul as designating Cesar.
9. AaBdvtes Td ikavdy| ‘Satisda-
tione accepta ;’ either by sureties, or by a
sum of money, or both. They bound over
Jason and the rest (tivas adeAgors, ver. 6)
to take care that no more trouble was given
by these men: in accordance with which
security they sent them away; and by
night, to avoid the notice of the dxAos.
10.| It does not follow, because
Timotheus is not mentioned here, that
therefore he did not accompany, or at all
events follow, Paul and Silas to Berma. He
has never been mentioned since he joined
efemeuWay bef Sic vueros &.
vuxtos, with EHL rel Chr Ge Thi-sif: om BDX am p 18. 40 Petr Thl-fin.
Kat eTapagey Tous mod. Kat Toy OXA. akovaayTEs
rec ins tns bef
om
Paul’s company at Lystra. The very inter-
mitted and occasional notices of Paul’scom-
panions in this journey should be a caution
against rash hypotheses. The general cha-
racter of the narrative seems to be, that
where Paul, or Paul and Silas, are alone or
principally concerned, all mention of the
rest is suspended, and sometimes so com-
pletely as to make it appear as if they were
absent: then, at some turn of events they
appear again, having in some cases been
really present allthe time. I believe Timo-
theus to have been with them at Thessalo-
nica the first time, because it does not seem
probable that Paul would have sent to them
one to confirm and exhort them concerning
their faith (1 Thess. iii. 2) who had not
known them before, especially as he then
had Silas with him. And this is confirmed
by both the Epistles to the Thessalonians,
which are from Paul, Silvanus, and Timo-
theus. From these Epistles we learn that,
during his residence among them, Paul
worked with his own hands (1 Thess. ii. 9;
2 Thess. iii. 8) to maintain himself: and
from Phil. iv. 15, 16, that the Philippians
sent supplies more than once towards his
maintenance. Both these facts, especially
the last, seeing that the distance from
Philippi was 100 Roman miles, make it
very improbable that his stay was so short
as from three to four weeks: nor is this
implied in the text: much time may have
elapsed while the wA7@os moAv of ver. 4
were joining Paul and Silas. See further
in Prolegg. to 1 Thess., Vol. III. § ii. 2 ff.
Bépotay | According to the Anto-
nine Itinerary 61, according to the Peu-
tinger Table 57 Roman miles (S.W.) from
Thessalonica. Bercea was not far from
Pella, in Macedonia Tertia, Liv. xlv. 30, at
190
ravra
IIPAZEIS AMOSTOAQN.
XVII.
m here only. ie ; ‘ So MD Fed fe sy 8 4
egal yevomevol ELC THY ouvaywyny “ amyecav Twv Lovdaiwy.
XXxXili. 8. * \ Ly > / = bd U
vchix20 !! “obzror O& Hoav °evyevécteout taV ev Osooadoviky
reff. 7. Z r ty
‘
eae e oirwec "ediGavro TOV Aéo-yov " meta esic : moobuniac,
1 Cor. i. 26) ¢ N y of
ouly. ob TO cad éoav “avakolvovrec ta a ac eu“ Exyor
i. 3. 2 Mace. :
x. 13 oniy.) 12 FodXot wey ovv 2 ak auT@Y EmloTEvoaY,
p ch. x. 4) reff. " ouTwe.
q ao Viii. 14
r = Mark i iii. 5.
ch. ii. 29. v.
56 al. avoowv
1 Chron.
xxix. 22,
s 2 Cor. viii. 11,
125.19. ix, 2
Your 9 ody Ol.
vio TOU Matdou c O
kat twv EAAnvidwy yuraucov Tey
* eveXnnovey Kal
13 we Ot eyvwoay ol * amo THE
OzsoaXovixne louSain Ort Kal év ™ Bepola * e KaTnyyéAn
sa Adyoe rou ” Oeov, HADov KaKet® caded-
onlyt. Sir.
xlv. 23 oniy. d SS dhe 7A! ‘ ,
re ey” avrec Kal TapaaaorrEc TOUC oxAouc. * evbéwe 8: Tore
i. 15.) ‘ - , , ee ty \ , fle
pouke x1. 8 TOY TlavAov : eSaméoretAay Ou adeArpot tooevecbat * WC
xix. 47 only.
ee ch. ii. 46 reff. u =ch. iv. 9 reff. v ver. 2 reff. w ch. vii. 1 reff. x ch.
xiii. 50 reth. y ch. xii. 18 reff. z=ch. ii. 5 rett. ach. xiii. 5 reff. beh xi.
1 reff. c = ch. li. 25 (from Ps. xv. 8). 2 Thess. ii. 2 only. (ch. xvi. 26 al.) 1 Mace. vi. 8. d ver. 8.
ech, vii. 12 reff. f -ee note.
Te D 3. 82. 42. 57. 95! sah:
4 Kings ii. 11 vat.
de pl.
order), with ABDX a k m p 13. 36 vulg Thl-fin :
E vulg.
ll. evyevers D-gr.
for maons mpobumias, wappno.as K-gr.
36: ins BHL rel Chr, Qe Thi.
12. tives wev ovy avtwy D.
nmotnoay D 137.
AVOpES K. YUVALKES LKaVoL ETIOTEVTAY :
plures crediderunt D-lat.—eAAnvidwy, and ins kat bef avdpes, D?-gr:
for avdp. x. yuv., avdpwy ovr odAvyo D§:
ott (0) Avy. (Tov) Oeov Kkarnyy. es Bepowy | Kat] emiorevoay
yuvaicwy D>:
13. om tys DE.
ins tn bef @eoo. D.
rec Twy wovdaiwy bef arnecay (correction of
txt EHL rel Chr Ke Thl-sif.—ersnecay
aft Aoyoy ins Tou Geou E.
om To (as unnecessary) ADEN ah p 13.
exec D'E cl He Thl-sif: txt D?°r 8,
om ovy EK a! Thil-sif.
for eAAnyv. to oAryo. D! has eAAnvey kar Toy evoxXnMovey
Grecorum et non placentium et viri et mulieres
aft emior. add tives de
for Ist kat,
uc. emioT. are ond by D-corr.
kat nAOoy [ers avtny| D; o Tov are insd by D°, kat and ets avtny omd by D-corr.
rec om kat tapacooytes, with EHL rel wth Chr (ec Thl Cassiod: ins ABD?X a ec
m p 18. 36. 40 vulg syrr copt arm:
DS
tacoovtes D},
at end ins ov dieAyumavoy
14. for ev@. de Tote Tov, Tov wev ovy D Syr: statimque D-lat: om tote c 40. 137 syr
sah.
the foot of Mt. Bermius. It was afterwards
called Irenopolis, and now Kara Feria, or
Verria, and is a city of the second rank in
Kuropean Turkey, containing a 15,000
to 20,000 souls. (Winer, RW 'B. C.and H.
i. 399 f.) Wetstein quotes a remarkable
illustration from Cicero in Pisonem, c. 26 :—
‘Thessalonicam omnibus inscientibus noc-
tuque venisti, qui cum concentum ploran-
tium et tempestatem querelarum ferre non
posses, in oppidum devium Berceam pro-
fugisti.’ ll. evyevéotepor] Theophyl.
and (ie. explain it by émenéorepor, but
this is rather its result, than its mean-
ing :—more noble is our best word for it ;
—of nobler disposition ;—stirred up, not
to envy, but to enquiry. TavTa | viz.
the doctrine of ver. 3, which Paul and Silas
preached here also. 12.| The designa-
tion conveyed in ‘EAAnr{Swyv is to be sup-
plied before ayv5pav also. So eis wacay
méAw Kx. tTérov, Luke x. 1. See Winer,
edn. 6, § 59. 5. 18.] ot amd rr. ©.,
as E. V., of Thessalonica. No inference
o. ad. ckam. areAOeww D.
* we (see note) ABEN p 138. 40: om D ble
that they came from Thess. can be
drawn from this expression: but it is as-
serted below. See Heb. xiii. 24.
MAGov Kaket oad.| Not, as E. V., ‘they
came thither also, and stirred UP tay. hens
which destroys the force of the sentence :
but they came, and stirred up there
also....: no jowrney having been related
of them before, but a precisely similar act of
exciting the people. From the distance,
some time must have elapsed before this
could take place: and that some time did
elapse, we may gather from 1 Thess. ii. 18,
where Paul relates that he made several
attempts torevisit the Thessalonians (which
could be only during his stay at Bercea, as
he left the neighbourhood altogether when
he left that town), but was hindered.
14. os éwi tr. 0.| The various readings
seem to have arisen from not understand-
ing @s,—which cannot, here or any where
else, be redundant (as De Dieu, Raphel,
Wolf, Heinrichs, &e.): nor can it well here
signify that his going, ‘as if to the sea,’
ABDE
HLNab
edfgh
kl mo
p 13
— ——_-
11—16.
TIPAZEIS AIOZTOAQN.
19f
oy “ 7, e , o " ¢ , An =
éml tHv Oadaccay, © uTemetvév TE O TE LiAacg Kat o Tmo & > baked as
Qcoc EK Ele
only. Nam.
Xxli. 19.
Jos. Antt. vi.
5. 2.
15 Or 88 “Kabtotavorteg rov [avAov nyayov igwe h (-aveev)
’Abnvar, Kal * NaBovtec
T 50) d € , MONT) ‘ ee Were
Mmoleov, wa we taytora E\Dwow TovE avToy, efneoay. i — Luke if. 15.
ri \ < , , ’ > 4 ~ 23,
16 gy 8e rate A@yvate ™ EKOEYOMEVOU avtouc tou [avAou, * John = 18.
n read *
TAPWCUVETO TO
reff, m 1 Cor. xi. 33. xvi. 11. Heb. x.13. xi. 10. James v.7 onlyt. Gen. xliii.9 al.
(-vcpos, ch, xv. 39, of Pani.)
xiii. 5only. Dent. ix. 18.
ch, xix. 21 (of Paul).
p w. particip., = ch. viii. 13. xxviii. 6.
o Syr sah: ws HL rel 36 Chr Ge Thi.
k ? ‘ ‘ ‘ / \
evroAnpy T poe TOV YirAav Kal
oO - > ~ ’ > Pp ~
TvEevuUa aAuUTOVU Ev auT@ Jewoovurtoc
Rom. i. 9. viii. 16. xii. 11.
here only.
= 2 Chron.
xxviii. 15,
Josh. vi. 23
ch, xxiii.
Col. iv. 10.
= 2John4
only.
1 ch. xiii. 42
nl Cor.
John siii. 21.
Paul principally.
o = Lukei. 47.
1 Cor. ii. 11. v. 3,4. xiv. 14, &e.
ree vreuevov, with HL rel 36 Chr ec Thl-
sif: vreweway BRae p: amewewoy E13: eweueway m Thdrt Thl-fin (corrections to
suit constr): txt AD Syr sah.
ree for te, de (correction of characteristic te, and
to avoid recurrence), with DHL rel vulg coptt Chr Thdrt: txt ABEN ¢ mp 13 syr
eth Thl-fin. exe: bef o Te o1Aas H.
om 2nd te D sah.
15. rec cabiotwrtes (corrn of unusual form), with DSEHLN® 13 rel: amoxahiotwvtes
36: katactavovtes D!: Kabiomayres(sic) N!: txt AB p.
with EHL rel 36 Chr: om ABDN c m p 13 am fuld tol Thl-fin.
rec aft ny. ins autor,
ins twy bef a.
EK. mapnrser Se THv Oecoariay’ exwAvOy yap ELs avTous Knpviat Tov Aoyov" AaB. de
D. for evToA., emotoAnv E-gr Syr: add mapa mavdov D: am avtov E Syr arm.
ins Tov bef tiv. BX p 13.
ins D3 or4,
orws ev Taxet D.
16. for avrous, avrov DIN! 96 Syr: txt D3.—om tov wavAov NI.
rec Oewpouvtt (corrn to agree with avtw.
om to D!:
This is much more prob than
that, as Meyer suspects, avtw should have been altered to the gen to suit the gen absol
before), with DHL rel Chr, We Thl-sif: txt ABER a k p 13. 36. 40 Chr, Thdrt
Euthal Thl-fin.
was only a feint, to deceive his enemies
(as Beza, Piscator, Grot., Olsh., Neander,
&e.): for, as there is no mention of any
land journey, or places passed through on
his way to Athens, there can be little
doubt that he did really go by sea. But
&s em) 7. 0. I believe simply to indicate the
direction in which the Bercean brethren
sent him forth. ds is used thus before
participles and prepositions, without any
assignable reference to its (more usual) sub-
jective reference in such a connexion. Thus
Hermann on Soph. Philoct. 58, says ‘cogi-
tationem significat particula @s. Sed multo
usu factum est, ut aliquando etiam ibi usur-
paretur, ubi non opus esset respici id, quod
quis in mente haberet.’ We have the same
expression in Pausan. ii. 25, kataBavTwy
dé (the walls of Tyrius) as éxl @dAaccay,
evraiba of OdAamor Tey Tpoltov bvyareé-
pwy eiotv,—and Diod. Sic. xiv. 49, KeAevoas
Kata Taxos AdOpa wAcivy ws eal Supaxo-
olovs,—and Polyb. passim in Wetst.,—e. g.
Kadhkovoay (Tv Sedovkelav) ws én) Oa-
Aacoay, v. 59,—and with the same signifi-
cation. Where he embarked for Athens, is
not said: probably (C. and. H. i. 403) at
Dium, near the base of Mt. Olympus, to
which two roads from Bercea are marked
in the ancient tables. 15. «ator. |
So Odyss. v. 274, rods wo ééAevoa Tv-
AovdexaracrTHou Kal epéeooa,—and Arrian,
Ind. xxvii. 1, katacrhcew abtods méxpe
Kapyavias. Who these were is not said.
The course of Timotheus appears to
have been, as far as we can follow it from
the slight notices given, as follows :—when
Paul departed from Bercea, not having been
able to revisit Thessalonica as he wished
(1 Thess. ii. 18), he sent Timotheus (from
Berea, not from Athens) to exhort and
confirm the Thessalonians, and determined
to be left at Athens alone (1 Thess. iii. 1),
Silas meanwhile remaining to carry on the
work at Berocea. Paul, on his arrival at
Athens, sends (by his conductors, who re-
turned) this message to both, to come to
him as soon as possible. They did so,
and found him (ch. xviii. 5) at Corinth.
See Prolegg. to 1 Thess., Vol. IIT.
>A@ynvav| See a long and interesting de-
scription of the then state of Athens, its
buildings, &c., in C. and H. chap. x.
vol. i. pp. 407 ff. ; and Lewin, i. pp. 268 ff.
It was a free city. Strabo (ix. 1) gives an
epitome of its fortunes from the Roman
conquest nearly to this time: ‘Pwmator
8 ovv mapadaBdvtes avtovs SnuoKputov-
pevous epvdakay Thy avtovoulay avTots
kK. Thy €AevOeplay. enimecwv F 6 Milpr-
daTixds méAEMOS TUpavyoUs a@vTOIS KaT-
éotnoev ovs 6 BactAdcd’s eBovAeto, Tov &
ioxvoavtTa pddiota Toy Apiotiwva kK.
TavTny Biacdmevoy Thy woAw. eK TO-
Atopklas édAdy BAAas 6 Tay ‘Popatwy
Aryemov exdrdaoe TH mode 5E ovyyvouny
192
TIPAZEIS AIOSTOAQN.
VALE
ghee aly te Katelowrov ovcav thy modu. |? * SuehéyeTo pev ovy Ev ABDE
Pre li 8 (10) Ty suvayoyy roic ‘Loudatore Kat roic * o¢/opévore, Kal cures
Eaneavias ev TY ayooa “ kata " wacav." nuépay mpoc Tove © TapaTuy- Ps
Id ex. Xavovrac’ : Teves oe Kal row "Emcougetoy Kat Sroukwy
ae pirocopwy suvepudAov auTw. Kal TWEC eAeyov Ti av
sic. xvi.3. *@zNoe oO 5 steomoA0yoc outoc eye 5 ot Os 7 Bévwy
veavias
KataPootpyxos, Ear. Phoen. 146.
where only. see Heb. iil. 13.
w Luke xiv. 31. ii. 19. ch.iv.15. xviii. 27. xx. 14 only.
y here only ¢. Demosth, 269, 19.
x = ch. xiv. 13 reff. a
ver, 2l only. Ruth ii, 10.
17. ins tots bef ev 7m ay. D 187 syr-marg (copt) sah.
r ver. 2 reff.
v here onlyt. w. dat., Jos, Autt. ii. 9.5. absol., Xen. Apol. Socr. 11.
s—=ch, xiii. 43 reff. t ch. xiii. 27 reff.
1 Macc. iv. 34. yuvacke o. NOyous, Eur. Iph. Aul. 830.
z= Matt. xxy. 35 al. Luke, here and
mapatuxovtas D!: txt D%.
18. rec om Ist cat (as unnecessary), with Ec fk 36 vss He Thl: ins ABDHLN p
13 rel Syr Chr.
Zveme, Kal méxpe viv ev eevdepia te earl
kK. TYKh mapa Tots ‘Pamalos. See also
Tacit. Ann. i. 53. 16. Kkateidwdov |
This Graf Acyduevoy is formed after the
analogy of Kkatdumedos, KdOvdpos, &e.
See reff. The multitude of statues
and temples to the gods in Athens is cele-
brated with honour by classic writers of
other nations, and with pride by their own.
A long list of passages is given in Wet-
stein. The strongest perhaps is from Xen.
de Repub. Ath., who calls Athens dAn Bw-
ads, An Odua Oeots Kal avabynua.
17.] The ody (as De W. remarks against
Meyer and Schneckenburger) does not ne-
cessarily give the consequence of what has
been stated in ver. 16, but only continues
the narration. See above on ch. xi. 19.
év TH Gyopa] Strabo (x. 1) speak-
ing of the Eretrians in Eubcea says that
some suppose them to have been named
ard Tis “AOhvnow ’Epetplas, ) viv eorw
ayopd (as distinguished from the Cera-
micus, which was the o/d forum). It was
the space before the orod moikian, where
the Stoics held their d:aAééers. 18.
*Emucovpetwv | The Epicurean philosophy
was antagonistic to the gospel, as holding
the atomic theory in opposition to the crea-
tion of matter,—the disconnexion of the
Divinity from the world and its affairs,
in opposition to the idea of a ruling Pro-
vidence,—and the indissoluble union, and
annihilation together, of soul and body, as
opposed to the hope of eternal life, and
indeed to all spiritual religion whatever.
The Epicureans were the materialists of
the ancient world. The common idea
attached to Epicureanism must be dis-
carded in our estimate of the persons men-
tioned in our text. The summum bonum
of the real Epicureans, far from being :
degraded and sensual pleasure, was ata.-
patla of mind, based upon ppéynois, —
emtkoupiwy ADEN c k p.
DHL rel Chr: om ABEN ac d1 p 13. 40 Thl-fin.
Chr: txt ADEHLN ac fk 13. 36 coptt Thl-fin.
36 Chr ec Thi-sif: cuveAaBov D!: txt D-corr!.
rec ins twy bef ctorxwy, with
rec stew, with B p rel
cuveBadov Labed'fghm
OeAn D: OcAec ¢ 13.40: txt D*.
perhaps the best estimate of the highest
good formed in the heathen world ;—and
their ethics were exceedingly strict. But
the abuse to which such a doctrine was
evidently liable, gave rise to a pseudo-Epi-
cureanism, which has generally passed cur-
rent for the real, and which amply illus-
trated the truth, that ‘ curruptio optimi est
pessima.’ For their chimerical atapatia,
Paul offered them thy ciphyny thy brep-
éxovoay mavta vovv, Phil. iv. 7.
Lrotkav | So named from the oro moixlAn
(see above), founded by Zeno of Cittium
in the fourth century B.c., but perhaps
more properly by Cleanthes and Chrysip-
pus in the third century B.c. Their philo-
sophy, while it approached the truth in
holding one supreme Governor of all, com-
promised it, in allowing of any and all ways
of conceiving and worshipping Him (see
below, vv. 24, 25),—and contravened it, in
its pantheistic belief that all souls were
emanations of Him. In spirit it was di-
rectly opposed to the gospel,—holding the
independence of man on any being but him-
self, together with the subjection of God
and man alike to the stern laws of an in-
evitable fate. On the existence of the soul
after death their ideas were various : some
holding that all souls endure to the con-
flagration of all things,—others confining
this to the souls of good men,—and others
believing all souls to be reabsorbed into the
Divinity. By these tenets they would ob-
viously be placed in antagonism to the doec-
trines of a Saviour of the world and the re-
surrection,—and to placing the sammum
bonum of man in abundance of that grace
which év doOeveia TeActra, 2 Cor. xii. 9.
Ties €Xeyov .... ot S€} These are
not to be taken as belonging the one to the
Epicureans, the other to the Stoics,—but
rather as describing two classes, common
perhaps to both schools,—the one of which
193
17—19. MIPAZEIS AMOXSTOAQN.
ry) ~
a = here only.
inate ene
e >
eds
E77 l= b here only t.
( Ae, ver.
23.)
c absol., Matt.
e = and
b ‘ = é e ‘
niente E€LVaL OTL TOV
\
Kat ebnyyedilero [avroic].
(ug ~
AaBouevot TE aurov én “Aostov mayo nyayov
Xxii. 22, 23, 30 || L. John xi. 21, 25. ch. xxiii. 8. d constr., ch. xi. 20 reff.
constr., Matt. xiv. 31. Luke ix. 47. ch. xxi. 30, 33. Isa.iv. 1. (acc. ch. ix. 27 refi.)
*Samoviwy SsoKet
& e 2 ,
THY avaoTactv
Tov
katayyedAeus &. for ot Se, odev D'. om last clause D. rec avTols
bef eunyyeAero, with 36: om avtois BLN! rel syr sah arm Chr: avtou evnyy. autos
a 14. 27. 29. 68. 69. 105. 106 Syr copt eth-pl: txt AEH? cfkmp13 vulg Thl.
(The varr have principally been produced by avtov being inserted after avarracw, it
being imagined that the resurr of Jesus was intended. Hence the origi avrois was
transposed and altered, and, from avtov and avtas being alternately erased, finally
disappeared altogether. So Meyer.)
19. wera Se nucpas Twas emAaB. avtov nyayov avTov emt Tov apioy Tay. TuyPavomevot
kat Aey. D 137 syr. (om toy D': ins D?: pw. Se nu. tw. are marked with ast in syr.)
for re, de B p 13. 36 coptt. aptov ADEN, so ver 22.
despised him and his sayings, and the other (ver. 22) is translated ‘ Mars’ Hill” We
were disposed to take a more serious view of
thematter, and charge him with bringing in
new deities. eeppohdyos | oTmEppo-
Adyos eidos early épvéov AwBawuevov Ta
onmepuata’ et of of “AOnvator omepuoddyous
€xdAouy Tovs mepl eumdpia Kal ayopas
dia piBovras, bia TH GvareyeoOa Ta eK
TOY poptiwy amoppéeovta, Kab Siadyy ek
rovtwy. Hustath. ad Odyss. e. 490, where
Damm observes, omepuodoyeiv, * verbum
recentiorum ; dicitur ém) taév dda Covevo-
péevov GucOddws em) pabnuacw ek Tivay
Tapakovoudtwy, si quis quid arripuit forte
ex disciplinis, eoque se imperite jactat :’
babbler is the very best English word: as
both signifying one who talks fluently to
no purpose, and hinting also that his talk
is not his own. Eévev Sarpy. J adie
Swxpdrys.... kava BSaydvia ecishépwr,
was one of the charges on which Athens
put to death her wisest son. daimovia
is not plural for singular, as Kuin.: nor
merely, though this is somewhat more pro-
bable, marks the category, as Meyer: nor
can it refer (Chrys., Theophyl., icum.,
Hammond, Heinrichs) to Jesus and the
avdoraois, mistaken for a goddess (a suffi-
cient answer to which strange idea is, that
avaotacts is merely a statement in the
mouths of others, of the doctrine taught by
Paul, which he would hardly ever, if ever,
specify by this word,—compare vv. 31 and
32): but alludes (as De Wette) to the true
God, the God of the Jews, and Jesus Christ
His Son: the Creator of the world (ver. 24),
and the Man whom He hath appointed to
judge it, ver. 31. kaTayyedevs | Com-
pare ver. 23, end; which is an express
answer to this charge. 19. émtdaf. |
No violence is implied : see reff. emt
Tov “Apetov mayov| There is no allusion
here to the court of Areiopagus, nor should
the words bave been so rendered in E. V.,—
especially as the same ’Apeifov mayou below
Vou. II.
have in the narrative no trace of any ju-
dicial proceeding, but every thing to con-
tradict such a supposition. Paul merely
makes his speech, and, having satisfied the
curiosity of the multitude who came toge-
ther on Mars’ Hill, departs unhindered :—
they brought him up to the hill of Mars.
Dr. Wordsworth believes he finds a trace
of a judicial proceeding in “Avdpes ’AOy-
vatot, denoting rather a public apology
than a private discussion: and in the con-
version of Dionysius the Areopagite. But
what words other than those would St. Paul
have been likely to use in making a speech
toa concourse of Athenians ? for no one sup-
poses it to have been a private discussion.
And why should not Dionysius have been
present ? Asa convert of note, he would
naturally have his title attached. The
following note is borrowed from Mr. Hum-
phry’s Commentary :—‘ It might be ex-
pected that on the hill of Mars the mind of
the stranger would be impressed with the
magnificence of the religion which he
sought to overthrow. The temple of the
Kumenides was immediately below him: op-
posite, at the distance of 200 yards, was the
Acropolis, which, being entirely occupied
with statues and temples, was, to use the
phrase of an ancient writer (Aristides), av7’
avadnuatos,asone great offering to the gods.
The Persians encamped on the Areiopagus
when they besieged the Acropolis (Herod.
vili. 52) : from the same place the Apostle
makes his first public attack on Paganism,
of which the Acropolis was the stronghold.
Xerxes in his fanaticism burnt the temples
of Greece (Aschyl. Pers.: Cic. de Leg. ii.
10). Christianity advanced more meekly
and surely: and though the immediate
effect of the Apostle’s sermon was not
great, the Parthenon in time became a
Christian church (Leake, Athens, p. 277).
Athens ceased to be a kateldwAos méAts,—
O
194
f Mark i. 27,
g = 1 Pet. iv. 4,
12 only 7.
(ch. x. 6, 23
reff.) 2 Mace. ,
ix.6. Diod.
Sic. xii. 43,
of Gorgias, ~ 9
to fevi- TavuTa élval.
Govre ths
AeLews €&-
x
IIPAZEIS AMOSTOAQN.
VEL
, ~ / e ~
Aéyovrec Avvapsba yreovat tic 1 ‘Kaun aurn 1) vToO cov
re ’
NaXoupévy *dudayn 5 20 8 EeviZovra yap twa etepépetc
7}? - , = - S
gl¢ Tac akoac nuwy’ PovAouca ovv yvovae *riav * Bzdor
a1 "AO ~ 8 , \ e ] > ~
nvalol Of TAaVTEC Kal OL ETLONMOUYTEC
mY n , OE 4 ro) > i, nN , Su, ,
Gevou" etg ovdev Erepov ° nuKaioouy y Aéyetv TEN akovELY
émdnbe tovs , 92 q HN BS G = ’ ’ ~
"Adnvaious. ° KALVOTEOOD. aratlsic O& o TlavAoc ev Eo TOU
h — here (Matt.
vi. 13. Luke v. 18,19. xi. 4. xii,11. 1 Tim. vi.7. Heb. xiii. 11) only. (Soph. Aj. 149.) i Luke vii. 1.
Heb. vy. 11. 1 Cor. xti. 17. Mark vii. 35. Ps. xvii. 41. = ch. 11. 12 only. Ich. ii. 10 only +.
m ver. 18. n= Matt. v.12. ch. xix. 27 al. o Mark vi. 31. 1 Cor. xvi. 12 only t. Polyb. xx. 4. 4.
(-pia, Luke xxii. 6. -pos, Mark vi. 21.
see ver. 22. Winer, edn. 6, § 35. 4.
om 2nd 7 BD. amo cov 1)'(Wtst).
Syr wth: narratio doctrine D-lat.
20. pepers D: erspeper N': add pnuata DE.
-pws, 2 Tim.iv. 2)
q ch. xi. 13 reff.
p = Matt. xiii. 52. Isa. xlii. 9. compar.,
Acyouevn E p: karayyedAouern D-gr
*riva Dede (mistake in
writing Tt. av; which was the easier on acct of the plural ravta) A B(sic: see table) &
p 13. 40, que hee sint sah: tiva OedAor a 69: Te ay BeAot DEHL rel vulg(quidnam
velint hee esse) Chr Gc Thi.
21. aft emé. ins ets avtous D-gr sah.
Thl-fin. |
tovta bef @cAcer c 1387: om EH.
[nuxapovy, so ABDERN cp 13. 40 We
rec for 2nd 7, kat (corrn to avoid the awkwardness of the recurrence of
n with different meanings), with EHUL p rel 36 vss Bas Chr: txt ABDN vulg syr sah.
aft acovew ins tt: ABN, so vss but om the t aft Acey. (The repetition has
originated in the transposition for elegance.)
22. om o ABN Thl-sif.
and the repugnance of the Greeks to images
became so great, as to be a principal cause
of the schism between the churches of the
east and west in the eighth century.’
The hill of Mars was so called according to
Paus. i. 28. 5, 671 mp@tos ~Apns évtaida
expién. It was on the west of the Acro-
polis. The Areiopagus, the highest criminal
court of Athens, held its sittings there. To
give any account of it is beside the pur-
pose, there being no allusion to it in the
text. Full particulars may be found sub
voce in Smith’s Dict. of Gr. and Rom. Antt.
Suvap. yvav. | A courteous method
of address (not ironical, as Kuin. and Stier).
21.| A remark of the narrator (as I
believe, Paul himself, see Prolegg. to Acts,
§ ii. 14) as a comment on the rawf and
EeviCovra of the verse before. EUKaLpa,
vaco, Gloss. Vet. It is not a classic Attic
word: evcaipeiv ovdels eXpnke TOY Tarawr,
"EdAnves 5€, Moris. “oxoAtv &yw,” Kad
“ed cxodjs exw,” ov “acxorAd(w” Td BE
“edaipeiv” mdv7n &ddxiuov, Thom. Mag.
On this character of the Athenians,
compare that given of them, Thucyd.
ili. 38, weTa KawdrnTos mev-Adyou damra-
Tacba &piorot, Where the scholiast evi-
dently has our text in his mind; tadra
mpos tovs “A@nvalouvs aivitrerat, ovdéy
TL meAETOVTAS TAY A€yew TL kal axovew
kawdy :—Demosth. (Philippic. i. p. 43),
BovAcobe, cimée pot, wepiidvtes adTay mv-
Oéc0at Kata THY ayopay Aéyeral TL Kat-
vév; yévoito yap &v tt Kawdrepoy 7)
Makedmv dvijp «.7.A. (so also in Philipp.
for edn, exmey N 180.
Epist. pp. 156, 157.) The comparative,
kawdrepoy, is used as here by Theophr. in
giving the character of a loquacious person :
olos épwrijca.” Exes wep) Tovde eimety Kat-
vév; Kal émiBadwv epwrdy Mh Aé€yerat Ti
kawvdtepov; It implies, as we should say,
the very last news. 22.| The Com-
mentators vie with each other in admiration
of this truly wonderful speech of the great
Apostle. Chrysostom: todré éort Td elpn-
Mévoy TG amootddAw, eyevduny Tos avd.
fois @s tvonos, iva Kepdiow avomous*
’AOnvalors yap Snunyopav, ovK amd mpo-
onT@y ovde amd Tov vduouv SieA€xOn, GAN
amd Bwwod Thy mapalverw émroinoato:
amd T&v oikelwy avTovs exelpmoaTto Soy-
watwy? 51d ovK eimevy “&youos,” GAN
““&s &vouos.” ‘The oration of Paul be-
fore this assembly is a living proof of his
apostolic wisdom and eloquence: we see
here how he, according to his own words,
could become a Gentile to the Gentiles, to
win the Gentiles to the Gospel.’ Neander,
Pfl. u. L., p.317. And Stier very properly
remarks (Reden der Apostel, ii. 131), ‘It
yas given to the Apostle in this hour, what
he should speak ; this is plainly to be seen
in the following discourse, which we might
weary ourselves with praising and admiring
in various ways ; but far better than all so-
called praise from our poor tongues is the
humble recognition, that the Holy Ghost,
the spirit of Jesus, has here spoken by the
Apostle, and therefore it is that we have
in his discourse a masterpiece of apostolic
wisdom.’ The same Commentator gives the
ABDE
HLNab
edfgh
klmo
p 13
20—23.
"Aoslov mayou en” Avdpec ‘AQnvaior, "Ka
DP —1 Cor. x
: daaidacpovearépove vuac Dewpa
x avalewpav Ta
ITPAZEIZ AMOSTOAQN.
195
A , s (2 eet. ous
ata twavrTa er ae 22
2 Cor. vi.
“SlepXGHEDIS yap Kal Ke
" s¢Baopara VUwY evoov Kat * Baomoy epi hes
Xen. Cyr.
eye t a aq b 8. 68.
(J EeTEVyEYOaATTO *"Ayvoorw Dew. O ouv ayvoourrec atl Antt.
i xiv. 10. 13,
14. (-povia, ch. xxv. 19 only. ) compar., ver. 21. u absol.,, ch. viii. 4 reff. v Heb.
xiii. 7 only t. a. THe Kaktar T@y Toinuatwry, Diod. Sic, xiv. 109. w 2 Thess. ii. 4 only.
Wisd, xiv. 20. xv. 17, vat. F. (not A.) Bel and Dr. 27 Theod. only. x here only. Jer. vii.
31 al. y Mark xv. 26, Rev. xxi. J2. Heb. viii. 10. 3.16 only. Num, xvii. 2, 3. z here
ep as Wisd. xi. 18. xviii. 3. 2 Macc. i. 19, ii. 7 oniy. a1 Cor. vii, 24. bch. xiii.
27 reit.
23. for avaewpwy, Suctopwy D', perspiciens D-lat ; tcropwy Clem, :
substance of the speech thus: ‘ He who is
(by your own involuntary confession) wn-
known to you Athenians (religious though
you are),—and yet (again, by your own
confession) able to be known,—the all-
sufficing Creator of the world, Preserver of
all creatures, and Governor of mankind,—
now commandeth all men (by me His
minister) to repent, that they may know
Him, and to believe in the Man whom He
hath raised from the dead, that they may
stand in the judgment, which He hath
committed to Him. avdpes ‘AO. |
The regular and dignified appellation fami-
liar to them as used by all their orators,—
of whose works Paul could hardly be altoge-
ther ignorant. Kata 1., in every point
of view: see reff. Serodatpoveo-
tépovs| carrying your religious reve-
rence very far: an instance of which fol-
lows, in that they, not content with wor-
shipping xamed and known gods, wor-
shipped even an wxknown one. Blame is
neither, expressed, nor even implied: but
their exceeding veneration for religion laid
hold of as a fact, on which Paul, with ex-
quisite skill, engrafts his proof that he is
introducing no new gods, but enlightening
them with regard to an object of worship
on which they were confessedly in the dark.
So Chrysost.: Seu0., rovréotiv evAaBeo-
Tépous..... &smep eykwmdew avrovs
dore?, ovdev Bapd Aéywr. To understand
this word as E. V. ‘too superstitious’
(‘superstitiosiores,’ Vulg.,so Luther, Caloy.,
Wolf), is to miss the fine and delicate
tact of the speech, by which he at once
parries the charge against him, and in
doing so introduces the great Truth which
he came to preach. The word itself has
both senses: Seroidaluwy, 6 eboeBhs,
Hesych. :— ey TP TowvTy (in battle) yap
5) of Serotdalnoves Attov tTovs avOpmmous
poBovvta, Xen. Cyrop. iii. 3. 58: and
on the other hand, Theophrast. Char.
16, explains Serodaimovia by SeiAta mpbs Td
dayudviov: and Pollux, edoeBhs, OeGy em-
MeAns, 6 Oe breptTimar, deco Oaluwy Kal Seict-
Oeos. The character thus given of the
Athenians is confirmed by Greek writers :
xt es!
thus, Pausan. i. 24. 3, "AOnvalos mepiood-
Tepdv tt ) Tots AAs és TA Beta eore
arovojs. See other instances in Wetstein.
Josephus, ec. Apion. ii. 11, calls them evce-
Beotatous Tav “EAAhvwr. 23.| avaé.,
looking cover, ‘ reconnoitring.’ oe-
Baop.| not, as E. V., ‘devotions? but
objects of religious worship, temples,
altars, statues, &c.: see reff. kat |
over and above the many altars to your
own and foreign deities. moAAa yap TeV
tevix@y icp@v mapedetayvto,.... Kad 5
kal Ta Opdiia Kal Ta Sptyia, Strabo, x.
p- 472. ayvootw %od] To an (not,
the) unknown God. That this was the
veritable inscription on the altars (not as
Jerome on Tit. i. 12, p. 707, ‘ Inscriptio are
nun ita erat ut Paulus asseruit: 7gnoto Deo:
sed ita: Diis Asie et Europe et Africee,
Diis ignotis et peregrinis. Verum quia
Paulus non pluribus Diis ignotis indigebat
sed uno tantum ignoto Deo, singulari verbo
usus est’), the words 6 éreyéyparto, on
which had been inscribed, are decisive.
Meyer well remarks, that the historical fact
would be abundantly established from this
passage, being Paul’s testimony of what
he himself had seen,
Athenian people. But we have our nar-
rative confirmed by the following: Paus.
i. 1. 4, evrad@ar Kat Bwpuol Gedy TE dvoma-
Comevov ayvdctwy, kal npdwy Kad al-
dw tTav Ohoews Kal Padnpov :— Philos-
tratus, Vit. Apollon. vi. 3, cwppovéarepov
To) wep mdvTwy Oey ed A€yelV, Kal TavTa
"AOhrnow, ov Kal ayvdoTtwy Saimdver
Bopol ipvvrat. On which Winer well
says, that it by no means follows that each
altar had the inscription in the plural, @eozs
ayvéorots, but more naturally that the
plural has been used to suit Bwuot, and
that the inscription on each was as here.
The commonly cited passage of (Pseudo-)
Lucian, Philopatr. 9, and 29, vh roy &y-
vwotov ev "AOhvais, is no testimony, the
dialogue being spurious, and the reference
to our text evident. The origin of such
altars has been variously explained: Diog.
Laert. (vit. Epimenid.) says, that Epime-
nides, on occasion of a plague, advised the
O 2
196
> ~
clTim.vy.4 © eoeBeire, *
only t+. Eur.
Phen. 133). e€
(see ch. ili.
12 reff.)
d ch. xiii. 5
reff.
0 k 5
oN is. 20 ref. vac Karoucel, ”
g Matt. xi. 25.
TOUTO eyo
vou Kat ° yas
JIPASZ EIS AMOZTOAQN.
f
Tomoac rov® KOoptoy Kal wayra ta év aire,
: umapXov
oves UTO Xetpoy ‘avJowmivoy ©
B.S A UL-
BY iwi: e
i warayyedho v opty. 24 0 Ocdc 1)
re, g ’
ouTOC ovoa-
gh k ,
Kbptog our ev 2 Se aide a
Oepa-
(Cen: xxiv. meverat ” a pocdeomevoc TIVOC, auToc ot dove mace Cony Kal
h yoshi ili. 11, 13. ich. viii. 16 reff. k ch. vii. 48 (reff.). 1 Rom. vi. 19. 1 Cor. ii. 13.
iv.3. x. 13. James iii.7. 1 Pet. ii. 13 only. Nom. v. 6. m =hereonly. Prov. xxix. 26. Isa. liv. 17.
n here only. Proy. xii. 9. Sir. iv. 3 al4.
oeBaoTa &.
ABD! vulg Orig Jer.
n (nv D*) yeypaupevov D.
A2EKHLN? 13. 36 rel vss Clem Ath Chr Cosm (ec Thl Aug
rec ov and rovtov (see note), with
: o and tovtoy p: txt
24. rec kup. bef umapy., with DHL rel Clem, Chr Iren-int: txt ABEX ak m p 13.
40 vulg(cwm sit dom.) Clem, Thdrt, Thl-fin.
25. for ovde, ode D': txt D’.
13 rel vss Chr Thdrt, Cosm:
avOp. bef xeipwrv &.
lect-12. lect-13.
Athenians to let go white and black sheep
from the Areiopagus, and on the spots
where they lay down to erect altars to
aposnkovtt Bea: Obey, he adds, és Kat
viv éoTw ebpety Kata Tovs Shuovs TeV
’AOnvaiwy Bwmovs avwydmovs. HKichhorn
conjectures that they may have been an-
cient altars erected before the use of wri-
ting, and thus inscribed in after-times.
But 1 should rather suppose that the above
anecdote furnishes the key to the practice :
that on the occurrence of any remarkable
calamity or deliverance not assignable to
the conventionally-received agency of any
of the recognized deities, an unknown God
was reverenced as their author. That the
God of the Jews was meant (as supposed
by Caloy., Wolf,al.)is very improbable.
© Quod ignotis Diis altare erexerant, signum
erat nihil ipsos tenere certi: habebant qui-
dem ingentem Deorum turbam..... sed
dum illis permiscent ignotos Deos, hoe ipso
fatentur nihil de vera Divinitate se habere
compertum..... Inde apparet inquietudo,
quod se nondum defunctos fatentur, ubi
popularibus Diis litarunt,’ &e. Calvin.
6....TovtTo| The éy and rotror of the
rec. have probably been alterations from
reverential motives. The neuters give
surely the deeper, and the more appro-
priate sense. For Paul does not identify
the true God with the dedication of, or wor-
ship at, the altar mentioned > but speaks
of the Divinity (rd Oetov) of whom they,
by this inscription, confessed themselves
ignorant. (It may however be a warning
of the uncertainty of @ priori internal
evidence for readings, that De Wette and
Meyer suppose the masculines to have
been altered to produce this very sense,
and to avoid the inference that Paul iden-
tified the unknown God with the Creator.)
katoixot D!: txt D8.
rec avOpwrwy (probably an error), with EHL
txt ABDX a p vulg Clem, Thdrt, Iren-int.—
ins ws bef mposdeouevos N'(N' disapproving) 25 D-lat K-lat
Thdrt({twice, but once in only one ms) Iren-int.
om avtos H 16. 37. 56. 100 Chr,.
for tTivos, avtos D*: om D!
ott ovtos o Sous D!: for
But even a more serious objection lies
against the masculines. The sentiment
would thus be in direct contradiction to
the assertion of Paul himself, 1 Cor. x. 20,
& @vovory, Satpoviots Kat ov bed BVovorv.
Compare also our Lord’s words, John iv.
22, duets mposkuveite 6 ovK oldarTe. In
evoeBette, we have another confirmation
of the sense above insisted on for Sero.da-
povertépovs. Hewishes to commend their
reverential spirit, while he shews its mis-
direction. An important lesson for all
who have controversies with Paganism and
Romanism. Katayy.| (See above,
KkatayyeAevs ver. 18.) Iam declaring,—
making manifest, to you. duets we mpo-
eAdBete, onotv' &pPace budy 7H Ocparela
7) eudoy Khpuyua. Chrys. 24.| ‘No
wonder, that the devil, in order to diffuse
idolatry, has blotted out among all heathen
nations the recognition of Creation. The
true doctrine of Creation is the pr oper re-
futation of allidolatry.’ Roos. Einl. in die
bibl. Geschicht., cited by Stier, Red. der
Apost. ii. 140, who remarks, ‘ Only on the
firm foundation of the Old Testament doc-
trine of Creation can we rightly build the
New Testament doctrine of Redemption:
and only he, who scripturally believes and
apprehends by faith the earliest words of
Revelation, concerning a Creator of all
things, can also apprehend, know, and
scripturally worship, THE MAN, in whom
God’s word, down to its latest canonical
Revelation, gathers together all things.’
ovK év xeup.| A remarkable remi-
niscence of the dying speech of Stephen:
see ch. vii. 48. Mr. Humphry notices
the similarity, but difference in its conclu-
sion, of the argument attributed to Xerxes
in Cicero, Leg. ii. 10: ‘Xerxes inflammasse
templa Griecie dicitur, quod parietibus
ABDE
HLN ab
edfgh
klmo
pls
24 —27. TIPASEIS AMOSTOAQN. 197
, eh Na? ak ? =} h.
ETOLNGEV TE e& evoc i aiaroc | z ii. Ane
~ oy) > 6) , q ea ON x r i Gen. ii. 7.
TaV EVVOC av OWT WY KQATOLKELY ET TAaVTVG 7 POCWTOU ee
- r ~ auc , t , u ‘ \ \ . Sita ~¢-
TNC yue oploac TOOCTETAYMEVOUC Kaloouc Kal Tac qa -
w. gen., Rey.
Vv e , ~ , , , ~ ») ~ ‘ , ,
opobeciacg the “ KaTotKkiac avt@y, 7! *Y Znrew rov ? Oeov,
iii. 10 al8,
only. w.
XXXViii. 12.
x. 42, xi. 29. ver, 3].
acc., Ezek.
r = Luke xxi. 35. (xii. 56.) GEN. xi, 8. s Luke xxii. 22. ch. ii, 23
(ch. x. 33 reff.)
12 Alius in Hexapl.)
Rom.i. 4. Heb.iv. 7 only. L.P.H. Num. xxxiy. 6. t = here only.
x. 2V only. Exod. xxxiii. 7.
o ‘ \ A , 6
TVOYV Kat Ta TavTa,
u absol., Gal. iv. 10. Gen. i. 14. v here only t. (-Ve7etv, Exod. xix.
w here only. Exod. xxxy.3. Dan. ii. 11 Theod. x = Kom.
y here only. 1 Chron. xxi. 30.
Sous, 5:50us D-corr! °r2 ; Sous H Clem, Chr,. om Ka Ta wayvTa 13 Syr.
Steph (for cat ta) kata, with HL rel Thdrt, @e Thl-fin. (Meyer thinks kata ravra ver
22 was still in the copyist’s mind. At all events, it seems to be an error): Kat KaTa
40: txt A B(Mai expr) DE(X) p 36 vulg syr eth arm Clem, Chr Thdrt, Cosm Thl-
sifi—om ta X}.
26. om te DE syr: Se m. om amatos ABN p 13. 40 vulg copt «th Clem Bede:
ins DEHL rel 36 syrr Thdrt, Chrsepe Cosm (Ze Thi Iren-int. (Meyer well remarks on
the omission, that it is more likely to have happened owing to evos amaros, than that
awatos should be a gloss on evos,—for that this would be rather given by avOpwmov.)
for eOvos, yevos a ¢ 23. 69. 96. 104. 187. 142 vulg syr-marg Clem Thl-fin Iren-
int. avOpwrov D-gr. rec Tay To mpoowmov (corrn for ease of constr), with HL
rel Chr Thdrt Cosm: ray mposwrov E Thdrt,: txt ABDN p 13. 36 Clem.
rec mporetay., with D! 13 b f k, prefiniens Iren-int: rerayy. a 141. 69: txt
AB D-corr? or? EHLN rel vss Clem Ammon Chr Cosm (e Thi. Kata opobeciay
D!-gr Iren-int : txt D5.
27. ins wadiora bef (nrew D-gr. rec for @cov, kupioy (in this case we can
hardly suppose kup. to be genuine, as De W. and Meyer, simply from the & priori
difficulty of Paul having used the expression when speaking to heathens : the copyists
areuniformly so careless where these two words are concerned, as to leave such con-
siderations very uncertain), with E rel Cosm Thl-sif: ro (for 71, or Tt To ?) Gevoy ecu
D Iren-int : txt ABHLN ad p 13. 36. 40 vulg syrr coptt 2th Chr Ee Thi-fin Hil Ambr.
includerent deos, quibus omnia deberent
esse patentia et libera, quorumque hic
mundus omnis templum esset et domus.’
Where Paul stood, he might see the
celebrated colossal statue of Athena Polias,
known by the Athenians as 7 @ed, standing
and keeping guard with spear and shield
in the enclosure of the Acropolis.
25.] Oepameverar, is (really and truly)
served. So @eds ov puxtnpiCera, Gal.
Vint: mposo. | evdeio0a pév eort Td
TAVTEAMS fi) ExEwW* MposdetaOat DE TH Exeuv
Mév jwépos, ett S€ SeioOar mpds Td TéAcLoOr.
Ulpian (in Wetst.). As the assertion
of Creation contradicted the Epicurean
error, so this laid hold of that portion of
truth, which however disguised, that school
had apprehended: ‘Omnis enim per se
divim natura necesse est | Immortali evo
summa cum pace fruatur. | | Ipsa
suis pollens opibus, nihil indiga nostri,’
Lucret. i. 57. There is a verse in 2 Mace.
xiv. 35, remarkable, as compared with the
thoughts and words of Paul here: o¥, xvpte,
Tav Bdkwv amposdens brdpxwy, evdoKhoas
vay THS ons KaTacknvecews ev Hui
yeveo bat. tis | neuter, as referring
to the temples and statues offered by the
Athenians. Cwhv «. mvoyv] He is
the Preserver, as well as the Creator, of
all; and all things come to us from Him.
Compare, on T& wavta, David’s words,
1 Chron. xxix. 14, o& t& wdvra, Ka) ek
TeV oOY deddKapey ToL. 26.] é& Evds
aip. was said, be it remembered, to a
people who gave themselves out for aité-
xSoves : but we must not imagine that to
refute this was the object of the words:
they aim far higher than this, and contro-
vert the whole genius of polytheism, which
attributed to the various nations differing
mythical origins, and separate guardian
gods. It is remarkable, that though of all
people the Jews were the most distin-
guished in their covenant state from other
nations of the earth, yet to them only was
given the revelation of the true history of
mankind, as all created of one blood: a
doctrine kept as it were in store for the
gospel to proclaim. Not, ‘ hath made of
one blood,’ &c., as E. V., but caused every
nation of men (sprung) of one blood, to
dwell, &c.. See Matt. v.32; Mark vii. 37.
TavTés mposémov| The omission
of the art. may be accounted for by the
words following ézi (see Middleton, vi. 1):
or, perhaps, by the parallelism of vay
€0vos, mavtds mpos@mov: or perhaps, as
mas oikos Iopana, ch. ii. 36, because mpéds-
wmov THs ys is regarded as one appel-
lative. See note on maca oikodoun, Eph.
ii. 21. Katp. ... . 6p00.| He who
was before (ver. 24) the Creator, then
(ver. 25) the Preserver, is now the Grover-
198
HIPAZEIS AILOSTOAQN.
VEE
Ceres Z , 2s \ ¢ a aa ?
z=here (Luke €4 QO@ ‘YE YnArAagnosay auTov Kal Evpolev, Kat YE OU
Exiv. 39.
Heb. xii 18.
1 John i. 1)
only. Isa.
lix.10. op
ch. xxiv. 19 a
rett.
ach. ii. 18 ref, TWV
b Matt. viii. 30, » ,
Mark xii. 34, EOUEDV.
Luke vii. 6.
b SN
pakpayv
99 «k 0 s
yéevoc OUV
xv. 20.
John xxi. 8.
Eph. ii. 15,
17. (ch. xxii.
21 reff.)
Dent. xxx. 11.
30. viii. 16 reff. ecf. ) Pet. i. 6, 22.
Rey ii. 5. vi. 14) only. Gen. vii. 14, 2i ai.
h ch. xviii. 15 reff. i= bere only.
7,10, Rom. xv. 1.
3 Kings vii. 14.
onlyt. Xen. Mem. i. 4. 18.
Ynradnoacay D: -cuev a 3. 64. 95'. 105: -cevey EN 40 Ce.
for kat (bef evp.) 7 AD 36. 40 vulg(not tol) sah Iven-int.
rec ka:tovye (alteration to more usual word; the readg Kat To ts not, as
txt D*.
Dd).
Boots DS Tenens rinee ee
amo “evoc EKaoTOU nuwy
> ‘ ~ Nf ,
, aUT@ yao Couey Kat | Kwounba Kat
9 Nem = ; ~ vay, ~ ‘ Vk ,
D kad vuac | TomTev eipynKacw Tov yao Kat ° yévoc
c w. gen. partit., Luke iv. 40. xvi. 5.
i f = here (Matt. xxiii. 4. xxvii. 39 | Mk. ch. xxi. 30. xxiv. 5.
Xen. Mem. i. 1. 14.
(Rom. ii. 13 reff.)
m = here (Rev. xiii. 16, 17 15.) only t.
o = here (Matt. ix. 4. xii. 25.
(2 Pet. i.3, 4, Exod. xxxi. 3.)
ee esepores”
uraoxyovra &v
‘ g ’ 7 c ’
EOUEV, WC Kal TIVEG
~ = ,
3 UTaPYOVTEC tov Geou ovK opetro-
nN
[tev vomicew XevTw
\ > 4 > - ‘ - 7
“reyvnce Kal “evOuunsewc avbowrov, ° ro P Metov etvat
apyvow n Aw ™ Xaoaynate
ch. ii. 3. xxi. 26. 1 Thess. ii. 11 al. L.P. dch., ii.
g emphat., Matt. ji. 18. xxili. 30 al.
k=ch. iv. 6 reff. 1= 1 Cor. xi.
n= here only. (ch. xviii. 3 reft.)
Heb. iv. 12) only ft. (Job xxi. 27 Symm.) p here
avto D!:
Evpoloay
Meyer thinks, any sign that rec is genuine, but merely that ror in the marg had been
sometimes prefixed to the ye, sometimes substituted for it), with & a Chr Cosm Thl-
fin: carro: AE Clem: cat te D!: txt BHL p 13. 36 rel Did Thi-sif.
(wy D*) ap D. vuwy AL km.
98-marg 105: om D!: txt D°.
28. av7m D!: txt D%(°?).
aft ecwey ins To Kab nuepay D.
meas B(Mai expr) 33. 68. 95. 96. 105. 137 copt.
mointwy D Iren-int Aug Ambr Ambrst Quest Pac.
ov aKpay ov
utapxovtos E lect-12 Clem: amexovta 69.
wstep D.
TtTwv Kk. ve. bef ties D. om
for tov, Tovrov D!' e |? 19?.
21. 96 Iren-int : avrov E? 35. 68: ipsius H-lat vulg Hil: tovtwy 3: Touro 137.
29. ins ovte bef xpucw D.
7 apyupw &.
zeth.
nor of all men: prescribing to each nation
its space to dwell in, and its time of en-
durance. mMposteT., not mport., ap-
pointed, ‘ordered by Him.’ 27.| tn-
tety does not depend on émolncey, but
gives the intent of the above-mentioned
providential arrangements: that they
might seek God. bv «vpsoy (as rec. and
one uncial MS. have) has probably been a
careless mistake of a transcriber: Ti 7d Oetdy
éotiv, which appears to have been the read-
ing of D, is one of its own strange glosses.
et dpa | if by any chance, denoting
a contingency apparently not very likely to
happen, see Hartung, Partikellehre, i. 440.
Unradyoerev] Originally an Aolic
form, but frequent in Attic Greek, for
wWndaphoaev, see Luke vi. 11. On the
word itself, compare Aristoph. (Pax, 691) :
mpotod ev ovv | epnAapamev ev oKdTw
TH Tpdypata, | vuyl & amavra mpds AVxXvOY
BovAetoouev. These lines,as Mr. Humphry
observes, ‘seem at once to illustrate the
figurative use of the verb, and to express
the condition of man prior and subsequent
to revelation.’ kal ye....] ‘Not
that Hr is distant from us, but that
we are ignorant of Him.’ See Rom. x.
6, 8; Jer. xxiii. 23, 24. Kal ye, ‘et qui-
dem: see Hartung, Partikellehre, i. 898 f.
28.| There is no justification for the
pantheist in this. It is properly said
only of the race of men, as being His off-
for kat, y D-gr Iren-int: om coptt zth-rom,
xpvoiw 7 apyuprw AK 40 Damase Thl-fin : xpvoiw
avOperev H-gr
spring, bound to Him: proceeding from,
and upheld by, and thereforeliving, moving,
and being ix Him :—but even in a wider
sense His Being, though a separate objec-
tive Personality, involves and contains that
of His creatures. See Eph.i. 10, where the
same is said of Christ. év avt@ must not be
taken for ‘éy Him: the subsequent cita-
tion would in that case be irrelevant.
Cop. «uv. éop. | A climax: owt of God we
should have no Life, nor even movement
(which some things without life have,
plants, water, &c.), nay, not any existence
at all (we should not have deen). Meyer.
Storr’s explanation of (@uey by ‘ vivimus
beate ac hilare, and Kuinoel and Olshau-
sen’s of éopev by ‘real being,’ i.e. ‘the spiri-
tual life, are evidently beside the purpose ;
the intent being to shew the absolute de-
pendence for every thing of man on God, —
and thence the absurdity of supposing the
Godhead like to the works of his (man’s)
hands. Tov yap K. y. éop.] Aratus, in
the opening lines of the Phzenomena.. . .
mavrn S€ Aids Kexphucba mavTes* Tov yap
Kol yévos éouev. Kleanthes also, Hymn.
in Joy. 5, has é« cov yap yévos écper.
Aratus was a native of Tarsus, about 270
B.C., and wrote astronomical poems, of
which two, the @amwdueva and Sioonpela,
remain. Kleanthes was born at Assos, in
Troas, about 300 B.c. The Apostle, by
the plural, seems to haye both poets in his
eee TLVES
p-
ABDE
HL a b
edfgh
klmo
13
28.—33. JIPAZEIS, AIOSTOAQN. 199
¢ 30 ‘ \ EAA | , Coleen cin ’ s ¢ x
OMOLOoV, TOUC MEV OUV Keovouc TYC ayvotac UTEpLoW vq Hea ols
MOEN Ga shy ae Gian , reh iti, 17.
o UsOCgC Ta vuv maoayyeé él TOLC av OwWTOLC TAVTAC Eph. iv. 18.
v - Ww - 3] x , yor a ’ 1 Pet. 1. 14_
TavTayov — peTavosty, KaQore * EotiycEv ECG EN “ce ateRt:
~ Xxil. 14.
id EMA Zz ' i ‘ a»? , C b a , € 2. s here only.
4] pe El KOWEY THY OLKOULMEVHVY EV (KaLOGUV)), EV Levit. xx. 4.
? 3 ‘d@teet : Ge se fo . ~ h? , Deut. xxii. 3.
ay pt w woloEev, TLOTIV ~ TApag\ywv TAGlWV, AVAGTYOAC irepidwv
ae > ~ 32 2 , Nir a ee i = Tis idtas
QUTOV EK VEKPwY. AKOUVOQAYVTEC OE avaoTaoltyv VEKOWDV agpadetas,
i piv “éyAcbaZov, of 88 imav ‘Axovadus0e wee
cs ntt. i. 66.
ot : bév ox iy sala S =a él7a y KOVOOPME me o0OU TEL teh. ive 20 rem:
- = , th. i. 4 reff.
Tovrov Kal wadw. ovrwe 0 TIlavAoce ™ e&nAOev Ek ¥ Marki. 28.
: xvi. 20.
Luke ix. 6. ch. xxiv. 3. xxviii. 22. 1 Cor.iv.17 only. Isa. xlii-22. (-xn, ch. xxi. 28.) w absol.,
ch, ii. 38. iii. 19. x xvi. 20 al. x = ch. ii. 24 reff. y = here only. z = Rom.
iii G6 (Kocpov). Psa. ix. &. xev. 13. xevii. 10. a=ch. xix, 27 reff. b absol., ch.
Luke
xxiv. 25. Rom. ix. 28. xiv.17 al. Ps. asabove (z). Sir. Xiv. 26. c = Matt. xii. 24.
f here
xi. 15. 1 Cor. vi. 2. dattr., ch. i. 1 reff. ¢ =ch. x. 4¥. (ver 26 reff.)
only. Jos. Antt. xv. 7.10, miat. mapetxe T. AOyou T. Bi Ba matdas. g =ch. xvi. 16 reff.
h ch. ii. 24 reff. ii Cor. xv. 12 refi. k here only+. Wisd. xi. 15, 2 Macc. vii. 27 only.
Prov. xiv. 9 Aquil. (S¢axA., ch. ii. 13.) 1 Rom. v. 12 reff. m 2 Cor. vi. 17, from
Isa. lii. 11,
30. aft rns ayvoias ins tavrns D! vulg. kat Tous xpov. wey ouv E: et tempora
quidem vulg. mapiswv D1: repidwv D1 103 : despiciens vulg: txt D-corr.
amaryyeAAet BR}. ree aot (alteration, to agree with avOpwros. Meyer and De
Wette’s idea, that ract was altered to wavras to soften the assertion that God com-
manded av. mast wavtaxov,—is in the highest degree improbable), with HL rel spec
eth Ps-Ath, Chr Thdrt Cosm (ec Thl Iren-int : wa wayves D!: omnibus ut omnes Syr :
txt ABD‘EN 13. 36.40 Ath Cyr Chron: wt omnes ubique penitentiam agant vulg
D-lat coptt Aug.
81. ree dios (eaplan of xa8or), with HL rel Chr Ge Thl-sif: xaGo 18. 36. 180: txt
ABDER a ¢ 13 Ath Thdrt, Eulog Cyr Chron Thl-fin.
om 2nd ev D-gr.
judicari Iren-int ; judicare Aug.
Tren-int.
32. [eumayv, so BEN. |
maperxev(sic) D, rapacxev 32.
rec mWaAlv Wepl TOUTOV.
for ev n mw. Kp., Kpewwar D:
aft avdp: ins incov D
57, exibere D-lat.
33 kar ourws, with HL rel 36
Chr Ee Thi-sif: txt AB(DE)X 13. 40 arm Thl-fin—om ka: DE,
mind. The rot refers to Zeus in both
cases, the admission being taken as a por-
tion of truth regarding the Supreme God,
which even heathen poets confessed. ‘The
kat has no connexion here, but is (see
above) part of the verse in Aratus.
80. trepidov| In this word lie treasures
of mercy for those who lived in the times
of ignorance. God overlooked them : i. e.
corrected not this ignorance itself as a sin,
but the abuses even of this, by which the
heathen sunk into deeper degradation. The
same argument is treated more at length in
Rom. i. ii. The waot of the rec. and tra
mavtes of D! have both been corrections
occasioned by the apparent difficulty of rots
avOpdémos mé&vras. The genuine reading
gives the emphatic mdvras mavtaxod, fol-
lowing on the foregoing d&sertion of vv. 25,
26, its proper place. 31. KaGdtt |
See var. read. and reff.:—used by Luke
and him only : ‘ seeing that,’ inasmuch as.
év Sixatoc.| dicaioc. is the cha-
racter of the judgment,—the element, of
which it shall consist. év avdpi| Not,
‘in (by) @ man,’ but by (i. e. in the person
of) the man: the art. is omitted after the
preposition: see Midd. vi. 1. The év is
not instrumental, properly speaking, here
or any where else. Its judicial use is only
a particular case of its usage of investiture
or elementary condition : in the’judge the
judgment consists, is constituted ; he is its
vehicle and expression. See ref. 1 Cor.
and note for examples of this use.
miot. K.T.A.] ‘Quia res erat vix credibilis,
argumentum adfert eximium.’ Grotius.
32. évacr. vexp.| Perhaps here,
‘when they heard of a resurrection of dead
men, viz. of that of Christ, vexp@y being
generic. But the same words are used
in ref. 1 Cor. m@s Aéyovow ev bmi tTWes
étt GvdoTacts veKpav ove ect; so that
I would rather take them here to mean
that they inferred the general possibility of
the resurrection of the dead, as a tenet of
Paul’s, from the one case which he men-
tioned. ot... . ot S€] We must
not allot these two parties as some have
done, the former to the Epicureans, the
latter to the Stoics: the description is
general. The words dkovadpeba ....
need not be taken as ironical. The hear-
ing not having taken place is no proof that
it was not intended at the time: and the
distinction between these and the mockers
seems to imply that they were in earnest.
33. o’tws] ‘In this state of the
200
34
n as above (m). mn
Matt. xiii. 44.
eh. xxiii. 10.
3 Cor. v. 2.
Col. ii. 14.
2 Thess. ii. 7
Gen.
, , oer
pegoy auTwy
kal evpwv TiWa
yivel,
q=ch. xix. 39.
rw. &k, here
only 15 Re
amo, ch.i
eRe: xii.
3 Mark vii. 26. ccov *
36.
ES st
TW
ch. iv.
ver. 24, t= ch. vii.19. 2Cor. xi. 26.
Heb, x. 20.) v Luke viii. 55.
34. exodAAndqaay D!: txt De:
TLL
Cuap. XVIII. 1. om de ABN a 13 vulg copt:
peta Tavta Syr weth.—avaxwpynoas de, omg peta TavTa, D.
TIPAZEIS AMOSTOAQN.
rude & dvdpec
"Tovéatoy ovoma one
for o (bef apeom.), tis D: om B.
apeom. ins evaxnuwy D, complacens D-lat.
XVII. 34.
° KoAAnOEvTEC avuTw
P emtorevaay, ev olc Kal Avoviawoe 6 0 ‘Apeomayirnc Kal yun
OvomaTe ae Kal ‘ | erepor ovv avurolc. XVIII. 1 Mera
[Se] Taura “xwprobeic € EK TY Aduven nNAGEv ec Kop bor,
“Axbhay,
Tovrucoy
* mpocparwc ehnvBora a amo TNC "IraXtac, Kal
* TIpioxthAay yuvaica auTou, ota TO * Stareray evar KAav-
xwoiles Bar Tavrac Tou "Tovdatove a aro mC ‘Poune,
Esth. ii. 10.
1 Cor. vii, 17 al. L.P., exc. Matt. xi. 1.
u here only. Deut. xxiv.5. (-tos»
Ezek. xxi. 19. (-tayy, ch. vii. 53.)
aft
om ka uy. ov 6. D: aft yuv. ins
ins (D)EHL rel 36 Chr He Thl.—kat
rec aft ywpicbers ins
omavaos (inserted just as de was omitted, at beginning of an ecclesiastical portion),
with AEHL rel 36 Chr:
2. eAnaAvda D!: txt D?.
ad: diareraxOevar 137. 173.
tous D. rec (for
Wette:
13: txt ABDELN rel.
popular mind:’ (with
being heard again ?)
6 Ap. Nothing pte is known of him.
Euseb. H. E. iii. 4; iv. 23, relates that he
was bishop of hanes and Niceph. iii. 11,
that he died a martyr. The writings which
go by his name are undoubtedly spurious.
yuvy | Not, as Chrys., de Sacerd.
iv. 7, p. 412, seems to infer from the form
of the expression,—7KoAo0v0noey avTG meta
Tis yuvoikds, the wife of Dionysius: this
would have been 7 yur? a’tod.
Cuap. XVIII. 1.] Corinth was at this
time a colony (see note, ch. xvi. 12), the
capital of the Roman province of Achaia,
and the residence of the proconsul. For
further particulars, see Prolegg. to 1 Cor.
§ ii. 2. *IovSatov| It appears that
Aquila and Priscilla were not Christians at
this time: it is the similarity of employ-
ment only which draws them to Paul, and
their conversion is left to be inferred as
taking place in consequence : see ver. 26.
Hovtucév +. y.| It is remarkable,
that Pontius Aquila is a name found in
the Pontian gens at Rome more than once
in the days of the Republic (see Cicero, ad
an expectation of
34. Atovictos
Fam. x. 83; Suet., Jul. Cas. 78; Smith’s
Dict. of Biogr., art. Aquila, oneue):
whence some have supposed that this may
have been afreedman of a Pontius Aquila,
and that Tlovr. TG yéver may have been an
inference from hisname. But besides that
Luke’s acquaintance with the real origin of
om BDN 13 vulg sah Aug.
TETAX EVAL ‘DEL fk m 13: Texevar(sic) N!:
KkAavdios D!:
2nd amo) ek (prob corrn to suit xwpicO. ex in ver 1.
Meyer thinks the amo to have been a corrn to suit aro tTns ttar., but the other
suppn is much more likely, the same verb occurring in both), with H ¢fh1 Chr:
for ex, amo D.
TPOSTETAX.
om
So De
txt D-corr!: om B.
om
aft pwuns ins o Ke KatwKynoer(-cav D-corr') es Thy
Aquila could hardly but have been accu-
rate,— Aquila, the translator of the O. T.
into Greek, was also a native of Pontus.
From the notices of Aquila and Pris-
cilla in the Epistles, they appear to have
travelled, fixing their abode by turns in dif-
ferent principal cities, for the sake of their
business. In ver. 19, we have them left at
Ephesus (see also ver. 26); in 1 Cor. xvi.
19, still there ; in Rom. xvi. 3 ff., again at
Rome; in 2 Tim. iy. 19, again at Ephesus.
Sia Td Statetaxevar . . .| Suet.
Claud. 25, says, ‘ Judzos impulsore Chresto
assidue tumultuantes Roma expulit :’? but
as he gives this without any fixed note of
time,—as the words ‘impulsore Chresto ’
may be taken in three ways (as indicative
either (1) of an actual leader of that name,
or (2) of some tumult connected with the
expectations of a Messiah, or (3) of some
dispute about Christianity-),—Neander well
observes, that after all which has been said
on it, no secure historical inference respect-
ing the date of the event, or its connexion
with any Christian church at Rome, can be
drawn. It was as a Jew that Aquila was
driven from Rome: and there is not a word
of Christians here. If one could identify
this expulsion of the Jews with that of the
‘mathematici’? in Tacitus (Ann. xii. 52),
which took place Fausto Sulla, Salv. Othone
Coss. (A.D. 52), we might be on surer
ground,—but this is very uncertain, and
even improbable. The two could hardly
ABDE
~ HLR ab
edfgh
klmo
13
Se ee —t—“(its«CSCC ll
a st
201
w = here only.
see ch. x. 28.
~ x here only t.
TY Y ch. ix. 43 reff.
_& Zabsol., Matt.
= dteéyero of &v TY GUVaywyy Kata wav Sx a8e SKY:
7 a iii. 14.
oapBarov, “exelév te Lovoaiove Kal 'EXAnvac. % WC O& Tohuix. 4,
~ - \ c
" katnA Dov avo tic Makedoviac 6 re Stdac Kal o Ti-
XVIII. 1—5. IIPASZEIS AMOSTOAQN.
~ > - \ ‘ ‘ oes s f
“ roocnd\Dev avroic, 3 Kal dia TO * omorey voy etvat > Euevev
y Cp ot eet \ 2? , 5 N a \
Tap auTol¢c Kal noyacero, yoav yao OKNVOTOLOL
Dead .
TEX VN
1 Cor. ix. 6.
1 Thess. ii. 9
al. Exod. v.
“0 g , ~ X , c Ul = h 5 , 18.
poveoc, OUVELY ETO TW oyw O avaoc, lapaoTupoMEevoc a here only ¢.
L (-movetv,
Isa. xxii.15 Symm. -7octa, Deut. xxxi. 10 LXX-mss. & Alius in Hexapl.) b = Rev. xviii, 22
(ch. xvii. 29) only. Sir. xxxviii. 34. (-vétns, ch, xix. 24.) c¢ =ch. Xvii. 2 reff. absol., ch. xix.
8, 9. xx. Y. Sir. xiv. 20, vat. F. (not A.) d ch. xili. 27 reff. e=ch, xix. 26. 2 Cor.
v.11. Wisd. xvi. 8. f=ch. viii 5ref. w. amo, ch. xi. 27. xii. 19. xv. 1. g 2 Cor.
v. 14reff. Wisd. xvii. 20. h ch. viii. 25 reff.
axatav D, simly syr-marg. avtw D}-gr: txt D?. add o mavaAos D.
3. om evar D. ewewevy HHL Chr Thl: manebat H-lat. ™pos avtous D,
[npyac¢ero, so AB'DE k 13: npya¢ovro X}. | om last clause D. rec
Thy Texvnv, With H rel 36 Ge Thl: txt ABELN ¢ g 113. 40 Chr.
4. om ver am! fuld lat-mss-in-Bede : e:swopevomevos de eis THY Guvaywyny KaTa Tay
aaBBatoy SiedeyeTv kat evTiBers TO OvoMa TOV KUpLoU ingov Kat (om Kat D-corr) ember Se
ov povoy tovdatovs adAa Kat eAAnvas D3; simly vulg-ed syr-marg aft oaBBarov ins
evTiOELs TO OVOMA TOU KupLOU LNTOoU. for may, way H: wayra 138.
5. for ws de katnAOov, mapeyevovto Se D. om tns Lhk. for 0 Te, ToTE
D'-gr: ott 0. om a bef tiv. D 42. 173. rec for Tw Aoyw, TH MvevMaTt (sub-
stitution from misunderstanding : or perhaps, as Meyer, originally a scholium on ovv-
etxeTo, and thence has usurped the place of the origl tw Aoyw), with H rel 36 syr-marg
arm Chr (ie Thl: txt ABDELX® ¢ 13. 40 vulg syrr coptt «th Bas Chr-ms Thdrt.
om 6 bef zav. D.
have been wnited. Thecircumstance related
by Dio Cassius, lx. 6, which seems to con-
tradict Suetonius and our text,—vovds *Iov-
dalovs mAcovdcayTas avis, Sste yadeTas
ay avev tTapax7s b4b TOD BxAOU oday Tis
morAews eipxOivat, ove ekjAage pév, TH BE
matplw vouw Blw xpwuevous éxéAcvoe wh
ovvadpol(ecbat,—probably describes a step
taken by Claudius previously to this ex-
pulsion, which not improbably occasioned
the tumults which made the expulsion
necessary. The edict soon became in-
valid, or the prohibition was taken off: we
find Aquila at Rome, Rom. xvi. 3, and
many Jews resident there, ch. xxviii. 17 ff.
3. mpyalero] “The Jewish Rabbis
having no state pay, it was their practice
to teach their children a trade. ‘ What
is commanded of a father towards his
son?’ asks a Talmudic writer. ‘To cir-
cumcise him, to teach him the law, to
teach him a trade’ Rabbi Judah saith,
‘He that teacheth not his son a trade,
doth the same as if he taught him to
be a thief:? and Rabban Gamaliel saith,
‘He that hath a trade in his hand, to
what is he like? He is like a vineyard
that is fenced.’?” C. and H. i. p. 58.
The places where Paul refers to his
supporting himself by his own manual
labour are,—ch. xx. 34 (Ephesus) :—1 Cor.
ix. 12 ff. ; 2 Cor. vii. 2 (Corinth):—1 Thess.
ii. 9; 2 Thess. ii. 8 (Thessalonica),. In
2 Cor. xi. 9, we learn that supplies were
also brought to him at Corinth from Mace-
dtauaptupovmevosel)' 40. 68 Thl-fin.
donia, i. e. Philippi, see Phil. iv. 15.
oxyvorrotot | The general opinion now is,
that Paul was a maker of tents from the
‘cilicium,’ or hair-cloth of Cilician goats.
Thus Kuinoel, citing from Hug and Hich-
horn, says of the former, “ Ad hance sen-
tentiam comprobandam monuit, Ciliciam,
Pauli patriam, refertam fuisse hircis et ca-
pris villosis, eorumque villis Cilices usos
esse ad conficiendum pannum, Ciliciwm
inde dictum. Suidas: KiAuwcos tpdyos 6
darts’ To.wovTo yap ev Kidiwia ylvovra
Tpayo, bev Kal Ta ex TOY TpLX@v oUV-
TiWémeva, KiAikia kadovvtat. Hoc panno
usos esse milites, nautas, Nomadas, ad ten-
toria conficienda, v. Vegetius, de Re Mil.
iv. 6. Plin. N. H. vi. 28, ‘Nomades, in-
festatoresque Chaldzeorum scenite ... . et
ipsi vagi, sed a tabernaculis cognowinati,
que cilieciis metantur, ubi libuit.’ Solin.
33, ‘Scenite caussam nominis inde ducunt,
quod tentoriis succedunt, nee alias domos
habent, ipsa autem tentoria cilicina sunt ;
ita nuncupantur velamenta caprarum pilis
texta.’” If it be objected, that Paul would
hardly find the raw material for this work
in cities far from Cilicia, it may be an-
swered, that this would not be required in
the fabrication of tents from the hai-
cloth, which doubtless itself would be an
article of commerce in the markets of
Greece. Chrysost. calls Paul sometimes
oKknvoppadpos, sometimes oxuTorduos, a
leather-cutter, imagining that the tents
were made of leather; ém oxnvoppadetouv
202 IIPAZEIS AIOSTOAQN.
~ “i BY , SS a , ~ 6 i ’ ,
ittom. xiii. 2. tog Lovdatote tov yptorov Incouv. aVTITATGOMEVWV
- . \ Led Nc ’ tee ver Nees,
ce reel O& AUTWY Kal Aao ouvtwy | EKTLVacamEVvoe Ta muaTia
(
Prov a 34) ‘ 5) ‘ To @ Ce aT eee) N pe Ci syern ee
only. 3 4, Elev TOC auroug 0 ala esa éTl may Kepa nv UILWV
a ~
pepe measonec eyw “amo Tov ° yuv etc ra EOvn Topebooucdt.
k =ch. xiii. 45 7 \
reff. Kal peraBac exeiDey nADEv ec ouxtay Ttvog ovomart
Ich. xiii. 51 ‘
5 ,
i ret ey Iovorou 4 * oeBopévou 7 Tov * Oeov, ov a olKla my *“suvoHopousa
Matt. xxvii. ~
‘ap Xtovvaywyoc
[ite rA ert
25. Rom. i. TH ouvaywy%). ewt=
OTEVoEV TW Kupiy ouv odw TW * otkw avrou, kat 7oAAot
4 8 Kpiooc Oe 0
18. ii. 2,9.
2 Kings i. 16.
n =ch. xx. 26.
Gen. xxiv. 8.
o Luke i. 48 al3, T@Y lames akovuovrTec Y erloTevov Kal eBamtidovro.
aaa v. 16.
. fexc. John viii. 11.] Ps. cxii. 2. p Matt. xi. Lal.t Wisd. vii. 27. xix. 19.
q ae xiit. 43 reff. r=ch. xvi. 14. ver. 13 only. s here only +.
viii. 49. xiii. 14. ch, xiii. 15. ver. 17 only f. u = w. dat., ch. xvi. 34 reff.
w absol., ch. xv. 5 reff.
om Tors tovd. AH 1771. ins evar bef tT. xpiot. (see ver 28) ABDRabdk o 13. 36
vulg Syr syr-w-ast arm Bas Thl-fin: om EHL rel Chr Thdrt Ge Thl-sif. ins
kuptoy bef ino. D.
6. at beg ins mwoAAov Se Aoyou yewoucvou kar ypapwy diepunvevouerwy D syr-marg.
for avytitacc., [e]te taco. D!-gr: avOiorauevwy 15. 18. 36: txt D‘(D!-gr is
very imperf in vv 6, 7). aft cerivat: ins o wavdos D tol. aft Ta mwatia ins
avtov Db ok sah Thi-sif; pref, 40. 69. eyw al > vw |v vuy D'(?) (and lat).
mopevonat D!H'L Syr Chr(some mss).
7. om ku D1(?): ins D2. for exe9ev, [amo Tov axv|jAa D'(?) 137.
ersnAbev A D1(?) 8 a 13 vulg Syr syr-marg sah eth Thl-fin: txt BD?EHL rel 36 syr
copt Chr He Thl-sif. “ma D'yom A 2. 30. 104 «th: txt D2. ins
tit.ov bef coverov B! D?-gr ; tirov EX 7. 15. 36. 81 vulg syr copt arm Jer, and (omg
tovorov) 2. 30 Syr sah Cassiod (originally prob a mistake arising from ovopatuovor.,
the t1. being taken for the abbreviated form of trTov or tiT10v): om AB?D'HL eth
2 Macc. vi. 1, 9, 24 only.
t Mark v. 22, &c. Luke
vch. x. 2reff.
AVAL
Chr (He Thl-sif. cvvomopouvoa AD.
8. 0 de apxic. kpior. D.
oavtes HL cm syr We-ed Thl.
Tov Kuplov Nuwy inoov xpioTov D.
éortws dépuata eppamre (in Catena).
5.] See ch. xvii. 15; 1 Thess. iii. 6.
cuvetxeTo TO Adyw| ‘When Silas and
Timotheus returned from Macedonia, they
found Paul anxiously ocewpied in dis-
coursing to the Jews. This I believe to
be the meaning : that they found him in a
state of more than ordinary anxiety,—more
than usually absorbed in the work of testi-
fying to the Jews (see reff.) :—a crisis in
the work being imminent, which resulted
in their rejection of the word of life. (On
the whole character of his early preaching
at Corinth, see notes, 1 Cor. ii. 1—5.) Thus
only, the 6¢ in ver. 5 and that in ver. 6 will
both besatisfied: he discoursed in the syna-
gogue, &c..... but when Silas and Timo-
theus returned, he was earnestly occu-
pied in discoursing, &c. But, as they
opposed themselves and blasphemed, &c.
Dr. Wordsw. adopts the view that after
the arrival of Silas and Timotheus with
supplies from Macedonia, Paul gave up his
tent-making and gave himself up (cvvet-
xeTo) to preaching. But surely this is
ungrammatical. The aor. (@s KkaTHAOov)
and imperf. (cvveixero) require the render-
eis Tov Kuptoy D.
at end add morevoytes Tw Oew 51a T. ovoMaTOS
for cuy, ev H}. aKou-
ing ‘ when they returned, they found him
ouvexdmevov.” 6.] aipa as in ch. xx.
26. ‘The image and nearly the words, are
from Ezek. xxxiii. 4. De Wette should
have known better than to call a citation
from the LXX an ‘unpaulinijdher Spradj=z
gebraud).’ &76 Tov voy] Not abso-
lutely, only at Corinth: for ver. 19 we find
him arguing with the Jews again in the
synagogue at Ephesus. I have adopted
the punctuation of Lachmann, erasing the
colon after éyé: I shall henceforth with a
pure conscience go to the Gentiles.
7.| In order to shew that he henceforth
separated himself from the Jews, he, on
leaving the synagogue, went no longer to
the house of the Jew Aquila (who appears
afterwards to have been converted), but to
the house of a Gentile proselyte of the gate,
close to the synagogue: q. d. ‘in the sight
of all the congregation in the synagogue :’
for this seems to be the object in mention-
ing the circumstance. 8.| On this,a
schism took place among the Jews. The
ruler of the synagogue attached himself to
Paul, and was, together with Gaius, bap-
tized by the Apostle himself (1 Cor. i. 14) :
ABDE
HLNab
edfgh
klmo
13
«ee
6—12.
Cy \\ Xe , ’
9 simev 020 Kuolog * Ev
TIPAZEIZ AIIOSTOAQN.
x Wa?
nee ae
203
1 Th
Tlairw e ie ee
Ixxxvii. 1.
Van
ogapeards TW
My poPou, ad\Aa Aadee Kal fy *“ow7nonc, 10 * Sidre bye yoh vik Bt
euyut just a oov, Kal ovdete * emOnoeral oot :
Tou ® kakwoal z Luke i. 20 al.
Acts, here
oz, *dwre Aade sEotl pro. woAVS Ev TH OAR TadTy. ont ea
HWora Gs xii. 11.
Tov * Ad-you rov Qeov.
~ ’ ae }
tng Ayatag ' Kateméatnoav
d constr., 1 Cor. x. 13 reft.
xi. 1 reff.
9. om o D.
5: op. Tw mavdw ev vurtt D Thl-sif :
heh, xiii. 7 reff.
E-lat syr coptt.—«ar exad. D.
9
2 TadAtwvoc Oe i avOurarou ovToc xii. 2
k e ‘A e
onoOvpadov ot
ech. vii. 6 reff.
i here only +.
A) 8 > x \ = Ac 2 5 Ne , b)
EKAULOEYV OF EVLAUTOV Kal mnvac ES LOAGKWY EY AUTOIC 4 Luke i. 13 al.
L.P. princi-
ies Isa.
? ~ ~ bch. x. 38 reff.
loveatot TW c = here only.
Gen. xliii. 18.
f = Luke xxiv. 49. Jndg, xi. 17. gch.
k ch. i, 14 refi.
rec 5: opapatos bef ev vurti, with EHL rel syr copt eth Chr He:
€V OpaLLaTL TNS VUKTOS C:
A, as also Syr: txt BX a m 13. 40 vulg arm Thl-fin.
10. at beg ins aAAa (but marked for erasure) X!.
11. ree re (for de), with E-gr HL rel Syr eth Chr We Thl:
ev opauatt (omg Ev vuK.)
ceiwons(sic) D': txt Dt.
om ga D-gr E.
txt ABN a cm 13 vulg
add ev ropa D Syr syr-w-ast ; exes 40 demid sah
arm. aft eviaut. ins Kk. eva X& (but « is marked for erasure by N°). for ev
aut., autous D-gr 4 Syr wth; avros 37. 56. 100.
12. rec av@uvmatevoytos, with HHL rel Chr ec Thi: txt ABDN 36. 40. ol
tovdaiot bef ouoPvuadoy B g coptt.
and with him many of the Corinthians
(Jews and Gentiles, it being the house of
a proselyte), probably Aquila and Priscilla
also, believed and were baptized.
9. AGA. K. pt] ow. | So, for solemnity’s
sake, we have an affirmation and negation
combined, John i. 3. See also Isa. lviii. 1.
10. émt8. oot] See ref. and examples
of this usage in Wetst. :—shall set on thee,
as E. V. ads éoti por medvs]| See
John x. 16. Asour Lord forewarned Paul
in Jerusalem that they would not receive
his testimony concerning Him, so here He
encourages him, by a promise of much suc-
cess in Corinth. The word Aads, the ex-
press title beforetime of the Jews, is still
used now, notwithstanding their secession.
11.] The year and a half may extend
cither to his departure, or to the incident
in vy. 12 ff. Meyer would confine it to
the latter, taking ée«d@ioev in the sense of
‘remained in quiet :’ but (see refi.) it will
hardly bear such emphasis: and seeing
that the incident in vy. 12 ff. was a notable
fulfilment of the promise,—for though they
set_on him, they could not hurt him,—
I should be disposed to take the other
view, and regard ver. 12 to ixavds, ver. 18,
to have happened during this time.
12. Taddiwvos| His original name was
Marcus Annzeus Novatus: but, having been
adopted into the family of the rhetorician
Lucius Junius Gallio, he took the name of
Junius Annus Gallio. He was brother of
Lucius Annus Seneca, the philosopher,
whose character of him is in exact accord-
ance with that which we may infer from
this narrative : ‘ Nemo mortalium mihi tam
dulcis est, quam hic omnibus :’ ‘ Gallionem
for Tw TavAw Kal, TUVAGANCAaYTES MEO EaUTWY
fratrem meum, quem nemo non parum
amat, etiam qui amare plus non potest.’
He is called ‘dulcis Gallio’ by Statius,
Sily. ii. 7. 32. He appears to have given
up the province of Achaia from ill health :
‘{llud mihi in ore erat domini mei Gal-
lionis qui cum in Achaia febrem habere
ceepisset, protinus navem ascendit, clami-
tans non corporis esse sed loci morbum.’
Senec. Ep. 104. He was spared after the
execution of his brother (Tacit. Ann. xv.
73): but Dio Cassius, Ixii. 25, adds, of
adcApol batepoy emaméAovTo, and EHuseb.
Chron. ad ann. 818 (A.D. 66), says that he
put an end to himself after his brother’s
death. avGumdatov | See note on ch.
xiii. 7. Achaia was originally a senatorial
province (Dio Cass. lili. 12), but was tem-
porarily made an imperial one by Tiberius,
Tacit. Ann. i. 76, ‘Achaiam ac Macedoniam,
onera deprecantes, levari in pr@sens pro-
consulari imperio, tradique Ceesari placuit.’
Claudius (Suet. Claud. 25) ‘ Provincias
Achaiam et Macedoniam quas Tiberius ad
curam suam transtulerat, senatui reddidit.’
7. Ayatas] The Roman province
of Achaia contained Hellas and the Pelo-
ponnesus, and, with Macedonia, embraced
all their Grecian dominions. It was so
ealled, according to Pausanias (vii. 16. 7),
because the Romans éxeipécavto “EAAnVas
db? “Axalwy téTe TOU “EAAHVIKOU TpoEeoTN-
«dt wy (the Achaian league). “The Pipa
is mentioned three times in the course of
this narrative (see vv. 16,17). It was of
two kinds: (1) fixed in some public and
open place: (2) moveable, and taken by the
Roman magistrates to be placed wherever
they might s sit in a judicial character. Pro-
204
Ich, xii. 21
IIPAZ EIS ATIOSTOAQN.
DO's 058
reff. ; Tabi Kat nyayov autov emt TO ' Bipa 13 Aéyourec 0 OT?¢
" qaoa TOV vOMoV
n here only.
Jer. XxXVi.
(xxix.) 8.
1 Mace. 1. 11
only. Xen.
Mem. iii. 11.
1U.
° otBecbar TOV Ocov.
Ei plev [obv] a ig 1 adiknua Tl n ‘ padtobpynua movnooy, w&
we ovToc ToUE arOowmous
14 néXXovtoc bz TOU TlatvAou ° avoi-
yew TO oropa Elev O PadXtwv TOC Touc ‘Tovdatoug
oy
°Fonani.s. "TouSator, °kara ‘Agyor av 'nvecyouny tuor. 5 bE
p=ch. viii, 35 ’ 7 Uf) x un fs EL Oe
ff
ach. xxiv. 20, * Cntnpara cor TEpl * Noyou Kal Ovomarwy Kat YOMOU
. Xvili. 5 w Pi a€,, pics x v > is N Does , ?
ony. 1 Kings tou “ xa@ vac, * ofecbe avroi KolTNG EyYwW TOUTWY OV
z \ > , ’ \ ) Q ~
yan BobAomat sivat. 18 kat ¥ awndacey auTovucg amo Tov
xiii. 10. | , Med , \ 7 N
Brecon, 86) (Syparocss + 2!s" extAaPouevoe O& Tavteg Lwobiny tov
3 Mace. lil. 14.
O¢ Hv altiav anrmntos iUmapxew dietAnmT0, Kal Kata Novo, Diod. Sic. iv. 11.
u ch. xv. 2 reff.
w ch. xvii. 28. xxvi.3. Eph. i. 15.
(Exod. vi. 1.)
z w.acc., ch. ix. 27 reff.
2Tim. iv. 3. Heb. xiii. 22.
Heb. ii. 2. 1 John ii. 7.
Cyr. v. 1.11.
xvii. 8 only.
Job vi. 26.
x = Matt. xxvii. 4, 24.
= Xen. Mem. ii. 6. 12.
em. Toy TavAdoy Kat emtOevTes Tas Xetpas D; ins emiO. T. X. avTw syr-w-ast sah.
em, mapa X.
13. ins kataBowyTes kat bef Aeyovtes D.
teristic order), with DEHL rel 36 vulg Chr:
meet H 40: avatpere: 1. 65. 133.
14. om ovy (see note) ABDEXN a b c 0 18. 36. 40 vulg syrr sah weth arm Chr Thl:
HL rel He.—om nv Ld m 25: n Al.
t = 2 Cor. xi. 1, &e.
v = 2 Tim. i. 13. Tit. i. 9. ii. 8.
€kactos T@ Ka’ Euutov épa. Xen.
y here only. Ezek. xxxiv. 12. Wisd.
for
rec outos bef ava. (corrn of charac-
txt ABN ah k 13 arm Thl-fin.
ins
ins avdpes bef tovdaro. D vulg.
avecxounv BX! 13; so, omg av, A. 33. 34. 36 (confusion arising from avnvecx.).
15. rec (ytnua (corrn to suit adiknua and padiovpynua above :
ing, see note), with D'HL rel 13 Chr Me Thl-fin :
for eat, exete D-gr.
txt ABDX 13 vulg copt eth.
syrr coptt arm Thl-sif.
EHL rel 36 syrr sah Chr :
the plur has a mean-
txt AB Dt-gr E-gr & ac 40 vulg
rec aft xpitys ins yap, with
for BovAopat, beAw D.
16. areAvoey D! 133: txt Dt, abjecit D-lat.
17. [a |moAaBouevo: D!-gr: txt Dt.
rec aft mayTes ins ot eAAnves (see note), with
DEHL 13 rel syrr sah wth Ge Thl; o: sovda01 36. 180; vovd. 15. 18: om ABN e! vulg
copt Chr-comm(but om mayres too).
has perished) bef cwa@evny D: adprehendentes eum. .«
bably here and in the ease of Pilate (John
xix. 13), the former kind of seat is in-
tended. See Smith’s Dict. of Antiquities,
under ‘Sella.”. See also some remarks on
“the tribunal,—‘ the indispensable symbol
of the Roman judgment- seat,’ in the “Edin-
burgh Review for Jan. 1847, p. 151.”
C. and H. vol. i. 494. 13. wapa rT.
vépov | Against the Mosaic law:—the exer-
cise of which, as a ‘religio licita,’ was al-
lowed to the Jews. 14.| Though MSS.
authority is so strong against the ody,
I have retained it, as also has Tischendorf.
Its omission may be easily accounted for,
from the copyists finding it unnecessary
and seemingly out of place : but on no sup-
position can its iasertion be rendered pro-
bable. It stands very appropriately here,
referring to the complaint of the Jews,
either as uttered by them, or perhaps re-
capitulated by Gallio:—‘ Ye have charged
this man with lawless conduct. If now
this had really been so..... 5
Kata Adyov| See reff. We have the oppo-
ins peta (? there is a space, but the writing
. cum Sosthenen D-lat.
site mapa Adyov in 2 Mace. iv. 36.
av yveox. tp.| I should have borne with
(patiently heard) you. 15.| (nth-
para has apparently been altered to (jtnua
to suit the sense, there being but one
question before Gallio. But the plural ex-
presses contempt: If it is questions, &c.:
as we should say, ‘a parcel of questions.’
See ch. xxiii. 29. évopatev| e. ¢
Paul asserted Jesus to be the Christ, which
the Jews denied. ‘This to a Roman would
be a question of names. 7. Kad. tpds,
with emphasis: see reff. So Lysias (ch.
xxiii. 29) declined to decide Paul’s case,
and Festus (ch. xxv. 20) though he did not
altogether put the enquiry by, wished to
judge it at Jerusalem, where he might have
the counsel of those learned in the Jewish
law. 17. wavtes | Apparently, all the
mob, i. e. the Gentile population present.
Sosthenes, as the ruler of the synagogue
(4px. = either the ruler, or one of the
rulers; perhaps he had succeeded Crispus),
had been the chief of the complainant Jews,
‘
:
:
;
}
‘
¢
13—18.
IIPAZEIS ATOSTOAQN.
205
ver. 8 reff.
a? ? oe bw A) ~ | c % Na
any lovvaywyov eTUTTOV EUT O00 €v TOU nuaroc _ KQlt b= Matt.y. 24.
s ae
oveey rovtwy tw TadXtwre * euedev.
4 d U (al ee / et , = > tog et!
ere “ roocmelvag “ nueoac “tkavag, ToLG adeAdoie ‘ atorak-
vii. 6. 2 Cor.
V-sls
c constr., here
only.
1 Cor.
ix.9 refh)
Job xxii. 3.
°C 82 TlavAoe
4 ’ ~
auevoc ®eGerAee etc thy Lupiav, Kat ody avtw TotoKxiAXa 4absol.,here
> > ~-
kat. AxvAac, © KELO[LEVOE ev Key peatc THY Kepadny"
1Tim.i.3. v.5 only. Judg. iii. 25 F.
g ch. xv. 3y reff.
eneAAey EKHLN.
Wisd. iii. 9 only.
Mark vi.46. Luke ix. 61. xiv.33. 2 Cor. ii. 13 onlyt.
13. 7. h ch. viii. 32.
only. Matt.
xv. 32 | Mk.
ch. xi. 23.
xiii. 43,
f = ver. 21.
] Mace. xi. 3only.) Jos. Antt. viii.
1 Cor, xi. 6 bis only. 2 Kings xiv. 26.
e ch. ix. 23 reff.
(Jer. xx. 2.
tune Gallio fingebat eum non videre D-lat, D' hast......@
yarhAww.... ev, but the rest is illegible: txt D*.
18. aft mavaos ins epyn N!: erased by N°.
etemAcvoey H?, enavigavit E-lat.
and therefore, on their cause being rejected,
and themselves ignominiously dismissed,
was roughly treated by the mob. From
this, certainly the right explanation, has
arisen the gloss of “EAAnves. The other
gloss, of *Iovdato1, has sprung from the
notion that this Sosthenes was the same
person with the Sosthenes of 1 Cor. i. 1, a
Christian and a companion of Paul. But,
not to insist on the improbability of the
party driven from the tribunal having
beaten one of their antagonists in front of
the tribunal,—why did they not beat Paul
himself? There is no ground for supposing
the two persons to be the same, Sosthenes
being no uncommon name. If they were,
this man must have been converted after-
wards; but he is not among those who ac-
companied Paul into Asia, either in ver. 18,
or ch. xx. 4. The carelessness of Gallio
about the matter clearly seems to be a
further instance of his contempt for the
Jews, and indisposition to favour them or
their persecution of Paul. Had this been
otherwise meant, certainly «af would not
have been the copula. ‘So little did the
information against Paul prosper, that the
informers themselves were beaten without
interference of the judge.’ Meyer.
18.] It has been considered doubtful
whether the words keip. Tt. Ked. K.7.A.
apply to Paul, the subject of the sen-
tence, or to Aquila, the last subject. The
former is held by Chrys., Theoph., Aug.,
Jer., Isid., Bede, Calv., Beza, Calov., Wolf,
Olsh., Neand., De Wette, Baumgarten,
Hackett, Wordsworth (whose note may be
profitably consulted), al.:—the /atter by
(Vulg.), Grot., Alberti, Kuinoel, Meyer, al.,
and recently Mr. Howson, vol. i. p. 498.
But I quite agree with Neander (Pfl. u.
Leit. p. 348, note), that if we consider the
matter carefully, there can be no doubt that
they can only apply to Paul. For, al-
though this vow differed from that of the
Nazarite, whe shaved his hair at the end of
his votive period, in the temple at Jeru-
etAevoev, navigavit D vulg:
rec Tnv Kepadny bef ev keyxpeais, with DEH L
salem, and burnt it with his peace-offering
(Num. vi. 1—21), Josephus gives us a de-
scription of a somewhat similar one, B. J.
1. 15. 1, robs yap 7) vdow ratamovovpéevous
H Tio &Adas avd-yrais, COos edxecat mpd
TPLAKOVTA TuEepav hs amoddécew méAdorev
Ouolas, olvov Te apetecOar Kal tvphoacbat
Tas kduas,—where it appears from ~upjoac-
Oa: (which, as Neander observes, if it
applied to the end of the time, would be
Euphoeoba [or perhaps rather @pépew]),
that the hair was shaved thirty days
before the sacrifice. At all events, no
sacrifice could be offered any where but
at Jerusalem: and every such vow would
conclude with a sacrifice. Now we find,
on comparing the subsequent course of
Aquila with that of Paul,—that the former
did not go up to Jerusalem, but remained
at Ephesus (ver. 26): but that Paul
hastened by Ephesus, and did go up to
Jerusalem: see ver. 22. Again, it would
be quite irrelevant to the purpose of Luke,
to relate such a fact of one of Paul’s
companions. That he should do so apolo-
getically, to shew that the Apostle still
countenanced conformity with the law, isa
view which I cannot find justified by any
features of this book: and it surely would
bea very far-fetched apology, and one likely
to escape the notice of many readers, seeing
that Aquila would not appear as being under
Paul’s influence, and even his conversion to
the Gospel has not been related, but is left
to be implied from ver. 26. Again, Meyer’s
ground for referring Keipdu. to Aquila,—
that his name is here placed after that of
his wife,—is untenable, seeing that, for
some reason, probably the superior cha-
racter or office in the church, of Priscilla,
the same arrangement is found (in the
dest MSS. at ver. 26, and) at Rom. xvi. 3;
2 Tim. iv. 19. Lastly, the very form of
the sentence is against a change of subject
at kepduevos. There are, from ver. 18 to
23 incl.,—a section forming a distinct nar-
ration, and complete in itself,—no less
206
IIPAZEIS AMOSTOAQN.
Dev LE:
: i ik * N ie 72 , \ ay) z
ich. xxi, 28 ae elyev yap " euyny. 19 ™ carnyrnoav o& ste "Edecor
only.
fer: ne x s¢ > ’ , ~ , A 4 , bY 2 ‘
ke Inke x. cakelvouc " KatéAuTev °auTou, avToc o& snes ec THY
iv. 1. Phil. Ny , ~ , ’
Pp 20 «
0
1S atinore 6) Sune PI dee On TOLC ‘ lovdatorc. de ay
ee can d& autrwy ‘emt wAElova Xpovoyv petvat ovK * eqévevoey,
xX xi. 13. 91 he t? Ea \ > nN a me ,
m ch. xvi. 1 adAa ‘amoragauevog Kat etmwv tadw “ avakanbw
rett.
1 Thess. iii. 1.
pch. xvii. 2 reff.
n = Luke sy. 4. ch. xxiv. 27. xxv. 14.
36 only. 2 Kings xx. 4.
31 refl. s here only.
u Matt. ii. 12. Luke x.6. Heb. xi. 15 only.
rel vss Chr:
fin.
om ev keyx. eth-rom :
Dan. x. 13.
Prov. xxvi 24. 2 Macc. iv. 10. xi. 15. xiv. 20 only.
Exod. xxxii. 27. Judg. xi. 39 F.
txt (characteristic order) ABN am 18 vulg Thl-
ap|o|sevxnv D', orationem D-lat.
och. (xv. 34 v.r.) xxi. 4. Matt. xxvi.
q constr., ch. xvi. 39 reff. r= ch. xiii.
t ver. 18.
19. rec katnvTyce (alter ation to singular to suit natedurev below), with HL rel
36(sic) vulg syr copt Chr :
katavTnoas D-gr :
txt ABEN k 13.40 tol D-lat Syr sah eth-
pl. kat exevous EH bdefg 1m oo Chr We Thi-sif: tat tw emiovt: caBBatw
exeivous D:
txt EHL rel 36 Chr Thdrt Ge Thl-sif.
20. for de, re D! Syr eth: txt D®.
Thl-fin: txt D8. mAtov D.
aft epecoy ins Tw em. caB. 137 syr-w-ast.
for avrov, exer (more usual word) ADEN 13 rel 40: txt BHL 36 Chr.
(corrn to more usual form) ABN a 13 Thi-fin :
emiwenat NR, )
explanatory addn), with DEHL rel Syr syr-w-ob copt Chr;
‘Pp Y yr sy i
kateAemev AHL 13.
dieAckato
dieAcyero Dk vulg(but am disputavit) :
om avtay 137: avrov D’L bd g? k m? o
rec aft meivat ins Tap avTots
exe: tol sah arm: tapa-
pewvae autos 25: txt ABN c 13. 36. 40 vulg eth.
21. (On the whole verse, see note.)
sif. |
[aAAa, so ABDEN b cf g k 0 13 Ce Thl-
rec atetatato, omg «at, with HL rel syr copt Chr Gc Thi-sif: txt ABDEN
a 13.15. 36. 40. 105. 180 vulg wth arm Thl-fin.—om adda amotak. kat Syr.
(aft amerat.) ins avros, with EHL rel 36 Thl: om ABDN.
rec
ree aft e:twy
ins de: me wavtTws THY copTHY THY EpxomevnY Tointa ets tepocoAvua, with (D)HL
rel 36. 40 demid syrr Chr Ge Thi, but D has tnv coprny nuepav in the gr for the
solemnem diem in the lat, and omits the 2nd ryv, D' has also Se for we; corrd by D®:
aft QeAovros ins sed nunc volo agere festum venturum in Jerusalem wth-pl: om.ABER
a 13.15. 105. 180 vulg coptt «eth-rom arm. ree aft madw ins Se, with HL rel
15. 103. 180 syr Chr (Ec Thi-sif: om ABDEX a 13. 36. 40 vulg coptt eth.—Syr demid
Thl-fin have kat madwv.—D omits madw as well as de. kauW of avaxaupw has
than nine aorist participles, eight of which
indisputably apply to Paul as the subject
of the section: leaving it hardly open to
question that keipauevos also must be re-
ferred to him. There need be no en-
quiry what danger can have prompted such
a vow on his part, when we recollect. the
catalogue given by him in 2 Cor. xi. Be-
sides, he had, since his last visit to Jeru-
salem, been véaw katamovotmevos (see Jos.
above, note on ch. xvi. 6, and Prolegg.
to Gal. § ii. 3): it is true, a considerable
time ago, but this need not prevent our
supposing that the vow may have been
then made, to be paid on his next visit to
Jerusalem. That he had no sooner paid
it, is accounted for by his having been
since that time under continual pressure
of preaching and founding churches, and
having finally been detained by special
command at Corinth. That he was now
so anxious to pay it (ver. 21), consists well
with the supposition of its haying been
long delayed. év Keyxpeats] Key-
xpeal Kdun kK. Atmhy aréxwv Tis TédAEws
dcov éBdouhkuvta atadia. ToiTw pév
xXpavTat mpos Tovs ex THs “Aalas, mpds
de Tos ex THs ITaAlas TG Acxalw. Strabo,
viii. 380. There was soon after a Christian
church there: see Rom. xvi. 1. 19.
”Edeoov | Ephesus was the ancient capital
of Ionia (Ptol. v. 2. 8), and at this time, of
the Roman proconsular province of Asia,—
on the Cayster, near the coast, between
Smyrnaand Miletus. It was famed for its
commerce, but even more for its magni-
ficent temple of Artemis (see ch. xix. 24,
27, and notes). See a full account of its
situation and history, secularand Christian,
in the Prolegg. to Eph. § ii. 2—6; and an
interesting description, with plan, in Mr.
Lewin’s Life and Epistles of St. Paul, i.
344. ff. avtov |] Perhaps this may be
said proleptically, referring to his journey
to Palestine (De Wette): but on account
of the S€ which follows, I should rather
understand it to mean that the Jewish
synagogue was (as sometimes the case, see
Winer, RWB., ‘Synagogen’) outside the
town, and that Priscilla and Aquila were left
in the town. Sede Oy, aor., referring
to one, and a transient occasion : SieAéyeTo,
imperf., ver. 4, of his long stay, and con-
tinual discourses in the Corinthian syna-
gogue. 21. .| The omissiowof the words
here inserted in rec., de? we mavtws Thy
19—23.
TIPAZ EIS AMOSTOAQN.
207
%: cc # ~ ~ > , >) Q ~
mpocg upac Tov “ @cov ‘ OéXovroc, ~ avny On amTO THE v<ee 1 Cor. iv.
19. (Heb. vi.
‘ 3.) James iv.
"Egécov, 7 Kat *catehOov ac Katoapeay, YavaPac Kar ¢) gm
Xxxix. 6,
z? ’ x , ’ a / a3 > 4 os
aoTaoamEevaoc THY EKKAnotay Kare(an ELC Avroyetav. ie xiii. 13
r
eft.
x ch. viii. 5 reff.
9 \ 7, , Ye
23 kal ° ToUjoac B Xeovov twa ° eGnrOev, ? SEP Y OMEVOS y abiolee
e ) ~ aN N , \ ’ f , Luke, here
kabsénc rhv LaXdarixny ywoay kat Dpvyiay, aT nolcwy only.” = John
, N ae rea
TavTac TOUC pabnrac. SE ae
vii. 6.
xvi. 8. Jonahi. 3. b =ch. xv. 33 reff.
6 reff. ech. iii. 24 reft. F
perished in D': txt D*.
z= ch. xxi. 7. xxv.13. Exod. xviii. 7.
f = Rom.i. 11. xvi. 29 al.
a John ii. 12. ch. vii. 15. xiv. 25.
c absol., ch. xv. 40 reff. dch. xiii.
Ps. 1. 12 (14).
ins cau bef avnx0n EHL 18 rel 40 eeth-pl Chr: om ABD
a 15. 36. 105. 180 vulg sah eth-rom arm: aft avnx@7 ins de X1(N* disapproving).
for avnx6n to avaBas, axvAay de KaTeAimTEv Ev Ehegw avTOS yap ev TAOLW ax ders nAdev
es Kaicapetay ava. de syr-marg; simly 97. 187: Ht Aquilam et Priscillam reliquit
Ephesi, et ipse iter fecit per mare ac venit Cesaream Syr.
txt) Ds.
for tys, Tov D!:
22. ins kat bef avaBas D. (This ra was perhaps intended to be placed bef avnxn,
but insd here by mistake.)
23. ins ka bef xaGetns N'(N? disapproving).
kateéns D!: txt Dt. rec
emotnpiCwv, with DEHL rel 36 Chr Thl Ge: txt ABN 13.—pref ca D 38.
éopthy thy épxouerny mojo eis ‘lepo-
oéAvua, seems necessitated on the principle
of being guided in doubtful cases by the
testimony of our most ancient MSS. The
text thus produced is the shortest and
simplest, and the facts, of other glosses
having been attempted on this verse, and
of ms. 36 inserting the words without alter-
ing the construction to suit them, and D
omitting the kat before avhxOn, and the
5€ before avaxkduypw, tend perhaps to throw
discredit on the insertion. The gloss, if
such it be, has probably been owing to an
endeavour to conform the circumstances
to those related in ch. xx. 16. If they
stand, and for those who read them, it
may still be interesting to enquire at what
feast they may be supposed to point. (1)
Not at the Passover: for the ordinary
duration of the ‘ mare clausum’ was (Livy
xxxvii. 9) till the vernal equinox. Ac-
cording to Vegetius, de Re Milit. iv. 39,
“ex die iii. Id. Novembr. usque in diem vi.
Td. Martii, maria claudebantur.’ And we
are not at liberty to assume an exceptional
case, such as sometimes occurred (Philo,
Leg. ad Caium, § 29, vol. ii. p. 573 ; Tacit.
Ann. xii. 43; Plin. ii. 47). Hence, if the
voyage from Corinth at all approached the
length of that from Philippi to Jerusalem
in ch. xx., xxi., he would have set sail at
a time when it would have been hardly
possible. (2) Not at the feast of Taber-
nacles. For if it were, he must have
sailed from Corinth in August or Sep-
tember. Now, as he stayed there some-
thing more than a year and a half, his
sea-voyage from Bercea to Athens would in
this case have been made in the depth of
winter; which (especially as a choiceof land
or water was open to him) is impossible.
(3) It remains, then, that the feast should
have been Pentecost ; at which Paul also
visited Jerusalem, ch. xx. 16. (The above
is the argument of Wieseler, Chron. d.
Apostelgesch. pp. 48—50, who however
allows too long for the voyage from Corinth,
forgetting that from theseven weeks’ voyage
of ch. xx. xxi. are to be taken seven days
at Troas (xx. 6), seven at Tyre (xxi. 4), one
at Ptolemais (xxi. 7), jmépar mAcious at
Ceesarea (xxi. 10),—in all certainly not less
than three weeks.) The Apostle’s
promise of return was fulfilled ch. xix. 1 ff.
22. avaBds| Zo Jerusalem : for (1)
it would be out of the question to suppose
that Paul made the long detour by Ceesarea
only to go up into the town from the beach,
as supposed by most of those who omit de?
.... ‘Iepoa. in ver. 21, and salute the dis-
ciples,—and (2) the expression katéBn «is
’Avt., which suits a journey from Jerusalem
(ch. xi. 27), would not apply to one from
Cxesarea. aon. Tt. éxwd.| The pay-
ment of his vow is not mentioned, partly
because it is understood from the mere
mention of the vow itself, ver. 18,—partly,
perhaps, because it was privately done,
and with no view to attract notice as in
ch. xxi.
23.] PAUL’S VISIT TO THE CHURCHES
IN GALATIA AND PHRYGTA. Hither (1)
Galatia is here a general term including
Lyeaonia, and Paul went by Derbe, Lys-
tra, Iconium, &c. as before in ch. xvi.,
or (2) he did not visit Lycaonia this time,
but went through Cappadocia: to which
also the words d:eA@dvTa Ta aywrepiKd
bépn (ch. xix. 1) seem to point, 7 avw
Agta being the country east of the Halys.
208
= ver. 2 reff.
h here only t.
TIPAZEIS AIOSTOAQN.
24 "Toveatoc O€ TIE AmohAce ovenart,
AVE
“AdeEavdoede
Herod. ii. 77. g Cy h a - 2 ¢ "E
ich. ae 1 reff. tp Lcceaieg avo i at ‘ Karnytnsey EL pecor,
k = Luke xxiv.
19. ch. vii. 22. 25 m =
ae xxix. ‘Suvaroe & WV ev Taig “yeagais. otros nv " KaTnNYXN
: % ,
Idan >” pévoe thy °? odov Tov °kuotov, Kat? Zéewv ‘rw © rvedpare
’ , \ Or ta ~ ‘ ‘ ~ , -
m ch: ix. 20 é\ade Kal EedloacKen ak pipac Ta WEOL TOU Inoou,
EsKen ap ik,» , , RQ Toe op OB ie Sacer
niukei 4, “ emeiatapuevoce povov ro Pamrioua Lwavvov' °° * ovrde re
24. Rom. ii.
18. ioe: a8. 19. Gal. a wont. Jos. vit. § 65. o = here only. see Luke xx. 21. ch. xiii. 10. Ps.
Xvii. 21. P= ae (Matt. 1ii. 3 |.) q Rom. xii. LL only. r Job x xxii. 9
vat. Philo, vit. Mos. iii. 5 38, Sit li. p. 178. s = ch. xvii. 16 reff. t Matt. ii. 8. Luke i. 3.
Eph.v.15. 1 Thess. v. 2 (ver. 26 rary only, Dent. xix.18. Wisd. xix. 17 only. Dan. vii.19 Theod. (-Ayjs,
ch. xxvi. 5. -feca, xxii. 3. -Bovv, Matt. ii. 7.) uch. xix. 15 reff. vch. ix. 20 reff.
24. aroAAwvios D: ameAAns &! 15. 180 scholl copt arm: Apollon xth-rom : Apollo
vulg E-lat syrr sah.—ovouat: bef ar. D 13.
95. os NV KaTNXNMEVOS EV TH TaTpidL TOY Aoyoy Tov KupLiov D.
om Tov bef kup. Bk Thl-sif.
Aoyov D(as above) a b 0 36. 677. 76.
N!: erased by N°.
tov D 13. 40. 68. 69. 137.
with HL rel Chr He Thl-sif:
Thi-fin Aug.
We find Christian churches in Cappadocia,
1 Pet. i. 1. On this journey, as connected
with the state of the Galatian churches, see
Prolegg. to Gal. § iii. 1 KabeEqs im-
plies taking the churches in order ; regu-
larly visiting them, each as they lay in his
route. One work accomplished by
him in this journey was the ordaining (but
apparently not collecting) a contribution
for the poor saints at Jerusalem: see 1 Cor.
aay ds Timotheus and Erastus pro-
bably accompanied him, see ch. xix. 22;
2 Cor. i. 1; and Gaius and Aristarchus,
ch. xix. 29; and perhaps Titus, 2 Cor. xii.
18 al. (and Sosthenes ? [1 Cor. i. 1], but
see on ver. 17.)
24—28.| Apottos aT EPHESUS, AND
IN ACHATA. ’AtrohA@s | abbreviated
from ’AmoAA@rios : see var. read.
*AXeEavdpevs| Alexandria was the great
seat of the Hellenistic language, learning,
and philosophy (see ch. vi. 9). A large
number of Jews had been planted there by
its founder, Alexander the Great. The
celebrated LXX version of the O. T. was
made there under the Ptolemies. ‘There
took place that remarkable fusion of Greek,
Oriental, and Judaic elements of thought
and belief, which was destined to enter so
widely, for good and for evil, into the
minds and writings of Christians. Wesee
in the providential calling of Apollos to the
ministry, an instance of adaptation of the
workman to the work. A masterly expo-
sition of the Scriptures by a learned Hel-
lenist of Alexandria formed the most ap-
propriate watering (1 Cor. iii. 6) for those
who had been planted by the pupil of
Gamaliel. Aédytos | either (1) learned,
amtedadet D', eloquebatur D-lat:
rec for ino., Kuptou (see notes.
no argument {as De Wette| agst the genuineness of the readg :
artt aft prepp might easily lead to this:
txt ABDEN a ch 13. 36 40 vulg syrr coptt «th arm
yevet bef adetavdpevs, omg Tw, D.
for Tv odov, Tov
ins w bef eAaAer
eAaAet Se B. om 2nd
The varn in the art is
the constant omn of
thus we have it omitted also bef xvpiov),
as Philo, Vit. Mos. 1. 5, vol. ii. p. 84, Aiyum-
tiwy of Adyor, and Jos. B. J. vi. 5. 3, who
distinguishes, in the interpretation of the
omens preceding the siege, of ii\@ra: from
of Adytot,—or (2) eloquent: so Jos. Antt.
xvii. 6. 2 calls Judas and Matthias, *Iov-
datwy Aoyiwtato. and matpioy e&nyntal
vouwv. The etymologists make the former
the ancient,—the latter a subsequent mean-
ing. So Thom. Mag.: Aoylous rods moAv-
totopas of apxato. ’AttikiCovtes, ws Ka)
‘Hpdédoros* Aoylous 5€ Tovs SiadrexTikods
oi torepov. ‘The latter meaning is most
appropriate here, both because the peculiar
kind of learning implied by Adyios would
not be likely to be predicated of Apollos, —
and because the subsequent words, duva-
Tbs ev T. ypapats, sufficiently indicate his
learning, and in what it lay. See on
Adytos as applied to Papias by Eusebius,
prolegg. to Matt. § ii. 1 (a) note.
25.] Apollos had received (from his
youth ?) the true doctrine of the Messiah-
ship of Jesus, as pointed out by John the
Baptist : doubtless from some disciple of
John: but more than this he knew not.
The doctrines of the Cross,—the Resurree-
tion,—the outpouring of the Spirit,—these
were unknown to him: but more particu-
larly (from the words émor. pdvoy 7d
Barr. Iwav.) the latter, as connected with
Christian baptism: see further on ch. xix.
2,3. The mistake of supposing that he
did not know Jesus to be the Messiah, has
arisen from the description of his subse-
quent work at Corinth, ver. 28, but by no
means follows from it: this he ‘did before,
but not so completely. The same mistake
has led to the alteration of "Ijcod into the
2428, ‘UPAZEIS ATOSTOAQN.
209
” Ww eG , ’ ~ = > ,
no&ato mappnovaleo Bar ey T}) Ouvaywyy. akovoavTEc Pel Aa
~ \? Fahad Fe
Of auToU Tots kat AxvAac * tooceAaovro avron mien.
cal” axorBé yr ” e&eO + i8-6Stae Mahone aan
Kal © AKOIPEOTEOOYV aUTwW ECEVEVTO THY ~ OCOY. Bou o- er" 3 eft
only.
, \ > = b ~ b ’ . > off ,
pevou Oe auTou © dueA Dev” ste THY Ayatav © rootoebamevor och. xi. 4 reff.
2 ree? ~ = ida? , sue a absol., =ch.
ou adeA por eyoawav TOLC paOnratc amrooécaabat auTor, b in ae
a .e 4 fi , r 5 ‘ Lea reff, Josh.
oc Ta0aYEVOMEVOC ouve[da tTO TOAUV TOILC TETLOTEV- xix. 27.
c here only +.
Wisd. xiv. 18.
2 Mace. xi. 7
] ~ ~
Suakatnréyyero ™ Snnocia " exidakve Sta Tov ° ypapar ae". aren.
9 e absol., ch.
xvii. 10 reff.
f = here only.
(ch. xvii. 18 reff) Job xxxv.3F. (not A.) Wisd.v.8. jléya ouufcidXAerac Els TO pavavery, Xen,
Peete 4 I, 4 BAGS a a7 \ ia Tausar
Koolv olaTNg = YyaolToC évTrovw¢ yap Toc lovodatoicg
> x ’ ~
élLval TOV Xoisroy Inoovuv.
Cyrii. 2. 8. gch. xv. 5 reff. h absol., Gal. i.15. Heb. xii. 28 only. ich, xiit
43 reff. k Luke xxiii. 10 only. Josh. vi. 7 (8) only. (-os, 2 Macc. xii. 23 only. -éa, Eccl. vii. 8
F. only.) 1 here only t. m ch, Xvi. 37 rett. n= Heb. vi. 17 only ¢. (ch. ix. 39
al. Isa. xxxvii. 26.) och. xvii. 2 reff.
26. for ovtos, ntos D!: txt D': ovtrws m. om te D-gr H sah eth-pl.
om Ty D!: ins Dt. kat akovoavtos D'(et quum audivissent D-lat) Syr: txt D-corr'.
rec akvAas kat mpioxiAAa (alteration of characteristic order, cf Rom xvi.
3, 2 Tim iv. 19), with DHL rel 36 syrr sah Chr: txt ABEX 13 vule copt «th.—
akvaa &. efeOovto D: -Oero H. rec ins Tov Oeou bef odov, with HL rel Chr:
Tnv 0d. Tov Ocov ABN c k m 13. 40 am fuld tol syr sah arm Thl-fin: 7. 05. 7. «upiov E
g 36. 177 demid Syr: tov Aoyor tov kup. 66!. 98-marg 105 lect-58: seripturas domini
Cassiod (all these, as shewn by the varr, are supplementary emendations of the simple
Tnv odov): txt D.
27. for ver, ev S€ TH eheow emidnuovytes TiWeEs KopivOtot Kat akovoayTEs avTOU Tap-
exadovy dieAPerv ovy autos els THY TaTpida avTwy GuVKaTavevoayTos Se avTou ot
epeotot eypavay Tos ev kopivOw wabntas oTws amvdetwyTat Tov avdpa os emidnunoas eLs
THY axatay modu (woAvY D!) cuveBaddAeTo ev Tas exKAnotas D, simly syr-marg.
eis Thy axatay bef SreAOew EK.
30. 183.
28. aft Syuooia ims kat Kat otkov EH.
ovveBadXeTo A I)-gr 57. 99 Thl-sif: cvvedaBeTo
om dia Tns xapiros (D) ¢ 137 vulg(not tol) syr Bas-sel Aug.
ins diadeyouevos kat bef emdeucvus D 137.
Toy ino. eat xpiotov D sah: om toy HK.
kuptov of the ree., it having been well
imagined that he could not teach axpiBas
7a 1. TOD Inco if he did not know him to
be the Messiah: whereas by these words
is imported that he knew and taught accu-
rately the facts respecting Jesus, but of the
consequences of that which he taught, of
all which may be summed up in the doc-
trine of Christian baptism, he had no idea.
émtot. povov] Meyer well remarks,
that it is not meant that he was absolutely
ignorant of the fact of there being such a
thing as Christian baptism, but ignorant of
its being any thing different from that of
John: he knew, or recognized in baptism
only that which the baptism of John was:
a sign of repentance. 26. axprBe-
otepoy| The former accuracy was only in
facts: this is the still more expanded ac-
curacy of doctrine. That was merely 7a
mepl Tod *Inoov, as He lived and minis-
tered on earth: this included also the pro-
inise of the Spirit, and its performance.
27. mpotpeapevor| probably Pris-
cilla and Aquila principally. It may have
been from their account of the Corinthian
church, that he was desirous to go to Achaia.
Vou. Il.
After mpotpey. not Apollos, but the dis-
ciples (at Corinth) must be understood as
an object. Otherwise avtév would have
been expressed. So the remarkable read-
ing of D. ovveB.| contulit, Vulg.
contributed, to their help. 81a THs
Xaptros | Bengel., Olsh., Meyer, and others
join these words with cuveBdaAero, and un-
derstand them ‘ by the Grace of God which
was in him. But this, from their position,
is very unnatural; and hardly less so from
the 8:¢, whereas such a sense would rather
require 7H xdpitt. In the only other two
places where the expression occurs (reff.),
it refers (1) to the electing grace of God,
ref. Gal., (2) to the grace assisting be-
lievers to His service, ref. Heb. So
that I adopt the more natural rendering of
the K. V., those who had believed through
grace. “The ydp should be noticed. His
coming was a valuable assistance to the
Christians against the Jews, in the con-
troversies which had doubtless been going
on since Paul’s departure.” C. and H.,
edn. 2, ii. p. 10. 28.] Staxarndéy-
xeTo, argued down, as we say,—‘ proved
tt in their teeth: and then the 6a gives
P
210
m constr., ch.
iv. 5 reff.
n ch. ix. 3 reff.
oO ch. xiii. 6
reff.
p here only t.
see 1 Macc.
iii. 37.
2 Mace, ix.
23. 7
% ee)
aGyvw Actin,
Herod. i, 45
andal. see
Wetst.
q ch. i. 6 reff.
ch. y.@. ix. Sal.
25.
oapev,
rch. viii. 15 reff. 4
u Luke xxiii. 15.
1 Cor. vii. 16. Jer. xxxvii. (xxx.) 6.
TIPAZEIS AMOZTOAQN.
Kix. 4A "Eyéveto oe "Ev TW rov AzwoAAw etvar ev
Koptv0w, TlavAov ° SteA96vra ta ? avwreotka péon eXGew
ie ? 5 ie
> \ (4 od s,
ac "Egecov Kat evpetv tivac pabyrac,
’ Py 4 ~ ¢
T poe aurov u" AXA " oue : él 7Tveupa ayiov
s = Rom. xiii. 1).
1 Vor. ili. 2. iv. 3. Gal ii. 3.
w pres, ch. xvi. 38 reff.
AX.
.
Deiat .
elev TE TOOC
> ’ ~ eo ? Ud , 2 t « \
avtove Et ‘avevpa ‘ayy * haere ® misteboavrec; ot OE
w? , ,
ETI NKOU-
o id ’ > ’ ! c ee
3 ElTev Te : Ete TLOUV + eBanrioOnre 5 ot Oe él7Tayv
1 Cor. iii.5 xv. 2. Eph. i. 13.
v =ch. x. 18.
x ch, vill. 16 reff.
t ellips.
John ix.
Cuap. XIX. 1. for eyeveto to eA@ew, D syr-marg have @eAovtos de Tov mavdouv Kata
Tnv tdtay Bovdny mwopevedOat ers tepoToAUMa ELEY AVTwW TO TYEVLA VTOTTPEpElY Els THY
agiav dichOwy Oe Ta av. LL. EPXETAL.
xateAGey AEN a b o 13. 40 Jer.
atoAAwv A2L 40 Euthal: ameAAny &! 180.
rec evpwy, omg Te in ver 2 (alteration to
simplify constr and get rid of the characteristic re), with (D)EHL rel sah Chr: txt
ABN 13 vulg copt Fulg.
2. Te see above.
am tol syr Jer.
marg, simly sah: txt D'.
A B(sic: see table) D’.
ree aft o: de ins exrov, with HL rel vss Chr: om ABDE 13.40
aAA ovde mv. ay. AauBavovew TiWes neovoauey D'(and lat) syr-
ree ovde, with (D')EHL rel 36 Chr Thdrt Mare: txt
3. eum. Se D a 133 lect-58: 0 de eer. AEN 13 vulg copt Jer: euey ovy c syr Mare:
txt BHL rel 36 eth Chr.
txt ABEN 13: edeyor D.|
the sense of continuity,—that this was not
done once or twice, but continuously.
Cuap. XIX. 1—41.] Arrival, RESI-
DENCE, AND ACTS OF PauL aT EPHESUS.
1. 7a avetepiKa pépy| By this
name were known, the eastern parts of Asia
Minor, beyond the river Halys, or in com-
parison with Ephesus, in the direction of
that river. So Herodotus, speaking as a
Halicarnassian, calls even the neighbour-
hood of Sardis 7& tvw THs ’Acias, i. 177;
including in the term, however, many of
the inland districts, Assyria, Babylonia, &c.
So that the reading avaroAikd, which is
found in three cursives and Theophyl-sif.,
is a good gloss. Twos pabytas | These
seem to have been in the same situation as
Apollos, see on ch. xviii. 25. They cannot
have been mere disciples of John, on ac-
count of motevoavres, which can bear no
meaning but that of believing on the Lord
Jesus: but they had received only John’s
baptism, and had had no proof of the de-
scent of the Holy Spirit, nor knowledge
of His gifts. 2. éXaB. miotevo. |
The aorist should be faithfully rendered :
not as KE. V. ‘ Have ye received the Holy
Ghost“ since ye believed?’ but Did ye
receive the Holy Ghost when ye became
(not, when ye had become: cf. mposevid-
evo elmay, ch. i. 24, and Winer, edn. 6,
§ 45. 6. b, also note on ver. 29) believers ?
i.e. Son your becoming believers, had ye
the gifts of the Spirit conferred on you ?
—as in ch. viii. 16, 17. This is both
grammatically necessary (see also Rom.
rec adds mpos avtovs, with HL rel vss Chr Mare:
ABDEN ac h 138. 36 vulg syr arm; avrois 40 lect-12 Thl-fin.
om
[emmay, so
xiii. 11, eéyy’repoy juav 4 cwTnpta 7) OTe
emtevoauer), and absolutely demanded
by the sense; the enquiry being, not as to
any reception of the Holy Ghost during
the period since their baptism, but as to
one simultaneous with their first reception
into the church: and their nof having
then received Him is accounted for by the
deficiency of their baptism. GAN ovdE |
On the contrary, not even. .
qxovoapev | Here again, not, ‘we have
not heard, which would involve an ab-
surdity: ‘nam neque Mosen neque Jo-
hannem Baptistam sequi potuissent, quin
de Spiritu Sancto ipso audissent ’ (Bengel) ;
—but we did not hear, at the time of our
conversion :— Our reception into the faith
was unaccompanied by any preaching of
the office or the gifts of the Spirit,—our
baptism was not followed by any imparting
of His gifts: we did not so much as hear
Him mentioned. éotiv cannot, from its
position, be emphatic, nor does it mean
“were to be had” (Wordsw.), as John
vii. 39. The stress of the sentence is on
jAKotcauev: so far from receiving the Holy
Ghost, they did not even hear of His exist-
ence. ‘Tiros only will find an objection to
this rendering in éorty (expecting jv): the
present is commonly used after the aorist of
declarative verbs or verbs of sense, in the
clause which contains the matter declared,
seen, or heard: the action being transferred
pro tempore to the time spoken of. See
reff. 8.] Paul’s question establishes
the above rendering, to what then (otv
ABDE
HL ab
efghk
mo 13
1—5d. MPAZ EIS AMOSTOAQN.
* Ete ro Twavvov Banrtopa. 4
* «Pam rise wf (erate fia peravoiac, TW Aaw * Aéyww *
ad +
TOV EO YOMEVOY “er auroy *
? ‘ ? ~
ete tov [noouv.
3. xii. 16. Mark iii. 9.
darrangemt of words, John xiii. 20.
Xxvil. 46.
4. for de, re H 192 eth Thl-sif.
aft wwavyys ins wev (see ch i. 5), with EHL rel syrr copt Chr
rec ins xpiorov bef ino., with HL rel 36 Chr: for roy iyo.,
a 13. 40 vulg sah.
xpiotov D:
copt eth-rom Jer Fulg. (13 def.)
if ye did not so much as hear of the Holy
Ghost at your first believing) were ye bap-
tized? If the question and answer in
ver. 2 regarded, as in K. V., the whole in-
terval since their conversion, this enquiry
would have been more naturally expressed
in the perfect. See Gal. iii. 27, where
there is the same necessity of preserving
the historical sense of the aorists.
eis tt] unto (with a view to, as intro-
ductory to) what profession? They an-
swer, unto (that indicated by) the bap-
tism of John, viz.: repentance, and the
believing on Jesus, then to come, but now
(see ch. xviil. 25, note) the object of our
Faith. 4, eis T. épy. .. . Wa w.]
This peculiar inversion of words, see reff.,
seems to mark the hand of Paul. tva does
not’ give (as Meyer) the mere purpose of
his baptism (saying that he baptized in
order that ... .), but combines, as in
similar uses of zposevxouat iva and the
like, the purport and purpose together :
‘He commanded them that they should
(purport)—and he spoke to them, that
they might (purpose).’ See this discussed
in note on 1 Cor. xiv. 13. 5.| Two
singular perversions of this verse have oc-
curred: (1) the Anabaptists use it to
authorize the repetition of Christian bap-
tism, whereas it is not Christian baptism
which was repeated, seeing that John’s bap-
tism was not such, but only the baptism
which they now for the first time received ;
and (2) Beza, Calixtus, Calov., Suicer, Glass.,
Buddeus, Wolf, and al., wishing to wrest
this weapon out of the hands of the Ana-
baptists, oddly enough suppose this verse to
belong still to Paul’s discourse, and to
mean, ‘and the people when they heard
him (John), were baptized into the name
of the Lord Jesus’ This obviously is
contrary to fact, historically: and would
leave our present narrative in a singular
state: for Paul, having treated their bap-
tism as insufficient, wor ald thus proceed on
it to impose his hands, as if it were swf-
Jicient, cig TO Sv. T. Kup. eis
b
iva
eo] , \
5 axovoa VTEC O&
b w. eve. ch, x. 43 reff.
Rom. si. 31.
Mark vii. 2. ch. i. 19. Rom. (i. 12.) vii. 18 al4
ins o bef mavAos D a 180 lect-58.
add xp. 105 lect-12 D-lat sah eth-pl arm:
211
eivev O& FlavAoe ‘Twdvvne y constr, Luke
Zz Mark i. 4.
alc Luke iii. 3.
ch. xiii. 24
only
a = here only.
(see note.)
see Matt. iv.
TLSTEVTWALY, ° rouTéoriy
x Cs , ) x?
eBamris noav- é&¢ TO
¢ w. person, ch. xiii. 25 (Pau!) reff.
2Cor.ii.4. Gal. ii. iv. e Matt.
Heb. ii. 14 al5. 1 Pet. iii. 20.
Y Gor. ue. 15.
Philem. 12.
rec
Mare e Thl: om ABDN
om ABEN a 13. 40 vulg syr
Two questions arise here: (1) Was it the
ordinary practice to rebaptize those who
had been baptized either by John or by the
disciples (John iv. 1 f.) before baptism be-
came, by the effusion of the Holy Spirit,
Aovtpoy Taduyyevectas ? This we cannot
definitely answer. That it was sometimes
done, this incident shews: but in all pro-
bability, in the cases of the majority of the
original disciples, the greater baptism by
the Holy Ghost and fire on the day of Pen-
tecost superseded the outward form or sign.
The Apostles themselves received only this
baptism (besides probably that of John):
and most likely the same was the case with
the original believers. But of the three
thousand who were added on the day of
Pentecost, very many must have been
already baptized by John; and all were
rebaplized without enquiry. (2) What
conclusion can we deduce from this verse
respecting the use or otherwise of baptism
in the name of the Father, and the Son,
and the Holy Ghost, in the apostolic
period? The only answer must be, that at
that early time we have no indication of set
formule in the administration of either
sacrament. Such formule arose of neces-
sity, when precision in formal statement of
doctrine became an absolute necessity in
the church: and the materials for them
were found ready in the word of God, who
has graciously provided for all necessities of
His church in all time. But, in matter of
fact, such a baptism as this was a baptism
into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy
Ghost. As Jews, these men were already
servants of the living God—and by putting
on the Son, they received in a new and
more gracious sense the Father also. And
in the sequel of their baptism, the impo-
sition of hands, they sensibly became reci-
pients of God the Holy Ghost. Where
such manifestations were present, the form
of words might be wanting; but with us,
who have them not, it is necessary and im-
perative. Mr. Howson regards (i. 517 ;
es Sie St. Paul’s question in our ver. 3 as
212 TIPAZEIS ATOSTOAQN. b.0 6.
f ch. viii. 17 6
x = , ’ -~ Vf 9 é ’ ~ ~
ovoua TOU KUOLOU Incov. Kat éemtUEevTOC AvTOIC TOU
rei.
g here only.
, - = ‘ ~ , 3 13) ,
| Baek. 2, TlavAov £ XEloac © nADev ro ® wvEevpa TO ayLov * eT auTOUC,
h ch, ii. 4 reff. > hy , (2 , ey \ fe
ich-ii 17918 Y EXaXouv TE | yAwaoatc Kat ' Expopntevor. 7 joav 6 ot
28. of his- ” lc oe. \ ] 7d > ‘ \ , ‘
torical fact, TAVTEC AVOPEC. ~ WCEL *' OGdcka. 8 etceADwv S& ete THY
ere first.
k =ch. ii. 41
al. fr.
Ich. vi. 2 al. fr.
ouvaywyny eTmappna.acero “ert pnvac TpEIC ° Stadeyo-
\
plevog Kal P rciOwy ta TEOL tne 1 PBaoAsiac tov 1 Oeov.
dexaduo,
ch, xxiv. 1] ’ ’ M) > ' t
v-ronly. 7 me O€ TUVEC “eok\nouvvoyTo Kal ‘nmeMouv *kakoXo-
Men SLOSS | 2 yGtiaeer on! Rbobe ac ican
1Qonly. | | YOUYTEC THV odoy ’ evwrtoyv “ tov tAnfouc, * amootac an
m ch, ix. 27 5 - y? , ‘ 0 , 2 0 ues) ° 98 x
ref a) UT wY apwptsev Tovg palntac, Kav imEoaV taAg-
nch. Xi.
reff. De 2 =a = , 10 = Aer eee
ochre ‘YOuEVOC EY TY oxony Tupavvov. ! TOUTO Of eyevero
retl. abdsol. > \ , , ‘ ~-
ch. xxviii. 4 ETL ET? Ovo, WCTE TWavTac TOUVG KaTOLKOUVYTaG THY
rel.
p ch. xviii. 4. constr. here (ch. XXViii. 23 rec.) only. _ q Acts, ch. i. 3. viii. 12. xiv. 22 (xx. 25 v.r.) xxviii.
23, 31 only. Luke and Mark passim. r Rows. ix. 18 retf. : sch. xiv. 2 reff. t Matt.
xv. 44 Mk. (from Exod. xxi. 16). Mark ix. 39 only. u = ch. ix. 2 reff. iA v =] Cor. i. 29.
3 John 6. w absol., ch. ii. 6 reff. x ch. xv. 38 reff. y = Matt. xiii. 49. xxv. 32. Luke
vi. 22. 2 Cor. vi.17. Gal. ii. 12 only. (ch. xiii. 2 reff.) Gen. ii. 10. z ch. ii. 46 reff. a here
only ¢. (Gen. xxxiii. 14. Proy. xxviii. 19 only.) b coustr., ch. i. 19 reff.
5. aft axova. 5 ins tovro D (vss). om tov D! lect-58: ins D3. aft ino.
ins xpurrov D 64, 137 vss Jer Ambr: add further eis apeoi auaptiwy D syr-w-ast
(and Jer in ver 4).
6. emevto(sic) D!: txt D?. rec ins tas bef xeipas, with EL rel 36 Chr
Mare: om ABHN ¢ m. (13 def.)—xeipa D am demid Syr xth, D also places xespa bef
Tov TavAov. for nA@., evdews eremecey D Jer: continuo venit tol. €™ QUTOLS
D! lect-58 : txt D'. for re, 5¢ D-gr o 25 E-lat coptt : om m D-lat arm. rec
mpoepnt., with EHL rei Chr: epnrevoy al: txt ABDN 36. (138 def.)
1. *rec SeKadvo, with HL rel Chr Ee Thl-sif: Swdexa (see ch xxiv. 11) ABDEN
a k m 18. 36. 40 Chr-ms Thl-fin.
8. aft erseAOwv Se ins o mavdos ID Syr eth. ins ev duvamer weyadn bef erappn-
ciaceto D Syr-marg. om ta BD lect-12 vss: ins AEHL® 13. 36 Chr. for
cov, kuptov 36 (so c in ver 10; and for kupiov, Ocou k in ver 20).
9. tives wey ovy avtwy DD. aft Tynv odoy ins Tov xuptov E am? demid: tov Beov
5. 8. 73 Syr. aft tov mAn@ovs ins Twy e@ywy DE b o Syr syr-w-ast. TOTE
amtootas o tavAos D Syr syr-w-ast. ins To bef ka@ nuepay D ec. om
ev &!: but afterwards supplied eadem manu. tupavviov D-gr 3. 95!. rec
aft tupavvov ins Twos (see ch x. 22, xiii. 15, xvii. 34, where also D inserts tis), with
DEHL rel 36 vss Chr (ec Thi, add further amo wpas ¢’ ews dexatns D 137 syr-w-ast:
om ABX 27. 29. 81 fuld tol coptt. (18 def.)
10. for wste to eAA., e[w]s mavTes ot KaToLKOUYTES THY acLay [y |KoVTAY TOUS Aovyous
indicative that the name of the Holy Ghost
was used in the baptismal formula, But
the inference seems to me insecure.
6.] See ch. viii. 17; x. 46, and note on
ch. ii. 4: and on émpog., ch. xi. 27, note.
7.] ot wdvr., in all: so Herod. vii.
4, Bacikevoavta Ta TwavtTa érea EE TE K.
tpiqkovta: Thue. v. 120, wes dvtwy 5& TeV
mavtTwy moAA@v. See Kiihner, § 489 e.
9.| Probably the school of Tyrannus was
a private synagogue (called Beth Midrasch
by the Jews), where he might assemble the
believing Jews quietly, and also invite the
attendance of Gentiles to hear the word.
But it is also possible that, as commonly
supposed, Tyrannus may have been a Gen-
tile sophist. The name occurs as a proper
name, 2 Mace. iv. 40 vat.,—and with tivos
(see var. readd.). 10. érn Sv0} We
cannot derive any certain estimate of the
length of Paul’s stay in Ephesus from these
words,—even if we add the three months of
ver. 8,—for vv. 21, 22 admit of an znterval
after the expiration of the two years and
three months. And his own expression, ch.
xx. 31, rpretiay, implies that it was longer
than from this chapter would at first sight
appear. He probably (compare his an-
nounced intention, 1 Cor. xvi. 8, with his
expectation of meeting Titusat Troas, 2 Cor.
ii. 12, 13, which shews that he was not
far off the time previously arranged) left
Ephesus about or soon after the third Pen-
tecost after that which he kept in Jerusa-
lem. See Prolege. to 1 Cor. § vi.
mavtas tT. Kat.| Hyperbolical:—all had
the opportunity, and probably some of every
considerable town availed themselves of it.
ABDE
HLN ab
efghk
mol13
d covda-
pia...
ABDE
HLN a b
edfgh
kmo13
6—13.
IIPAZEIS ATIOSTOAQN.
213
’ , ) ~ ‘ Cc , ~ ’ ’ , \ see
Astav axovoat tov “ Noyov Tov © Kypiov, “Lovdatove te Kat © asi 49
”EXAnvae.
2 !
ETTOLEL
> ~ g , , b] ‘ ~
aoQevouvrac aTopiorabat avo TOU
i , NK | \ > > ~
' covdaola n ouukivOa Kal | amadXdooecOat ar avurwy
‘ ‘ 7 m , ‘
Tac vocouc Ta TE Tvévuuata Ta
13 0?
ox © TuX@v dvrp (said of Moses), Longin. de Subl. § 9.
d , :
11 Ouvauee TE ov Tac “ rvxovsac 0 Oz0c
f ‘ ~ ~ ,
dua twv yeowy [lavdAcu,
m Wied ,
Tovnoa " exmogevedBat.
\ ~
emeyelonoar 6€ Tivec Kal Twv P TEPLED YOMEVOY Tov-
d = Matt. vii.
22. ch. ii. 22.
Gal. ili. 5 t.
NA ee. Na €=ch. xxviii
WCTE Kal ewL TOUG “Tore
3 Macc. iii. 7.
h ‘ > ~
KXPwToc QUTOU | pikpes Kat
TAS TUXOU-
castpateas,
Polyb. i. 25.6.
ov T. tuxXoU-
cay atro-
ptay, id. i.
42.12.
f ch. xiv. 3 reff. g& w.emi,
Rey. xxi. 10. eis, Luke xvi. 22. 1 Cor. xvi.3. Rev. xvii. 3. 2 Chron. xxxvi. 7. absol., Mark xy. 1 only.
h here only. Exod, xxviii. 38 (42).
only t.
m = Luke vii. 21. viii. 2.
n = Matt. xvii. 21 only.
XXviii. 13 reff.)
Tov Kuptov tovdaiot kat edAAnves D!-gr: txt(but amaytas) D+.
iLuke xix. 20. John xi. 44, xx. 7 only t.
1 = here (Luke sii. 58. Heb. ii. 15) only. Jobix. 34. constr., Xen. Anab. vii. 1. 4.
Acts, here, &c.,4 times only.
o ch, ix. 29 reff.
k here
Luke only, exc. Matt. xii. 45. 1 Kings xix. 9.
p = here only. Xen. Gcon, x. 10. (ch.
rec aft «up. ins
inoov, with L rel Chr ce Thl: om ABDEHR ac k 13. 36. 40 vulg syrr coptt arm.
11. for ve, d¢ D!-gr a h 38 syr copt Thl-sif: txt D*.
ree emoer bef o 9eos, with
HU rel syrr copt wth Chr ec Thi-sif: txt ABDEN m 13 am(and demid fuld tol) sah
arm Thl-fin.
12. rec empeperOa (prob corrn to suit emt Tt. ao0.: see note), with DHL rel Chr:
mepip. 96. 142: txt ABEN a 13. 36. 40, deferrentur vulg.
105 vulg-ed(and tol) coptt Thl-fin: 7 «a: D-gr arm.
rec eLepxerbar (more usual word for the going out of evil
om 2nd ra D.
for 4, kar 7. 68. 104.
amahAacer Oat B'(R1) h! o.
spirits, see Luke iv. 35, 36, 41, vill. 2, 29, 33 al, ch viii. 7, xvi. 18), with HL rel Chr
(Ke Thi: txt ABDEN acdk 13. 36. 40.
rec adds am avtwy (supplementary in-
sertion), with HL rel Chr He Thi: e& avtwy sah : om ABDEN acd k 13. 36. 40 vulg
syrr copt arm.
13. rec (for kat) aro, with L 13 rel copt Chr e Thl-sif: «a: avo H 25. 73. 95'. 98.
To this long teaching of Paul the seven
churches of Asia owe their establishment.
11. od tas Tvx.]| See reff. miracles
of no ordinary kind. In what they dif-
fered from the usual displays of power by
the Apostles, is presently related : viz. that
even garments taken from him were endued
with miraculous power. 12;] The
rec. reading, émipepecOa:, may have been
occasioned by the ext preceding : the other,
again, by the amé following: in such un-
certainty the reading of the ancient MSS.
must prevail. oovd.]| handkerchiefs:
see ref. Luke, and notes there.
ouuk.| not napkins, but semicinctia,
aprons, such as servants and artisans use.
aupdtepa Avoetdy ctor, Schol. Diseases,
and possession by evil spirits, are here
plainly distinguished from each other. The
rationalists, and semi-rationalists, are much
troubled to reconcile the fact related, that
such handkerchiefs and aprons were in-
strumental in working the cures, with
what they are pleased to call a popular
notion founded in superstition and error,
But in this and similar narratives (see ch.
y. 15, note) Christian faith finds no diffi-
culty whatever. All miraculous working is
an exertion of the direct power of the All-
powerful; a suspension by Him of His or-
dinary laws: and whether He will use any
instrument in doing this, or what instru-
ment, must depend altogether on His own
purpose in the miracle—the effect to be
produced on the recipients, beholders, or
hearers. Without His special selection
and enabling, all instruments were vain ;
with these, all are capable. In the present
case, as before in ch. vy. 15, it was His pur-
pose to exalt His Apostle as the Herald of
His gospel, and to lay in Ephesus the strong
foundation of Hischurch. And Hetherefore
endues him with this extraordinary power.
[Dr. Wordsw. sees an especial fitness in
this having occurred at Hphesus (see on
ver. 19), and refers to God having shewed
in Egypt that His power was greater than
that of Satan working by magicians: and
it may well have been so, | But to argue
by analogy from such a case,—to suppose
that because our Lord was able, and Peter,
and Paul, and in O. T. times Elisha, were
enabled to exert this peculiar power, there-
fore the same will be possessed by the body
or relies of every real or supposed saint, is
the height of folly and fanaticism. The
true analogy tends directly the other way.
In no cases but these do we find the power,
even in the apostolic days: and the general
cessation of all extraordinary gifts of the
Spirit would lead us to the inference that @
fortiori these, which were even then the
rarest (odx ai TuxXovcat), have ceased also.
13.| See note on Matt. xii. 27,
214
q here only t.
TpOTOUS
éEapxmoewy
KatéAcTrev,
Jos. Antt.
Vili. 2. 5 (of
Solomon).
(see below
{u].)
r here only.
5 2 Tim. ii. 19.
Isa. xxvi. 13.
t= ch. xvi.16
etl.
u (and constr.)
Mark v.7
14a 9
Gel. 1G av
Sm
TO
only. eit hate! de bebe! Ry?
(2Chron, svc o avOpwroc Ew auToUC EV
Th Se ;? :
eh. xiii. 25 i
vat.) évop- Ge ?
ki€w, 1 Thess. v.27. ¢£opxiCw, Matt. xxvi. (3 only. Gen. xxiv.3. Judg. xvii. 2 F. only.
x constr. (without et), ch. ii. 5 reff.
z here only.
1 Pet. v.3) only. Num. xxi. 24. xxxil. 22, 29.
reff. w =he e only.
Jdamesiv.14. Jude lv. Deut. xxxi. 27.
(Matt. xx. 25 | Mk.
Exod.i.¥. Ps. xii. 4.
TIPAZEIS AMOSTOAQN.
ey e ~ x ~
VIOL [ot] TOUTO TOLOUVTEC.
XIX.
6 ~ 5? , , \ A tv ‘
Salwy 1 eLooktot@y * ovouadeyv "ert TOUC eXovTag Ta
m Pe QA m . ‘ s wv ~ s , ay ~ ee
Tvevata Ta ™ ToYnOa TO* OVoRa TOV” KUptov Inoov, AéE-
e = ’ 5 sek = c ,
yovTec * OpkiZo vuac tov Insouv ‘ov TavAoe * knove-
- ’ , > c ‘
O€ tivec SKeva Luvdatov ~ aOXtEPEWC emTTa
> \ \ x OF =
5 Groovy & 70 ™ aveipa
‘ sz y) ~ ‘ ? ~ 7 ‘ ‘
movnooy eimev avroig Tov Inoovy yuwoKkw Kat Tov
~ 9 “4 e - Q\ ! ’ Pee wher aoe
HabAov > éwiorapac’ tpeic 6 tiveg eore; 1° Kat eparo
~
ow
a \ m ~ .m
WyvytToO WveULAaATO TOVH-
t
, 5) , b» ? > = ¢
KATAKUOLEVGAC auUpoTepwy tGyuser KaT QUTWV, WCTE
vch. ix. 20
: y w. acc., ch. xviii. 25.
1 Kings x. 6. xi. 6. xvi. 13 only. a=heie
Ps, ix. 24, b = Rey. xii. 8 only.
99 syr arm: et de vulg: ex D 43 (the nat has been omd either as unnecessary, or
perhaps, as Meyer, because it seemed unworthy of St. Paul to couple him with these :
then the amo or ex inserted, to define the gen more exactly) : txt ABEX a c m Syr.
Tepiepxoueve D},
rec opki(ouer (alteration to suit the plurals preceding), with
HL rel vss Chr He Thi: egopxiCouey a o 86: txt ABDEN 18. 40 vulg copt Cassiod.
om tov D!': ins D3, ins kuptoy bef inc. X?. ree ins o bef wavaos, with
L rel Ge Thl: om A B(Mai) DEHN ¢ m 13. 40 Chr.
14. for ver, ev o1s Kat viot okeva Tivos lepews 0eAnoav TO davTO Toinoa €bcs ELxav
Tous ToLovTous ekopKiew Kat erseADovTES pos Toy SalmoviComevoy npkayTo emikadeto bat TO
ovoua AeyovTEs TaparyyeAAoMeEV Got EV InTOU ov TavAos Knpvacet e~eAPew (cE bef kyp. D!)
D syr-marg. twos B(D) E-gr 36 demid Syr copt (alteration, ties not appearing
to the copyist to agree with the definite extra): twas m: txt AHLN 13 rel vulg E-lat
syr Chr He Thl.
rec utot bef cxeva (omg it after erra), with (D) HL rel 36 (Syr
copt) syr Chr: om m 31. 180: txt ABEN a 13(sic) 141. 15. 18. 40 vulg arm (sah).
okevia A. tovdator Li.
ceding) ABN a 13.
15. rote amexpi0n To wv. To Tov. [kat] exrey D, kau insd by Dt.
om a (originally perhaps owing to ot of viot pre-
rec om avrToais,
with EHL rel ec Thl-sif: ins ABDN a c m 13. 36 vulg syrr coptt «th arm Chr Thl-
fin.
ins wev bef moovy B E-gr N3 ¢ 40. 187 syr.
16. rec epaddXouevos, with (D)EHLN? rel Chr Ge Thl: evaddou. D: txt A B(Vere
expr)N!.
rec em’ avtous bef 0 av6pwmos (alteration of characteristic order), with
(D)HL vss Chr He Thl-sif: om em avrous a 69. 105 arm: E places it aft to wovnpov :
txt ABN cm 13. 40 am(and demid fuld) Chr-comm Thl-fin.—e:s avtous D vulg.
rec ins kat bef katraxuptevoas, with HLN! rel 36 vulg Chr: om ABDEN? a ¢ 13. 40 copt
arm.
txt BX co 13.
kuptevoas D: xparnoas 15. 18. 36. 180: karaxvpievoay AEHL rel: -ceva:
rec for appotepwy, avtwy (corrn to suit extra above :
see note), with
_ HL rel Syr coptt: avrov d: omnium syr wth-rom: om E: txt ABDN a 13.36. 40 vulg
respecting the Jewish exorcists. These
men, seeing the success of Paul’s agency in
casting out devils, adopt the Name of Jesus
in their own exorcisms. 14. apyx-
tepéws |] The word must be used in a wide
sense. He may have been chief of the
priests resident at Ephesus: or perhaps
chief of one of the twenty-four courses.
tives does not belong to érrd, see
ch. xxiii. 23, but stands alone, recalling the
tives of the preceding verse, Without
the of it would be, ‘certain men, &e. were
attempting this, joav and mowidvres being
taken together. With it, They were (it
was) certain men, seven sons, &c. who
attempted this. 15. | The narrative,
from describing the nature of the attempt,
passes to a single case in which it was tried,
and in which (sce below) two only of the
brothers were apparently, concerned.
No difference between yivéoKw and éxista-
fou must be pressed:—the two verbs are ap-
parently used as separating Jesus and Paul,
so that they do not stand together in the
same category :—as in E. V., Jesus I know,
and Paul I know: the One being God in
heaven, the other man on earth.
16. &udorépwv | The weight of MSS. evi-
dence for this reading is even surpassed
by_its internal probability. There would
be every reason, as seven have been before
mentioned, for altering it into adtév: but
no imaginable one for substituting it, for
a’tav. Two only, it would seem, were
ABDE
HLN a b
edfgh
kmo 13
|
rh
14—20.
vuvove Kal ° TeTOAUMATIOBEVOU
b ¢
IIPAZEIS AILOSTOAQN.
215
ec Luke xx. 12
eK TOU olKou only. Ezek.
: expuyeny &
e ‘
exeivou. 7 rouro 82 éyévero yvworov mao Tovdatote aaa a.
= ‘ y) , Judg. vi. D.
re kat “EX\Anow roi ‘KaToiKOvoW THY Epecor, Kate = eh i 19
’ / , ’ , \ , ,
5 eqemeaev popsoc él TmavTac avrouc, kal Emeyadtveto fo ae
eS} ~ ' b) ~ 18 ’ ~ i g ch. viii. 16
TO Ovopa tov Kupiov Inaov. woAAol te Twv * TET A en
: , 7 k > , Ce Mare: = Se
OTEVKOTWY NOXOVTO eCopoAoyoupevor Kat ava ee (ae ee:
‘ m , . ~ , 5 ret
AovrTec Tac Toagec auTWY, Mp: ikavot Oe Tw Ta ° TEpl- a ey
ark i. 4.
a I") “ = g B i[3 r James v.16 t.
foya TPACavTwyv GVVEVEYKAVTEC rac t ove ROT = ative: 27
, s? ? , s V6 , N u N reff.
eKQALtOV EVWTLOV TAVTWV Kal ouvewnptcay Tac Tiuag m= eee
27 uke
31 oa <4 Nicer ire w? ! x MY , er rr
auT@Y Kal enneuy Di ew danlet pupladac wévre. 0 OUTWG (Sees.
| Kata K aroc TOU * KU tov 0 7X6 oc @nucavev Kal to vey ie gol a:
/ €V. sii. S only.
e ? Y = X 2 Chron.
xii. 15. n =ch. xii. 12 reff. o = here (1 Tim. y. 13) onlyt. (-yerCeobur,
2 Thess iii. 11. Sir. iii, 23. -yeéa, Sir. xli. 22. p =here only t. Xen. Anab. vi. 4.9.
q Mi Ae i lal. Dan.ix. 2. r Matt. xiii. 30. Lue iii. 17 al. Gen. xxxviii. 24. s=ch.
25 reff. t here only t. nu = Matt. xxvii.9. 1 Cor. vi. 20. vii. 23. Ps. xlviii. 8.
ve ae XXvii. 28. 1 Chron xx. 2. w sing., = here only. 3 Kings x. 29. see Matt. xxvii. 9.
x Luke sii. J. ch. xxi. 20. Heb. xii. 22. Jnde14. Rev. v. il. 1x.16only. Dent. xxsiii. 17. y here
only t. Jos. Antt. viii. 11. 3. zch. xiii. 44 ref a intr, ch. vi. 7 reff. b = here
only. Exod. i. 20.
Thl-fin. evioxucey N'e: Kraticxvee Cc.
17. ins Tous bef tovd. E 192.
ewecey (mistake :
ins o bef moBos N'.
18. for re, 5¢ D 36 coptt.
agst Bch that there is no insn aft efou.)
19. om de D!-gr: re E syrr eth Bas Chr.
aft cuveveyxaytes ins ka D.
last ka: D': ins D?.
om tov D (0!
om te DE sah.
or prep omd as unnecessary) AD 13, ereev E.—doBos bef ex. D.
mistevovtwy D:;
katekavoay EB vulg.
Xen. Cyr. vi. 1. 24. see ver. 16.
aft expuyev ins avtous A.
om tyv A'E ¢ 137.
2) 101. 133.
-cavtwy E 28. (Mai states expr
txt D?.
ovveateyyngizay KE.
Twv Tepi Ta epya D':
om
20. rec o Aoyos bef Tov kupiov (corrn of characteristic order), with (E)HLN?* 13. 36
rel copt Chr:
KaTQ@ KpaTos evicxuoEY Karn TloTIs Tov Oeov
toxvoev &.
thus employed on this particular occasion :
and Luke has retained the word as it stood
in the record furnished to him. Whether
any similar occurrence happened to the
rest, we are not informed: this one is se-
lected as most notorious. yupvods |
With their clothes torn off them. 18. ]
The natural effect of such an occurrence
was to induce a horror of magical arts, &e.,
which some were still continuing to coun-
tenance or practise secretly, together witha
profession of Christianity. ‘Such persons
now came forward and confessed their
error. The mpdéers of this verse denotes
the association with such practices : the
next verse treats of the magicians them-
selves. 19. weplepya| ‘male sedula’
(s curiosa,’ Hor. Epod. xviii. 25). tls TOY
TEplepyoy in Aristenet. Ep. fi lS Mrs er
magician’ (Kuin.). Tas BiBXovs | Ma-
gical formula, or receipt-books, or written
Grnleess These last Ww ere celebrated by the
name of “Epéota ypdumara. So Eustath.
ad Hom. Od. 7. p. 694 (Kuin.) : “Epeota
ypeppata—emedal yap TwWes pasty eK el-
vot hoav, &s Kal Kpotcos em) THs mupas
ciney aperron Kal ev “Odrvuria 5€ pact,
txt ABN!.—for kup., @cov E 21. 73. 106? vulg syr sah arm.
OUTwS
quéave at emAnPuveto (enAnOvve D') D.
MiAjoiov Kal “Ed~éoiov madadvtav roy
MiAjovoy My dvvac bau mahatewy dia To Toy
Erepoy Tepl TO BOT PAYGA® Exe Ta Edéoia
ypdupar a ov yoo bevtwy Kal AvéévTwy
avT@, TplaxovTaKis To Eébfs meoeiy Toy
’"Egéoioy. See more illustrations in Wetst.
They were copies of the mystic words
engraved on the image of the Ephesian
Artemis. Eustath. in C. and H. ii. 16.
apy. pup. mév.| 50,000 drachme,
i. e. denarii: for the drachma of the Au-
gustan and following ages was not the
real Attic drachma, but the Roman de-
narius—about 83d. of our money: which
makes the entire value about £1770. That
drachme and not shekels (Grot., Hama.)
are meant, is plain : for Luke is writing o
a Grecian town, and to a Greek. 20
kata k«pétos| “Eo modo dicitur urb
aipeicOat Kata Kpdros, que vi expugnatur
apud Plat. Apophth. p. 176. Hine lucem
mutuatur locus, Act. xix, 20, ubi dicitur
verbum Domini rata npatos icxvev, per
vim invalescere, quasi oppugnans et vi
expugnans corda hominum.” Hermann on
Viger, p. 632. So Kar pacpoy, Kat’ GAt-
yov, Kod’ smepBoAnr, *kaTa Kécpoy. See
216
c = Luke vii.
Pe
d = Luke ix.
TIPAZEIS AMOSTOAQN,
XIX.
-~ nA e ~ > ~
21°Qe 8 ° exAnowOn ravra, “<0ero o TlavAoc ev rw
’ A
° rvevmate * dteAOwv thy Makedoviay Kat Ayaiav TO0-
g ‘ ‘\ , 0
usta TO YEVvET at
92 > / woe
= atoorétAac Oe 1c
44, xxi. 14.
ch. v.4
-V.4. , , . , > ‘ er
coh Th pevec Oat ELC leooooA uma, ELTWV OTL
eto ne exer Ser me Kat Popny i iOety
Tei. c .
f ver. 1. x ’ , ~ k , oR ,
gehi-3- xx. Hy Maxedoviav oto tov § dtakovotvtwy autw, Tinobeov
15, 26 al.
Gen. xiv. 17.
h = ch. iv. 12
reff.
i of place, =
here only.
k Matt. xxv. 44.
Rom. xy. 25
alt
1 = here (ch. iii.
5 reff. ly. uv [/ ‘ed w li
Genwi lu, | WaPELYETO TOLC “ TEXVITAIC
12. Xen. : ~
Cyr. v. 4. 38, m = Mark i. 39. ch. viii. 40. xxi. 13. xxiii. 1]. xxv, dal.
Nam, xxii. 4. aa ch. xii. 18 (reff.).
Jer. vi. 29 only. (-7etv, Jer. ib.)
s=hereonly. émenWav dé.
Isa. ii. 20. uch, xvi. 16 (reff).
OP a 3: bn Nye Nts ST pale We pa Oa?
EyeveTo O& KaTa TOV Kaloov — EKELVOY TAaPAaXOC
>
q 2? , r -
aoyupokoT0g — TOW
p ch. ix
r partic., = ch. xv. 2. xvi. 34. 2 Pet.i.19. Winer, edn. 6, § 45. 4.
«+ Xpugovs vaouvs, Diod. Sic. xx. 14.
vmid, = Col iy.J. Tit. ii. 7. see Winer, edn. 6, § 38.6.
aN 3h de | Wicd) , m ’” ‘ ? ,
Kal Eoasroy, auTog ETEDYEV YPOVOY €1c THY Actav.
ret)
OUK
-
a oAtyoc TEL Prne osov. 74 Anunrpwoc yao Tic OVvoLaTt
s WOE Mee !
vaovg ~— apyueouc Aotémtdoc
oO , oO > ' u? '
OUK oXtynv foyaolay,
nch. xii. 1 only.
. 2 reff. q hereonly. Judg. xvii. 4 vat.
t2Tim. ii. 20. Rev. ix. 20 only.
w ver. 88. Rey. xviii.22. Heb. xi. 10 only. Deut, xxvii. 15. (-vn, ch. 3viii. 3.)
21. for ws to tavta, tore D.
om ev H-gr 40. 68 al.
eda D.
Chr-comm Thl-fin, ceporoAvooAvpa D.
22. for amoort. Se, kat amoot. D Syr eth.
vouvTwy avTw, Siakovouy {| = -wy? | avtwy A: for avTw, avTwy e.
written ei, but marked it for erasure.
40 arm. ev Tn acta D sah.
24. for ovouati, nv D-gr: om D-lat sah.
ins os bef maperxe (repeating the termination of Apreuidos) D.
(confusion from rors follg) A'DE: txt A7BHLRX rel 36 Chr Mic Thl.
(0) mavaos bef «Aero DE 137 copt.—om o D 1387.
dreAserw ADE k.
uniformity) ADE ab do13: om BHLX® rel 36 Chr (He Thi.
rec tepovoaAnu, with HL rel 36 We Thl-sif: txt ABEX ck 40 vulg
ins tnv bef axaay (corrn for
ins kat bef mopeu-
for Siaro-
aft avtw &! has
aft xpovoy ins oAvyov D-gr 25: tiva xp.
om tyv EX bk m o.
om apyupous B.
TApeLxXe
rec epyaciay
vaov apyupovv X?.
bef ove oAvyny, with EHL rel syr Chr Qc Thi-sif: txt ABD k m 13 vulg Thl-fin.
Bernhardy, Syntax, p. 241, f. 21.
ravta| The oceurrences of vv. 19, 20.
év tO mv.| An expression mostly
used by Paul, see ref. Set] As he was
sent to the Gentiles, he saw that the great
metropolis of the Gentile world was the
legitimate centre of his apostolic working.
Or perhaps he speaks under some divine
intimation that ultimately he should be
brought to Rome. If so, his words were
literally fulfilled. He did see Rome after
he had been at Jerusalem this next time:
but after considerable delay, and as a pri-
soner. Cf. the same design expressed by
him, Rom. i. 15; xv. 23—28; and Paley’s
remarks in the Hore Pauline. 22. |
He intended himself to follow after Pente-
cost, 1 Cor. xvi. 8. This mission of Timothy
is alluded to 1 Cor. iv. 17 (see ib. i. 1);
xvi. 10. The object of it was to bring these
churches in Macedonia and Achaia into re-
membrance of the ways and teaching of
Paul. It occurredshortly before the writing
of 1 Cor. He was (1 Cor. xvi. 11) soon to
return :—but considerable uncertainty
hangs over this journey. We find him again
with Paul in Macedonia, 2 Cor. i. 1: but
apparently he had not reached Corinth.
See 1 Cor. xvi.l.¢.; and 2 Cor. xii. 18, where
he would probably*have been mentioned,
had he done so. On the difficult ques-
tion respecting a journey of Paul himself to
Corinth during this period, see notes, 2 Cor.
xii. 14; xiii. 1,—and Prolegg. to 1 Cor. § v.
*Epaotov | This Erastus can hardly
be identical with the Erastus of Rom. xvi.
23, who must have beenresident at Corinth:
see there: and therefore hardly either with
the Erastus of 2 Tim. iv. 20: see note
there. eis T. Aotay | i. e. in (but beware
of imagining eds to be ‘ put for’ év, here or
any where. It gives the direction of the
tarrying, as in the expressions és dduous
péevery, Soph. Ag. 80, and Srexaptepouy
els thy matpida, Lycurg. cont. Leocr.,
p- 158. It is far better to take it thus,
with Meyer, than with Winer, Gr., edn. 6,
§ 50. 4. b, as importing ‘in favour of,’
‘for the benefit of’) Ephesus: Asia is
named by way of contrast with Macedonia,
just before mentioned. This is evident by
the following event taking place at Ephesus.
24. vaovs apy.| These were small
models (api5ptmara) of the celebrated
temple of the Ephesian Artemis, with her
statue, which it was the custom to carry on
journeys, and place in houses, as a charm.
Chrys. kal més vt vaobs apyupovs ye-
verbo; tows ws KiBdpia pucpd. Ammian.
Marcellin. xxii. 13: * Asclepiades philoso-
ABDE
HL& ab
cedfgh
kmol3
21—27. ake
25
IIPAZ EIS ATOSTOAQN.
a ’ \ A \ A ~ ’ ,
ovc * suvabpoicac, Kal Touc * wel Ta TOLaUTA epyarac, ie
"Al,
Cp yaaa n yankee
40, 41. mepe
thy épya-
wlav Ovtes
THs XWpas,
> a 8 ie By) Hf) ZY, , ~
eimev’ Ap O&C, ETLoTaDVE OTL EK TAUTNE THC
26
a. 42) , chy ey a ‘ob = Jer
EuTOPlLa HUY EOTLV, Kal fewpeire Kat akovere | ore ov
povoy Edécou adda‘ oxedov magne ie *Aciac 0 Havr0o¢
* d ’ e , fue ‘ Diod. Sic. i.
ovTog © Téloag " pEréoTHoEY | tKavOY "OyXov, Aeywv Ort Cae
, Z= ke X11.
, ’ ‘ \ e h
OUK eLoly Oeot ot ® da Xetowy Ywopervor. 7 ov movov oe J8e sane
k l a here only ¢.
TOUTO ‘kevduveter ti hay TO HEoOG eG ameheypoy " eADeiv, Juda. vie 12
. quil. Prov.
aAXa Kal TO THe *“mweyadrne ‘ ’ Mcac tgp ov “Aoréuiooc PY gic eens
> 4) = U ‘ ch. x1. 29.)
ovliy 4 AoyisOnvar, j pehday TE Kal exaGaipeiatae Tne b Mark i, b
t , oy ee a ohn iv. 19,
peyad sorntoc autnc nv OAn ‘Acta Kat 7 “ otKoupévn ii. 19. ch.
(Dan. iii. 27 [94].)
(ch. xiii. 22 aren Josh. xiv. 8.
c ch. xiii. 44 reff.
Ta ékel TWavta Wpos Aakedsatiovious MeTeaTHGeEV, Xen. Hell. ii. 2. 5.
dch. xviii. 4 reff. e = here only.
fch. xi. 24 (reff.). g ch. xiv, 3. h = Johni.3, Heb. xi. 3, Gen. ii. 4. i ver. 40.
absol., Luke viii. 23. 1 Cor. xv. 30 only. Isa. xxviii. 18. w. tov and inf., Jonah i. 4. k = here
only. 3 Mace. v. 17. 1 here onlyt. (GAeyu0c, 4 Kings xix. 3 || Isa.) m = Johny.
24, Job xxxiii. 28, vat. F. (not A
p=—ch. x, 4 reff.
n = ch. viii. 9 reff.
q Rom. li. 26. iv.3. ix. 8.
Drache: x. 5. Jer. xxix. 16. (xlix. 17.) constr., here only.
o here (vv. 35, 37 v.r.) only t.
Wisd. ix. 6. r=ch. xx. 38 al.
Katlacpety Te THS TOU Jeov d0Ens, Diod. Sic.
8. t Luke ix. 43. 2 Pet. i. 16 only. Jer. xl. (xxxiii.) 9. Dan. vii. 27 LXX. Esdr. i. 5 only.
ach, vii. 31. Rev, ii. 10. xii. 9. Ps. ix. 8:
25. for ous, ovros (omg rat) D 137 tol sah: ¢ has ovres but retains rat. Tol-
avtas(sic) X. for epyaras, Texvetas D-gr: texvetais D!: artifices K-lat. for
eiev, epy D. add mpos avtovs D vss.
sah. etigTaoTai(sic) D.
aft avdpes ins cuytexvertar D syr-w-ast
rec nuwy (corrn, as more usual constr), with HL
rel syrr eth Chr, (He Thl-sif: txt ABDEX ¢ d 13. 40 vulg coptt Thl-fin.
26. axovere kar Oewperte D Syr.
D 14): rys am Thl-fin.—ipsius Ephesi D-lat.
kat A D-gr L 13. 36. 40. 106. 180 demid Syr Chr Thl-sif:
om tns D! m: ins D2,
D-lat coptt He Thl-fin.
hie quidam tunc D-lat.
om a XN! 57.
27. om de H-gr.
ne. A ec 1387. om aAAa Nl}.
order), with ABLN 13. 36 rel (He Thl-fin :
ovdev, with DEL 13. 36 rel Chr:
constr) ADE vulg Syr :
om 7eioas N.
with HL rel vulg Chr Th:
Ee.
omae:
that B does not om autns nv.)
Bk m.
phus .... dew ccelestis argenteum breve
figmentum quocunque ibat secum solitus
efferre....? Diod. Sic. i. 15: vaovs xpu-
govs 5vo. Dio Cass. xxxix. 20: vews
“Hpas Bpaxts éml tpawé(ns tivds mpds
avatoAayv tdpuuévos. We may find an
exact parallel in the usages of that corrupt
form of Christianity, which, whatever it
may pretend to teach, in practice honours
similarly the ‘ great goddess ” of its ima-
gination. 25. aa ‘To.avTa.| All sorts of
memorials or amulets connected with the
worship of Artemis. Mr. Howson (ii.
p- 98) suggests that possibly Alewander the
coppersmith may have been one of these
craftsmen: see 2 Tim. iv. 14. 26. |
The people believed that the i images them-
selves were gods: Ta XaAKG Kal Ta ypatTd
om ott D. ins ews bef eperou
edectov D. aft aAAa ins
om BEH® rel vulg
aft ovros ins Tis Tote D!:
aneotnoev KH. aft or: ins ovtat T)-gr.
yevomevot D! 68: yewou. D?.
nu bef kivSvvever D mm (-vevoe: DQ).
rec apteutdos bef tepoy (corrn of characteristic
txt DEH bf ¢
txt ABHR d f.
txt BHLN rel 36 Chr ec Thl.
txt BD?EHLN 13 rel Chr Gie.—aada rabepicOat wedrer(v) D.
txt A B(Mai expr) EX ¢ 13 Ge Jer.
rec THV meyadeloTnTG (see note), with HL ret vulg syr copt Chr He Thi:
txt ABEN a c 13. 36. 40 sah.—om T. wey. avtns D.
for nv, 7 D!.
To mepos bef Kuo.
¢ o Chr Thl-sif Jer. ree
‘Rovyic Onererat (emendation of
meAAet Al(D!) a e vss Thl:
Steph (for te) de,
om Kar
(Mai notes expr agst Bch
om Ist 7 BD. om 2nd 9
kal AlOwa ph pabdvTes, unde eOicbevtTes
aydApata Kat Tyas Oe@v, GAAG Beovs
kadeiv. Plutarch de Isid. p.379, c (Wetst.):
see ch. xvii. 29. And so it is invariably,
wherever images are employed professedly
as media of worship. The genitives ’E®¢.
and ’Aq. are governed by éxAov. 27.)
jptv is best taken as the dativus incom-
modi, not for juéy, nor with 7d pépos,
but with kivduveder. €pos, as we say,
department. GAXa kat] but that
eventually even the temple itself of the
great goddess Artemis will be counted
for nothing. jeyadn was the usual epithet
of the Ephesian Artemis: Xen. Ephes. i.
p- 15: durum te thy mdr pio neiv Oedv,
Ty MeyaaAny "Epeoiov “Apteuv. There
is an inscription in Boeckh, 2963 ¢, con-
218
veh. xiii. 43
reff. Beland
Dr. 22.
ois 9g >
i oéPerat. 28
re SURIRIATA. éxoaZov Aéyourec * Meyadn n” Aorepec "Edeotwv.
ch. vi. 3, 5, &.
. 2 ase a , € , -
ix att“ exdnoOn 9 wodtc THE
x = Luke iv.
28. Eph.iv.
31. Rev. xii
12 al. Gen.
xlix. 6.
ver. 27 al.
see notes.
= Luke iv.
28. v. 26. ch. es s 4
PNT. elie: auTov OU paQnrat.
Nn S|
ol
TIPAZEIS ANOSTOAQN.
* guyxvaewe,
XIX.
s \ \ , w , x -
KOUGQAVTEE Ce Kal YEvopEvot mAnoetc fupov
29 Kal
b«¢ , b<«
WPUnoav gic OLO-
ot \
. , N * -
Oupadov sic 70 “Oéatpov “ cuvapracavree Tatov kat
Aov S& BovdrAonévov etceAPetvy ete TOV * Shuov OUK ElWwY
?
\ ~ > x ”
Tivec Of Kal TwY Acupywv, ovrec
45. Gen. vi. fy ' U ‘ 37 niN , ‘
n°" ayrw giro, tenpavteg mpocg avtov * wapexadovy, py
a here only.
Gen. xi. 9. 1 Kings v. 12. xiv. 20 only. (-xtveev, ver. 32.) b ch. vii. 57 (reff). chere bis. 1 Cor.
iv.Yonlyt. (-tpiCecbar, Heb. x. 33.) d ch. vi. 12 reff, e 2 Cor. viii. 19 only t. fch.
xii. 22 reff. g constr., ch. viii. 31 reff.
28. tavta Se axovc. D vss.
simly syr-marg. om 7 D!: ins D!.
bef expaoy ins Spapovres ers To aupodoy D 137,
29. rec aft 7 modus ins oA (see ch xxi. 80), with EHL rel syr sah Chr Be Thi: pref
oan, D 36(sic) Syr eth: om ABN 138. 40 vulg copt arm.
rec om Tns, with
(D!)EX? k 13: ins A B(sic: see table) D°HLN’ rel Chr Thl.—cuvexv6n oA. n 7.
aoxuvns D!-gr.
macayvtes D.
100: txt Dtors’,
for re, 5¢ D-gr m copt: om sah arm.
paxedoves D': paredova 15. 180: paredovias d 56. 117. 177':
rec ins tov bef mavAou (with e?): om ABDEHLN rel.
ins rat bef cvvap-
om
30. rec Tov Se mavdou (possibly from the concurrence of mavdov mavdov), with EHL
rel 36 Chr (ic Thl: BovAopevov de Tov mavAov D: Tov mavdov de NR? k: txt ABN'm 13.
for ove ery avTov ot maOnTat, ot wa. exwdrvoy D Syrieth: non sinebant D-lat.
81. for ovtes, umapxovtes D.
avtov &! 100.
taining the words trys peyaAns Seas apte-
pudos mpo moAews. The same inscription
also mentions ypauuateds and avOvraros.
C. and H. ii. 98. The temple of Arte-
mis at Ephesus, having been burnt to the
ground by Herostratus on the night of the
birth of Alexander the Great (B.C. 355),
was restored with increased magnificence,
and accounted one of the wonders of the
ancient world. its dimensions were 425 x
220 feet, and it was surrounded by 127
columns, 60 feet high. It was standing in
allits grandeur at this time. See C. and
H. ch. xvi. vol. ii. pp. 84 ff. THS pE-
yaXevdrntos is the more difficult and pro-
bably original reading: and that she should
be deposed from her greatness, whom Kc.
29. eis 7d O¢atpov] The resort of
the populace on occasions of excitement,
as Wetst. shews by many instances. So
Tacit. Hist. ii. 80, ‘Tum Antiochensium
theatrum ingressus, whi i/lis consultare mos
est.’ ‘Of the site of the theatre, the scene
of the tumult raised by Demetrius, there
‘an be no doubt, its ruins being a wreck
of immense grandeur. I think it must
have been larger than the one at Miletus ;
and that exceeds any I have elsewhere
seen. .... Its form alone can now be
spoken of, for every seat is removed, and
the proscenium isa heap of ruins.’ Fellows,
Asia Minor, p. 274. ‘The theatre of Mphe-
sus is said to be the largest known of any
that have remained to us from antiquity.’
C. and H. ii. p. 83, note 3. ovvapT.. |
avtov H-er: amici ejus vulg.
for eavtov,
It is not implied that they seized Gaius
and Aristarchus Jefore they rushed into
the theatre: compare mposevéduevor eizay,
ch. i. 24, also ch. xvii. 27, and Winer,
edn. 6, § 45. 6. b. Vdiov] A dif-
ferent person from the Gaius of ch. xx. 4,
who was of Derbe, and from the Gaius of
Rom. xvi. 23, and 1 Cor. i. 14, who was
evidently a Corinthian. Aristarchus is
mentioned ch. xx. 4; xxvil. 2; Col. iv. 10;
Philem. 24. He was a native of Thessa-
lonica. 31. “Aciapyev| The Asiar-
che were officers elected by the cities of
the province of Asia to preside over their
games and religious festivals. Of these it
would be natural that the one who for the
time presided would bear the title of 6
*Aoidpxos: ef. Eus. H. E. iv. 15: but no
more is known of such presidency. Wetst.
quotes several inscriptions and coins in
which the name occurs, and cites many
analogous names of like officers elsewhere :
Ciliciarcha, Syriarcha, Phoeniciarcha, Hel-
ladarcha, &e. The Asiarch Philip at
Smyrna is mentioned by Eusebius (H. EK.
iv. 15) as presiding in the amphitheatre at
the martyrdom of Polycarp. These Ephe-
sian games in honour of Artemis took place
in May, which whole month (another sin-
gular coincidence with the practices of
idolatrous Christendom) was sacred to, and
named Artemisian after, the goddess. In
Boeckh, Inser. 2954, we have the decree
dAov Toy wiva Toy émdvupov Tod Belov
dvéuatos eivat iepdy Kal dvaketoOce TH
ABDE
HLN ab
edfgh
kmol3
’Apiarapyov Maksdovae, © cuvexonpove HatAov. 8 MWat-
p PX , I
28—3d.
h ~ e 4 ’ a ,
Sovvat eavrov eic TO ° Géatpov.
Sf e s ‘ ce ka -\ ' ] , \m e
Tl exoalov ny yao n ~ exKkAnola ovyKkeyunevn, Kal ot
m X ’ ? nO , v7 oO ,
mAELOUC OUK OsIGaV TLYOg EvEKa cuveAnAvfeoar.
MPAZEIS AMOSTOAQN.
219
32} adXor ev ouv | aAXo b= here only.
els TAS Epn-~
pias auTov
dkdous, Jos,
Antt. xy. 7.
7, and Diod.
Sic: v. 59.
ae
- vw ,
oe TOU oxAov ei Tooe3iPacav "AXzEavopor, P 7 o0Padovrwy ich. xxi. 34.
c
, ™ i 9 / .
auTOVv TWV lovsatwy 2)
XElpa nOeXrev * atoXoyeaFat TW Onew.
Ya tor , ‘
& Adttavdoog “katacetoag THY ©
(Wisd. xviii.
k = vv. 39,
Al. ch. vii.
38 only. Sir.
EXVI-D
34 s ETUYVOVTEC Oe
e ? -s, ‘: N ’ , , ? , t Se eee
ott lovdatoe * Eatiy, pwn eyeveTo pata "ex Twavrwy wc | ch. il. 6 ref.
m 1 Cor. ix. 19
, ? 4 MY » 5
‘ert wpag dvo KoalovTwy Meyadn n "Aorepic "Eqectwr. n= ch.i.s
¢€
v ' \
35.“ caraotéeiAac Of O
J e ay
"Avdoec Edtotot, tic ¥ yap eat avbowzwy Oc ov ywo-
e ) gy Ae ( Y
z “ aD ' SX Zz , a 9g - b ar
oka THY Edeotwv todw * vewkooov © ovoay THC MEYaANC
Kiov €ls AOyous amoppNtous, Polyb. xxiv. 3. 7.
#¢ PE j
xxi. 30) only. Jer. xxvi. (xlvi.) 4 F.
Acts, ch. xxiv.10. Sxvi. 24 als.
Rom. ii. 15.
‘ reff,
only. Exod.
Xxxy. 34.
Deut. vi. 7
only.
npofrBaucas
TO peipa-
yr \ 5 .
‘ yoapparevc TOV oy Xov PUG oe
vA
ouuf., 1 Cor. ii. 16 reff.
q ch. xii. 17 reff.
2 Cor. xii. 19 only. L.P.
p = here (Luke
Luke xii. 11. xxi. 14.
Jer. Xii. 1, XXHViii. (XEXi.) 6.
2 Mace. xiii. 26 only. s Luke xxiii. 7. ch. xxii 29. xxviii. Ll. Jer. v. 5. t pres., ch.
Xvi. 3X refi. u=ch. v. 38,39 John iii. 25 al. v ch. xiii. 31 reff. w her
hisenly?. 2 Mace iv. 31 only. x = here only. (Ezra vii. 6, &c ) y Matt. ix. 5.
Job xix. 25. z here only t.
vol. i. p. 560.
32. om 7 D 42 vulg.
Thl-sif.
aconstr., ch. xxiv. 10 reff.
n yap exkAnota nv D.
evexev, with DEHL rel: txt ABN 13.36 Thl-fin.
n NEveTiKH gudry vE@KOPMY K. LE. Ewy éattv, Philo de Prof. § t7,
b= ch. vv. 27, 28, 33.
mAetTot D-gr. rec
cuveAnavgacw H: -AvOnoay Li
33. * suveBiPa cay ABENa (corrn, perhaps on acct of the unusual word, perhaps
to avoid the repetition of po): ovy €BiBacay 13(appy): KaTeBiB. D!, distraxerunt
D-lat, detrax. vulg: mpoeBiBaoay Dt ors HL rel 36 Chr Ge Thi.
txt ABEHN rel 40 Chr (ec.
twy, with DL Lb? e gm o 13. 36 Thi:
40 Thl-sif.
Thl-fin. for nAdev, nOecAev N?.
o ouy A k demid fuld tol: o & ovy XN}.
for dnuw, Aaw EH.
elz mpoBadXor-
avtev Lb
Tn xeipt D8 40 Chr
34. rec emyvovtey (corrn, to avoid the pendent nominative), with a b o 86 Ge: txt
ABDEHLN 18 rei Chr Thl-sif.
kpaCovtes AN. om 7 D!: ins D*.
om ex D, so vulg coptt.
wset B13.
bey. n apt. ep. is repeated in B.
35. katacevoas DE c 137 Thi-sif: compescuisset D-lat, sedasset vulg E-lat.
tov oxAov bef o ypayuatevs Bm 130 copt.
adeAgot Rl.
epeo., nuctepay D: vestram D-lat.
txt 1?.
eon EH, divit vulg. for edeciot,
p s
rec avOpwros (corrn), with DHL rel syr eth Chr Ge Thl-sif (pref 6
D'): txt ABEN ack m 13. 36. 40 vulg Syr copt (sah) eth arm Thl-fin.
moAw bef epeo. E coptt.
for ovoar, ewat D: add ca &1(83 disapproving).
for
vaoxopoy D!:
rec aft weyadns
ins @eas, with HL rel eth Chr @c Thi: om ABDEN c 13. 386. 40 vulg syrr coptt Isid.
eG, &yecOau SE ex’ adrais (scil. Tod wyvds
uépots) Tas Eoptas ica) Thy TAY’ A pTemioloy
maviyupw. C. and H. ii. 95. Sodvat |
Kypke remarks: ‘latet in phrasi, quod
periculum Paulo in theatro immineat.’
B. V. adventure himself; an excellent
translation. 33.] é« 7. oyA. some of
the multitude. ampocB. urged for-
ward, through the crowd; the Jews push-
ing him on from behind, ‘ propellentibus.’
It is uncertain whether this Alexander
is mentioned elsewhere (but see on 2 Tim.
iv. 14). He appears to have been a Chris-
tian convert from Judaism, whom the Jews
were willing to expose as a victim to the
fury of the mob: or perhaps one of them-
selves, put forward to clear them of blame
on the occasion. 84. émuyvdvtes |
The nom. is an anacoluthon, as in ch. xxiv.
5 al. See Winer, edn. 6, § 63, i. 1.
They would hear nothing from a
Jew, as being an enemy of image wership.
35. xataor.| When he had quieted,
lulled, the crowd. 6 ypappareds |
the town-clerk is the nearest English
office corresponding to it. He was the
keeper of the archives, and public reader
of decrees, &c., in the assemblies. Thucyd.
vil. 10, Thy émictoAty érédocav" 6 5€ ypap-
pareds Tis méAcws TapeAPay aveyvw Tots
’APnvalors. ‘Among the Ephesian inscrip-
tions in Boeckh, we find the following:
M. I. Aup. Atovvatoy Tov tspoxnpuxa kat B
actapxoy ex Twy iiwy T. BA. Movvarios
pirooeBaoTOs 0 YPapMaTEUS Kal UTLApXNTAS.
No. 2990.’ C. and H. ii. 96. yap
gives a reason for the katagteiAas. See
Herm. on Viger, p. 829. ve@Kopov |
Probably a virger or adorner (Suidas says,
not a sweeper : 6 Tov ved KooMaV K. CVTPE-
220 IIPAZEIS AITOSTOAQN.
Oa et ‘Aprépidoc Kal Tov j
pe ie ovray roUrwY * Séov corty vuac
Shee ae ae Kal pndev * pom ere 7 PAGEL.
afianiiyt, TOUG Gvdpac ToUvTOUC oOUTE
Symm., Job
~ .Y l Q € ~-
x1, 2. XXxill. MLLOUVTAC THV Oeov YUWYV.
Le San A a
ch. x. 29,
PRINPEELING ee auTw
only. 1 Macc. p »
xii. 11. (see
1 Tim. v. 13.)
f ch. ii. 30 reff.
John vii. 45 al. Dan. fi. 13.
ayovrat Kal
m ver. 24 reff.
Heb. iv. 13. M
Strabo xiii. p.932(Wahl). joc ayovt: Tov ayopatoy, Jos. Antt. xiv. 10. 21.
2 Mace. ii. 16. q ch. xiii. 7, 8, 12. xviii. 12 only. see notes.
c = .
Svomerouc 5
~ /
i i de EXovow TO0C Tia
’ , Y 2 a
1 avObmarot Etow
g2Tim.iii.4only. Prov. x. 14. xiii. 3. Sir. ix. 18 only. h absol., Matt. xxi. 7.
i here onlyt. 2 Macc. iv. 42 only. (-etv, Rom. ii. 22, -da, 2 Mace.
xiii. 6.) k constr., Matt. xxvii. 39. 4 Kings xix. 22. (Rom. ii. 24 al)
n=hereonly. uot... mpos TovTous 6 Noyos, Demosth. mpos Aakp ; p. 942. 17. see
o = here (ch. xvii. 5) onlyt. tas dcockyoers, Ev als Ths Gyopatous ToLovvTat,
XIX. 36—41.
36 d? 4 Cy
avayvTippyntwy OUD
“ kateataAdpévouc ‘ uT-
oi nyayere yap
‘ Prac gn-
El ney ouv Anunrpioc Kal ot
i¢ , ”
tepoabAouc OUTE
38
" doyor, ° ayooatot
’ >
3 eykaAtlrwoav aXdAnAote.
1 fem., here only.
p = Luke xxiv. 21.
rconstr., ch. xxiii. 28. Sir.
xlvi. 19. w. Kata and gen., Rom. viii. 33, pass. ver. 40. ch. xxiii. 29. xxvi. 2, 7 only. L.P.
diostetous D 68: hujus jovis D-lat: joviseprolis E-lat : jovisque prolis vulg.
36. avavtipntov BL.
mpomeres ins Tt N°.
37. aft Tovrovs ins evOade D syr-marg.
touvtwy bef ovtrwy Abo: om tovtwy &! 138. aft
[mparrev, so ABDEHLN 13 rel(not m) Chr Gc Thl. |
for ovte (twice), unre D. rec THv
Oeav (corrn), with D'K? a b! 0 13 (ec Thi-fin: txt ABD?E'HL® rel 36 Chr-c Thl-sif.
rec vuwy, with E!-gr HL rel vulg syr copt eth-rom Chr (ec Thl-fin: txt
ABDE2X b f 0 13 E-lat Syr sah wth-pl Chr-e 'Thl-sif.
38. aft Snunrptos ins ovtos D Syr: pref 6 ¢ 137.
Geay D®.
ot bef kar D': txt Dt.
ree mpos Tia Aoyov bef exovow (alteration of characteristic order), with 13(appy) :
txt AB(D)EHL® rel vulg Chr Thl.—ins avtovs bef tia D, cum aliquo quendam
D-lat.
mifav, GAN’ odx 6 cap@v) of the temple :
here used as implying that Ephesus had the
charge and keeping of the temple. The
title is found (Wetst.) on inscriptions as
belonging to Ephesus: 7 gtAoceBaotos
Eqeoiwy BovAn kat o vewkopos Snos
Kablepwoay emt avOuvrarov [edoveraiov Ipeio-
Keivov Wnpioamevov TiB. KA. ItaAikov Tov
ypau“puatews Tov Snuov (Boeckh, No. 2966) ;
and seems to have been specially granted
by the emperors to particular cities: thus
we have ésa émeTUxouey Tapa Tov Kupiouv
Kaioapus *Adpiavod 50 ’Avtavlov ToAcuw-
vos devtepoy Sdyna cuyKaAntov, kal’ d Sis
vewkdpor yeyovauey: and on coins of Ha-
drian, "Egeciwv 8is vewkopwv, Ke.: and
similarly of Elagabalus, NixounSéwy tpis
vewkdpuy : of Maximin, Mayvfitwy vew-
Képwy ’Aptéutdos. See also C. and H. ii.
p- 89, where will be found an engraving
of a coin exhibiting both the words vew-
Képos and dv@tmaros (ver. 38).
tT. Stomretovs | To give peculiar sanctity to
various images, it was given out that they
had fallen from heaven; so Euripides of
the statue of Artemis at Tauris, év@ “Apte-
pis on ctryyovos Bawods Exe, | AaBeiy 7°
dyahua Oeas 0 paoly evOdde | eis rovsde
vaovs ovpavod mweoeity &ro. Iph. Taur.
86, and 977, he calls it Siomerés &yadua,
ovpavod méeonua. So also Pausan. Att. 26,
To b€ ayidtatoy. .. early ’AOnvas &yad-
fa ev TH viv axpowdoAc.. . Phun 8 és
avTd EXEL, TETELY eK TOU OUpavod. The
image is described by Pliny, xvi. 72: ‘de
ipso simulacro Dew ambigitur. Czteri ex
ebeno esse tradunt: Mucianus ter consul
ex his qui, proxime viso eo, scripsere, viti-
gineum, et nunquam mutatum, septies re-
stituto templo.’ 37. | From this verse it
appears that Paul had proceeded at Ephesus
with the same caution as at Athens, and
had not held up to contempt the worship of
Artemis, any further than unavoidably the
truths which he preached would render it
contemptible. This is also manifest from
his having friends among the Asiarchs,
ver. 31. Chrysostom, however, treats this
assertion of the town-clerk merely as a
device to appease the people: Todto Wevdos"
TavTa mey mpos Tov Sipuov. a
refers to the mpomerés with which he had
charged them: ‘and this caution is not
unneeded,—for ec.’ See Meyer; and
Herm. as above, on ver. 35. 38.
Gydpatot| court. days (the grammarians
distinguish a@yopaios, ‘ circumforaneus,’ an
idler in the market, and aydpaos, as in
our text: so Suidas: but Ammonius vice
versd: and the distinction is now believed
to be mere pedantry): and @yovtat im-
plies that they were then actually going
on. They were the periodical assizes of
the district, held by the proconsul and his
assessors (see below). The Latin phrase
for ayopalous &yew was conventus agere,
or peragere, or convocare ; cf. Cas. B. G.
i. 543 v. 1; viii. 46. Henes the district
itself was called conventus. See Smith’s
Dict. of Antiquities, art. Conventus.
AX di, 2.
3
, , ,
cia “ emtAvOnaerar. 49
Oar”
orasewe Tept me *
®g 4\
votpognc TauTne.
‘ exkAnolav.
XX. 12 Mera & ro
kaAgoauevoc 0 [lavAoc rove palntac Kat
J U m
agTAGCAMEVOC
2p ne ouANov Oe ra
19, 26. ch. xxiv. 5, Prov. xvii. 14.
4, 14, 22 onlyt. (-os, Heb. v. 9.)
[Rom. xiv. 12.] 1 Pet. iv. 5.
xiii. 3 refl, gch. xix. 21 reff.
52 reff.
ncb. xiii. 6 reff. o ch, xix. 1.
IIPAZEIS) AIIOSTOAQN.
Kal tauta simwv ‘améAvoev thy
, A
mavoascbat TOV
nies = ’ nN ,
ly pogeulnial ELC [rn | Maksdoviay.
aconstr., here only. (ch. xx. 26.)
ech. viii. 16 reff.
Dan. vi. 2 Theod.
h Judith vi. 1.
1 = here only. (ch. xviii. 22 reff.) Ken. Anab. vii. 1. 40.
p ch, viii. 5 ret.
221
9 ct Sé re wept ° Erépwr | emiGnretre, ev Ty “ evvonm * exkAn= §5,oh-xVi-
Kal yap * kevOuvebouey fe reff
ONMLEOOY, pndevog
ans ¢ TEpl ou [ov] Suvngopeba anodouvat Aoyov ™¢
(1 Cor. ix. 21)
only +t. Prol.
Sir. only.
eldiopuéva
kK. €vvopa,
Xen. Cyr,
viii. 7. 10.
Vv = ver. 32.
Judith xiv.6.
w = here
only t. (Mark
iv. 34 only.
Gen. xli. 12
only. -ols,
2 Pet. i. 20.)
X ver. 27 reff.
y ver. 38 rett.
atriovu © UTap-
hi QoouBov 7 0C-
* rapakaXéoac,
° wépn Exewa Kal « tapakaXéoac ° aurouc % = Mark xv. 7.
Luke xxiii.
b Luke xxiii.
d Matt. xii. 36. Luke xvi. 2.
ech. xxiii. 12 only. Amos vii. 10. f= ch.
i ch. Xxi. 34 reff. K ch. xv.
m = ch. xv. 40 reff.
89. for wept eTepwv, Tepaitepwy (seems like a mistake from itacism) B d 13. 36:
mep etepoy Hi.
but exxAno.as D?(and lat): txt D*.
40. onmepov evadrcic bat oTacews ndevos aiTiov ovtos D.
(perhaps, as Meyer, from a careless repetition of ov:
emi(ntertar (itacism ?) Xe do.
ev T® vouw ekkAnaia D', so,
jept ov ov Svvycomcba
more likely, as Bornemann in
loc, inserted by those who placed a colon at vrapxovtos and regarded wept... TavTns
as a new member of the sentence) A B(sic: see table) HLN becefghmo syrr arm:
(for 06, ovy L!:) om ov DE 13. 36 rel vulg coptt Chr-comm (He Thl-fin.
Sovvat
(prob the simple verb was substituted for the compd rather than vice versi: both
exprr are in ordinary use) HL bdeg
(Ke-ms Thl-fin.
(Ee-ed Thl-sif: txt ABDEX 13. 36 rel Chr
ins wept bef tTys cvotp. (consequent on regarding avatp. as in
apposn with the preceding gen :—q. d. viz. concerning this cvotp.) ABENX dk m 36.
40 D-lat Syr arm Thl-fin :
om DHL rel vss Chr He Thl-sif. (13 def.)
Cuap. XX. 1. for mposkad., werameunpauevos BEN m 13. 36. 40 coptt eth-rom Thl-fin :
petaoTeiAauevos a 69. 98-marg 105: txt ADHL rel Chr Ce Thl-sif.
rec om tapaxadecas (see note), with HL rel Chr
ins ABDEX ac m 18. 36 copt Thl-fin.—aparede{ vu |oas D! ? for
actacamevos Te Dt ac m 36 Thl-fin.
om D 27. 662.
ins 7oAAa bef mapa. D.
(Ee Thl-sif :
aot., amoomacamevos D': kar aor. EN:
mopever Oat (corrn) ABEX 36 Thl-fin :
Thl-sif.
2. ins mavta bef ra pepn D.
xpno[auevo |s(?) D'-gr: txt D2.
Pliny, H. N. y. 29 fin., mentions Ephesus
as one of these assize towns. av-
vamato.| there are (such things as) pro-
consuls: the fit officers before whom to
bring these causes: a categoric plural. So
the Commentators generally. But may not
the ‘ consiliarii’ of the proconsul who were
his assessors at the ‘ conventus,’ held in the
provinces, have themselves popularly borne
thename? We find in Jos. B. J. ii. 16.1,
that Cestius, the 7yeuey of Syria, on re-
ceiving an application respecting Florus’s
conduct at Jerusalem, peta tyeudvwv
é€BovAeveto,—which jyeudves were his
assessors, or consiliarit. (See on ch. xxv.
2, and Smith’s Dict. of Antt., ut supra.)
éykad. GAX.] let them (the plaintiffs
and defendants) plead against one an-
other. 39.| ‘ Legitimus ccetus est,
qui a magistratu civitatis convocatur et
regitur.’ Grot. The art. points out the
om tny BDELN abeckm o Thl-fin:
exeivy D!
om 6 D.
105: txt HL 138(sic) rel Chr He
ins AH 18 rel Chr (ec Thl-sif.
: txt D'. for mapakadecas avtous,
reoularly recurring assembly, of which they
all knew. 40.] ydp assumes that
this assembly was an unlawful one.
pndevds x.7.A.] There being no ground
why (i. e. in consequence of which) we
shall be able to give an account, i.e. ‘no
ground whereon to build the possibility of
our giving an account.’ The reading rep)
ov ov (see digest) seems to involve the sen-
* tence inalmost inextricable confusion. To
read wep) 77s ovor. tT. and take it in
apposit. with zep) od, ‘hujus rei, videlicet
conventus hujus’ (Bornemann), is very
harsh.
Crap. XX. I—XXI. 16.] Journey oF
Path TO MACEDONIA AND GREECE, AND
THENCE TO JERUSALEM. 1.] wapa-
kaAeoas has probably been omitted on ac-
count of the two participles coming to-
gether: or perhaps on account of the same
word occurring again in yer. 2. 2.
222
q ch. xv. 32.
r ch. xv. 83
reff.
s ch. ix. 24
reff.
tch-xiii 13 Saiwy péAovte
u = Philem. 14. u 7
yvounc
y =
2 Mace. iv. TOU
, \ ’ =
ELT ETO be auTw
59. constr.,
Luke ix. 55
v.r. 2 Macc.
xi. 37.
v constr., ch.
iii. 12 reff.
IIPAZEIS AIIOSTOAQN.
‘oy TmoAAw mA Oey ete ony ‘EAAaoa, ?
pyvac TpELC, pean te auto
t avaryeaOut ele TI
" Uroorpépey dra Makedoviac.
Yayou tne >Aciac Lwrarpoe Tluppov
Bepotaioc, Orcoarovikéwy OF ‘Aptorapxoc kal Lexouveoc,
XX.
‘ mouoac TE
* extPoudne UTO TOY ‘Tovu- ¢
Lupiav eyévero
th tee
w = ch. viii. 25 kal Datoc AcoBatoc kat Tiobeoe, “Actavoi oe Tuxexoc
reff.
x here only F.
2 Mace. xv.
2 only.
y = ch. xi. 5 reff.
b = here only. Job xxxvi. 2.
3. for re, de D 38 H-lat copt.
kat Tpopmoc. Fe
z ch. ix. 20 reff.
(see ver. 23.)
Aw E. ayeoOu HK.
ourot [de] * mooeOovrec ° epevov nuac
a=ver.13. 2 Cor, ix. 5. (ch. xii. 10 al.) Cen. xxsiii. 14.
for yevou., kar yevnOerons D?: k. yevnGes D!-gr.
emiBovans bef avrw ABEN ah 13: txt DHL rel vulg Chr (ic Thi.
rec yvwun, with HL rel: txt AB'EN 13. 36.—
MEA-
NOcAnoev avaxOnvas Els oupiav evmev De TO TrvEvWA avTwW VTOTTpPEpELY Oia THS MakEdoVias
D syr-marg.
4. for gcuvermero Se avtw axpl, f@eAdovToS ouv eterevat avTov wexpt D syr-marg.
(comitari eum D-lat.)
vulg(not demid) «th Bede.
om axpt Tns actas (to conform to follg ; cf note) BX 18
rec om tuppou (see note), with HL rel syrr eth Chr
(Ec Thl-sif: ins ABDEX a b m 0 13. 36. 40 vulg syr-marg coptt arm Thl-fin Orig-int
Bede. Bepouos &!:
D!, doverius D-lat: txt D'.
evtuxos D.
5. rec om de, with DHL rel 36 vulg Syr Chr Ge Thi-sif:
mposedOoytes A(?) B'(Mai) K-gr HLX f¢k m.
copt Thl-fin.
erased) & for nuas, avrov D-gr.
Notices of this journey may be found 2 Cor.
ii. 12, 13; vil. 5, 6. He delayed on the
way some time at Troas, waiting for Titus,
—hbroke off his preaching there, though
prosperous, in distress of mind at his non-
arrival, 2 Cor. ii. 12, 18,—and sailed for
Macedonia, where Titus met him, 2 Cor.
vii. 6. That Epistle was written during it,
from Macedonia (see 2 Cor. ix. 2, kavx@-
peat, ‘I am boasting’). He seems to have
gone to the confines at least of Illyria,
Rom. xy. 19. avtouvs | The Mace-
donian brethren: so ch. xvi. 10 al., see
reff., and Winer, edn. 6, § 2 2 Be “PA-
Aada] Achaia, see ch. xix. 21. 3.
srornoas| This stay was made at Corinth,
most probably: see 1 Cor. xvi. 6, 7: and
was during the winter, see below on ver. 6.
During it the Epistle to the Romans was
written : see Prolegg. to Rom. § iv.
pedAdAovte avayer8ar} This purpose, of
going from Corinth to Palestine by sea, is
implied ch. xix. 21, and 1 Cor. xvi. 3—7.
Tov Urootp.| The genit. is not (as
Meyer) governed directly by 4 yyduns, Which
would be more naturally followed by eis TD
bm.: but denotes the purpose, as in reff.
4. axpi t. Actas] It is not hereby
implied that they went no further than to
Asia: Trophimus (ch. xxi. 29) and Aristar-
chus (ch. xxvii. 2), and probably others, as
the bearers of the alms from Macedonia and
Corinth (1 Cor. xvi. 3, 4), accompanied him
to Jerusalem. Sdératpos Ilvppov
Bepotatos ] This mention of his father is
Bepuratos D-gr!: txt D'.
for actavot, epecior D syr-marg sah.
ins o bef SepBaos A: SouBl € |pios
for TuXuKos,
ins ABER ac 13. 40 syr
emeivov (but ¢
perhaps made to distinguish him (?) from
Sosipater, who was with Paul at Corinth
(Rom. xvi. 21). The name THdéppou has
been erased as that of an unknown person,
and because the mention of the father is
unusual in the N. T.:—no possible reason
can be given for its éasertion by copyists.
*Apiotapxos | See ch. xix. 29 ; xxvii.
2; Col. iv. 10; Philem. 24. Secundus is
altogether unknown. ‘The Gaius here is
not the Gaius of ch. xix. 29, who was a Ma-
cedonian. The epithet AepBa‘os is inserted
for distinetion’s sake. 'Timotheus was from
Lystra, which probably gives occasion to
his being mentioned here in close company
with Gaius of Derbe. All attempts tojoin
AepBaios with Tiud8eos in the construction
are futile. Timotheus was not of Derbe, see
ch. xvi. 1, 2: and the name Caius (dios,
Gr.) was far too common to create any dif-
ficulty in there being two, or three (see
note, ch. xix. 29) companions of Paul so
called. With conjectural emendations of
the text (AepB. 5€ Tiywod., Kuin., Valck.)
we have no concern. *Actavot T.
x. T.] Tychicus is mentioned Eph. vi. 21,
as sent (to Ephesus from Rome) with that
Epistle. He bore also that to the Colos-
sians, Col. iv. 7, at the same time. See
also 2 Tim. iv. 12; Tit. ii. 12. Trophi-
mus, an Mphesian, was in Jerusalem with
Paul, ch. xxi. 29: and had been, shortly
Defore 2 Tim. was written, left sick at
Miletus. (See Prolegg. to 2 Tim. § i. 5.)
5. obtot | The persons mentioned in
o—T.
UPAZEIS, AIOSTOAQN.
’ fA = G J \ecryv , Q A / ~
ev Towade : music Of ° eSerAcvoauev peta Tac ; nuéoac Si EE
2 dch. xii. 3 reff.
dye 358 iN , Nee . 1 ea
aZvumuwv arto Pitim@rov, Kat nAPonev TOOC AUTOVE EC oleh. xii!
THY Towada ‘ ay pt NREPWV TEVTE, ov ' der otPamey nuépac
ra
emra.
- j Yi ~
nuwv 'kAaca aotov, 0 TavAoe
1(19. Mark xvi. 2. 1 Cor. xvi. 2) see ch. xiii. 14 reff.
ich. it. 46 reff. k ch. xvii. 2 reff.
6. om tyyv D.
Thi-sif.
Luke iv. 12.
Rom. i. 13 al.
2 Mace. xiy.
? \ ~ re e. ; h i a
“Ey oe "Ty ata TwY ® gaBPatwv " cvVNYMEVWY fch. xii. 19
a / > - , reff. ,
dueAéyero avrorc péX= g Luke xxiv.
John xx.
heh. iy. 5 reff. constr., ch. xiii. 44 reff.
rec axpis, with H rel: aro EX 18: infra E-lat: txt ABLd
for axpt nuepwv weve, Teena D.
for ov, orov AEN 18: ov kau
40.137: nace: ev yn xa D: txt BHL rel 36 Chr ce Thi.
7. for Se, re D Syr eeth.
om tT) Ek.
aft pia ins tpwry D-gr. rec
for nuwy, Twy wadntwy (alteration to suit avtois—see note), with HL rel Bas He Thl-
sif: txt ABDER a! ¢ 13. 36. 40 vulg syrr copt eth arm Chr, Thl-fin Aug.
rec ins
cov bef kAacat, with D (He Thl-fin: om ABEHLN 13 rel Chr, Thl-sif.
ver. 4: not only Tychicus and Trophimus.
The mention of Timotheus in this list, dis-
tinguished from 7uéas, has created an in-
superable difficulty to those who suppose
imotheus himself to be the narrator of what
follows : which certainly cannot be got over
(as De Wette) by supposing that Timotheus
might have inserted himself in the list, and
then tacitly excepted himself by the jas
afterwards. The truth is apparent here, as
well as before, ch. xvi. 10 (where see note),
that the anonymous narrator was in very
intimate connexion with Paul; and on this
occasion we find him remaining with him
when the rest went forward. apochO.
k.7.A.] For what reason, is not said: but
we may well conceive, that if they bore the
contributions of the churches, a better op-
portunity, or safer ship, may have deter-
mined Paul to send them on, he himself
having work to do at Philippi: or perhaps,
again, as Meyer suggests, Paul may have
remained behind to keep the days of un-
leavened bread. But then why should not
they have remained too ? The same motive
may not have operated with them: but in
that case no reason can be given why they
should have been sent on, except as above.
It is not impossible that both may have
been combined : — before the end of the days
of unleavened bread, a favourable oppor-
tunity occurs of sailing to Troas, of which
they, with their charge, avail themselves :
Paul and Luke waiting till the end of the
feast, and taking the risk of a less desirable
conveyance. That the feast had something
to do with it, the mention of peta 7. 7. 7.
a¢.seems to imply: such notices being not
inserted ordinarily by Luke for the sake of
dates. The assumption made by some (see,
e.g. Mr. Lewin, p. 587), that the rest of
the company sailed at once for Troas from
Corinth, while Paul and Luke went by land
to Philippi, is inconsistent with cuveizero,
ver. 4. From the notice here, we learn
that Paul’s stay in Europe on this occasion
was about three-quarters of a year: viz.
from shortly after Pentecost, when he left
Ephesus (see on ch. xix. 10), to the next
Easter. 6. Gpx. np. wévte| in five
days, see reff. The wind must have been
adverse: for the voyage from Troas to
Philippi (Neapolis) in ch. xvi. 11, seems to
have been made in fwo days. It appears
that they arrived on a Monday. Com-
pare notes, 2 Cor. ii. 12, ff. 7. ev ty
pig tT. caBB.| We have here an intimation
of the continuance of the practice, which
seems to have begun immediately after the
Resurrection (see John xx. 26), of as-
sembling on the first day of the week for
religious purposes. (Justin Martyr, Apol.
i. 67, p. 83, says, TH Tov Alou Acyouevn
heépa wavtay Kata médets 7) wypods pevdy-
Toy emt TO avTd cuvéAcvers yiveTa.) Per-
haps the greatest proof of all, that this day
was thus observed, may be found in the
early (see 1 Cor. xvi. 2) and at length
general prevalence, in the Gentile world,
of the Jewish seven-day period as a divi-
sion of time,—which was entirely foreign
to Gentile habits. It can only have been
introduced as following on the practice of
especial honour paid to this day. But we
_ find in the Christian Scriptures no trace
of any sabbatical observance of this or any
day: nay, in Rom. xiv. 5 (where see note),
Paul shews the untenableness of any such
view under the Christian dispensation.
The idea of the transference of the Jewish
sabbath from the seventh day to the first
was an invention of later times.
KAdoat aptov|} See note on ch. ii. 42.
The breaking of bread in the Holy Com-
munion was at this time inseparable from
the aydra. It took place apparently in
the evening (after the day’s work was
ended), and at the end of the assembly,
after the preaching of the word (ver. 11).
avtois, in the third person, the dis-
224
1? , : ee ,
ca aida Ay aesato a) ewaupioy,
m ch. x. 9 reff. / 8
h 1 é t ETOVUKTLOU™
Bre lm, HE XPO NET OROARESE
ae UTEpwY ov juev ‘ cuvyynevor
xxxv. 10 yy ae | -
only. To- veaviac ovopare Lurvyoc¢ e7Tl THC
acouTov oe y 0 -
Tapareiver pomevoc UTVW avéel,
xpovoy,
is Antt. i. * emt mAgtov, *
° 3 tine, mit
xi. 23. ch TOU
x. 30.
1 Tim. vi. 14 al. Ps. civ. 19.
xxv. 1,&c. John xviii. 3.
13 ret. Acts only.
Zech, ii. 4. w 2 Cor. xi. 33 only.
Ps. Ixxv.7 Aq. Dan. v. 20 Theod.
Adyos. (katapopa Aq. 2 Gen. ii. 21. xv. 12.)
xxii. 7. ch. iv. 17 reff.
Gen. vi. 16. Ezek. xlii Ay
d = Matt. xxiv. 17. ch. x. 20, 21.
p Mark xiii. 35.
Rev. iv. 4. viii. 10 only.
sch.i t ver. 7 al.
om te D-gr.
8. vroAaurades D, facule D-lat.
nypevor BE.
9. rec ka®quevos (corrn to more usual form), with HL rel Chr @e Thi:
a 13. 36.
tov bef mavaAov D.
follg, E. kat os np0n D!-gr.
om veavias FE.
course being addressed to the disciples at
Troas: but the first person is used before
and after, because all were assembled, and
partook of the breaking of bread together.
Not observing this, the copyists have altered
jmav above into Tay uabnta@y, and juev into
joav, to suit airors. 8. Aapad. ix.]
This may be noticed, as Meyer observes, to
shew that the fall of the young man could
be well observed: or, perhaps, because many
lights are apt to increase drowsiness at such
times. Calvin and Bengel suppose,—in
order that all suspicion might be removed
from the assembly (‘ut omnis abesset sus-
picio scandali,’ Beng.) ; Kuin. and partly
Meyer,—that the lights were used for so-
lemnity’s sake,—for that both Jews and
Gentiles celebrated their festal days by
abundance of lights. But surely the ‘adop-
tion of either Jewish or Gentile practices of
this kind in the Christian assemblies was
very improbable. 9.| Who Eutychus
was, is quite uncertain. The occurrence of
the name as belonging to slaves and freed-
men (Rosenm. and Heinrichs, from inscrip-
tions), determines nothing. emt THs
8upiScs| On the window-seat. The win-
dows in the East were (and are) without
glass, and with or without shu(ters.
’ Katadepdpevos trv. | Wetstein gives many
instances of the use of xatapépouat, either
absolute, or with eis trvor, signifying ‘to
be oppressed with, borne down towards,
sleep” Thus Aristotle, de somn. et vig.
iii. p. 456. b. 31, ed. Bekk. : ta tarvwrika
TIPAZEIS AIOSTOAQN.
noay oe 9 Aap ddec *
4. ie Ses ~ @ ” ek.
Karevey Ocic amvO TOU UTVOU ETEGEV a0
b 7, ‘
TOLOTEYOU KaTW Kal
Luke xi. §. ch. xvi. 25 only. Judg. xvi. 3.
Gen. xv. 17
Josh, ii. 15, 18.
Herodian i. 1), of the G@yaApa dcometés,—ef obpavov KatevexOrvac
y Luke xxiv. 1 (John iv. 11.
a=c
croai tpiareyor, Dion. Hal. Antt. iii. 68.
1 Kiogs ix. 27, Xen. Cyr.i. 4. &
rec for nuev, noav (see above on nuwv, ver 7),
with ek: txt ABDEHLN 13. 36 rel vulg syrr sah arm Chr Thl-fin.
emt TH Oupids kaTrexXomevos umvw Bape D.
for aro, uro DH b o 40 Chr (ic-ed.
XX.
” raoérevev TE Tov Aoyou
ikaval Ev Tw
“kabeZouevoc 8é TIC
w /
Oupidoc,
* dad eyouevou trou TlavAou
x
KaTa-
if. karaPac
q Matr.
r Luke xxiii. 9 al. 1 Macc. xv. 26.
vch. vii. 58. xxiii. 17 only. L.
x = here bis (ch. xxv. 7. xxvi. 10) only ft.
v ,
npOn veKooc.
uch. vi. 15 reff.
Rev. ii. 24) only. Sir.
b here onlyt. Symm.,
c = Matk vi. 29. 1 Macc. ix. 19.
xii. 14 reff.
om ouyr-
txt ABDEN
om
TeTwv, OME Kat
... TavTa ... KapnBapiav ... Tow? ...
kal KaTadepopevor kal vuora(ovtes TovTO
doxotow macxew, kal aduvatotiow atpew
Thv Kepadty Kal Ta BA€papa: and Diod.
Sic. iii. 57, natevex@etoav cis trvov ideiv
iy. I believe the word is used here and
below tz the same sense, not, as usually in-
terpreted, here of the effect of sleep, and
below of the fall caused by the sleep. It
implies that relaxation of the system, and
collapse of the muscular power, which is
more or less indicated by our expressions
‘falling asleep,’ ‘ dropping asleep.’ This
effect is being produced when the first
participle is used, which is therefore zm-
perfect,—but as Paul was going on long
discoursing, took complete possession of
him, and, having been overpowered, —
entirely relaxed in consequence of the
sleep, he fell. In the 4p@n vexpos
here, there is a direct assertion, which can
hardly be evaded by explaining it, ‘was
taken up for dead,’ as De Wette, Olsh. ;—
or by saying that it expresses the judgment
of those who took him up, as Meyer. It
seems to me, that the supposition of a
mere suspended animation is as absurd
here as in the miracle of Jairus’s daughter,
Luke viii. 41—56. Let us take the narra-
tive as it stands. The youth falls, and
is taken up dead: so much is plainly
asserted. (First, let it be remembered
that Luke, a physician, was present, who
could have at once pronounced on the
fact.) Paul, not a physician, but an
C Aw
aQuTou..
(see var.
read.)
ABCDE
HLNab |,
edfgh™
kmol3
8—l4. 225
dt 0 TlavAoe *
IIPAZ EIS AMOSTOAQN.
= ver. 37. (ch
Viii. 16 reff. ve
Esth. vii. 8.
em ETEGEV aurip Kat ‘ oupmept\a Sov Elie &
M7 ° Oopupetcbe” 7 yao * Yux avrov ev aur EOTLV. fheonts
Li 2 k Beek. v.3
“avaBac o& Kal khaoac TOV aorov Kat wipe ee :
" omednoac a ayou "avynes P ovrag 1 eENADEY. pen, xv. 26
~ > eff.
nyayov 8 tov matoa Cwvra, Kal * mapecAnOnoay ' ob 1
neroiwc. 18 “Hpsic oe
l= ch. x. 10
ae > ~
e any Onnev emt tnv "Acoov, éxeibev
zs @
iKavoy Té
12
“ rooeADorreg exit TO mAotov
>
Y ava-
reff.
m here only.
2 Mace. viii.
25. see Luke
Xxiii. 8.
z /
Suateraynevoc nv, n Luke xxiy.
; ca! alae sen
: ouvepadrAev NLY i
Xxiv. 26
only. Proy.
= Jobn iv. 6. ch. xxvii.
eae x. 34al. 1 Kings xv. 20.
u 2 Mace. xv. 38 only
* uéAXovrtec
AauBavev tov TlavAov" ovTwe yao
, sHoN , € \
*uéd\rAwy avtocg *meZevew. | we OE
XXiii. 30. o bere only. Isa. lix. 9. 2 Macc. xii. 9 only.
17. see Heb. vi. 15. q =ch. xv. 40 reff.
s = Matt. ii. 18. v.4. Luke xvi. 25. Gen. xxiv. 67.
(-os, Sir. xxxiv. [xxxi.] 20. Xen. Mem. iv. 1.1.) v ver. w ch. xiii. 13 reff.
x = vv.3,7. y = here bis. ch. xxiii. 31. 2 Tim. iv. 11 ony. ae ji. 2. vii. 43.) z 1 Cor.
vii. 17. xi. 34. L.P., exc. Matt. xi.]. 1 Chron. ix. 33. a here onlyt. Méxpes €vtavda éméCeucev
n otpatic, Xen, Anab. v. 5. 4. (-€7, Mark vi. 33.) b = here only. (ch. xvii. 18 reff.)
t here ony
10. aft ewemecey ins ew c 106: emecey ex D. ovuptepiBadwy C!, and add autou
C: cuprapadaBwy c k 40. 105: add avrov a 36. ins kat bef evrev D!-gr.
ll. rec om tov (the for ce of the art being overlooked,—see note), with D?>EHLN3 rel
Chr (ce Thl-sif: ins ABCD!&! 13 Thl-fin. for te, 5 D-gr E-gr Thl-sif.
[axp, so A B'(Mai) C2EX Cc-ed Thl-sif. | autns &}.
12. for nyayoy Se Tov mada, D has agra Comevwy Se avtTwy nyayey Tov veavickov.
13. mposeAd. A B'(Mai) EH fg hk mo Chr Thi-sif: kateA@. D Syr. for Ist
em, ecs Dd 1838. rec (for ond emt) ess, With DHL rel 36 Chr (Ee Thl-sif: txt
ABCER 13. 40 Thl-fin. for accov, Oacov, or @accov L o(but not in ver 14) 73-
6-8. 99. 100-1 syrr sah: acoy b! f k 13. 106 eth: vacoy 15. 18. 36, and so in ver 14.
rec nv bef Siaretayperos (jv Stat. is St. Luke’s habit almost uniformly, but it
is not the habit of the great MSS to alter this order), with DHL rel Chr (ce Thi:
evTetaduevos nv C15. 36.180: txt ABEX a m 13. ins ws bef weAAwy D 36.
autos EK.
14. om de C!(app
with CDHL rel 36 ale E-lat Chr (ie Thl: cuveBaddAov &!:
Ast ers, em NIL
Apostle,— gifted, not with medical discern-
ment, but with miraculous power, goes
down to him, falls on him and embraces
him,—a strange proceeding for one bent on
discovering suspended animation, but not
so for one who bore in mind the action of
Elijah (1 Kings xvii. 21) and#lisha (2 Kings
iv. 34), each time over a dead body,—and
having done this, not before, bids them not
to be troubled, for his life was in him. I
wouldask any unbiassed reader, taking these
details into consideration, which of the two
is thenatural interpretation, —and whether
there can be any reasonable doubt that the
intent of Luke is to relate a miracle of
raising the dead, and that he mentions the
falling on and embracing him as the out-
ward significant meanstaken by the Apostle
to that end ? 11.] The intended break-
ing of bread had been put off by the acci-
dent. Tov GpT., as ch. ii. 42. Were
it not for that usage, the article here might
import, ‘the bread which it was intended
to break,’ alluding to &pt. above.
yevodpevos| having made a meal, see
reff. The agape wasa veritable meal. Not
Vou. II.
rec guveBadeyr (alteration to historie aorist as so freq),
txt ABEN? 40. for
‘having tasted it,’ viz. the bread which he
had broken ;—though that is implied, usage
decides for the other meaning. ovTas |
‘ After so doing ° see reff. 12.] As in
the raising of Jairus’s daughter, our Lord
commanded thatsomething should be given
her to eat, that nature might be recruited,
so doubtless here rest and treatment were
necessary, in order that the restored life
might be confirmed, and the shock re-
covered. The time indicated by aiyy
must have been before or about 5 A.m.:
which would allow about four hours smce
the miracle. We have here a minute but
interesting touch of truth in the narrative.
Paul, we learn afterwards, ver. 13, in-
tended to go afoot. And accordingly here
we have it simply related that he started
away from Troas before his companions,
not remaining for the reintroduction of the
now recovered Entychus in ver. 12.
18. *Agaov] A sea-port (also called Apol-
lonia, Plin. v. 32) in Mysia or Troas, oppo-
site to Lesbos, twenty-four Roman miles
(Peutinger Table) from Troas, built on a
high chif above the sea, with a descent so
Q
9. @.E
226 TIPAZEIS AMOZTOAQN.
, Ve) > s Bow® # ’
ech.viit.ao ° stg THY’ Aaaoy, * avaXaPovrec avrov nAPopev eve Murv-
reff. 9 he aa = - t MEVese
dich, xiii. 4 Anvnv, © KaxetMev “ aromAebaavtTec Ty ° ETLoVay KaTHv- ABCDE
HL ab
_ xvi, , > N ’ - or hits i ,
echave It enaauev & aVTLKOUC Xiov. ty Oe ETEpA mapeadouev ogtex
fch. xvi. l reff. 5 ’ \ ’ > ’ ae te -
here only t. : € 13
B od. xxviii. nie Zapov, Kal earn &v Tpwyvdrty TY EXOMEVY)
a , - m
tho —HADopev eve MiAnrov. kexoiker yao o LlavAog ™ waga-
h =ch. xxvii. ‘ ad
. - ‘ of ¢ n , ? oO a
8. Xen. Cyc. wAEVOaL THY Egecov, OTwWCo PN yEVNnTal avTw XeoVvo
iv. 6. 10.
i= here (Mark
iv. 30 rec.)
onlyt. é¢
"Iwviav
mapafa-
Aetv,
Thucyd. iii, t , ‘
ie yor cov peteKaAEcaTo TOUC
k = Mark i. 38. Luke xiii. 33. ch. xiii. 44. x xi. 26.
m here only+. Xen. Anab. vi. 2.1.
~ ~ >» ee
rpipnoa ev ty Acta
e j}
leoocoAupa.
ot 3° Gvbowmur Tois d.mA01s Xp@vTat Grav avw.upoV WK. O
p Luke ii. 16. xix.‘5, 6. ch. xxii. 18. 2 Pet. iii, 12 only. 2 Chron. x. 18.
r= Matt. xxvi.6. Luke x. 32. xxii. 40 al.
u James y. 4 only. (see ch. xiv. 23.)
Aristot. Rhet, iii. 3.
q ch. ii. 1 reff.
xxv. 15. t ch. vii. 14 reff.
15. kot exedey EK.
40 Thi-fin.
n Matt. xviii. 13. Ga
pv Ay) , ? ‘ wv
EOTEVOEV y2P> EL Ouvarov €1))
auTw, THY nNMEpay tne “‘mevrnkootne ™ yeviobar * etc
’ ‘ ~ ’ a
Azo 8 tne MiAnrou wéuac ac ” Ede-
uv / - u? i. ,
m pea [suTEpouc THC EekKKANHoIAC.
Heb. vi. 9 onl _2 Mace. xii. 39.
- Vi
1= ch. xv. 19 reff.
14. Gen. xliv. 7,17. o here only t.
} 56 Aoyos EevatvWetus, olov TO XoovoTp: fet,
s Luke iv. 23. ch. xxi. 17.
v ch. xi. 30 reff.
rec aytixpy (corrn), with B?H rel: txt AB'CDELN 13. 36.
for erepa, eomepa B 15. 19. 73.
mapedaBouey D!-gr: txt Dt.
om Kat mewarTes ev TpwyvAiw, and aft 77 ins de ABCEN 13 vulg: txt (the occa-
sion of the omn has probably been, that Trogylium is not in Samos, which at first sight
the text appeared to imply) DHL rel 36 syrr sah Chr Qe Thl.—ree tpwyvAdw, with H
rel 36: tpwyvAia D-gr: txt (D)L h m o (ce f gk) Syr sah Chr Ec Thl-fin, Trogylio
D-lat. epxouevn D! a m 95!'. 96. 142.
16. rec expie (an ecclesiastical portion begins at ver 16, which has occasioned the
alteration of the pluperf into the independent historic aor), with CHL rel Chr Qe
Thi-sif: txt ABC'DEN a 13. 36 vulg.
for omws un yevntat avtw xpovoTpiByoa,
unmote yevnOn avtw Kkatacxeots Tis D: ut non contingeret et morandi quis D-lat.
rec (for em) nv, with L rel 40 Chr Cc Thi: txt (ut looks like a gramml corrn)
ABCER a 13. 36.—om et Suvatov en DH eth-rom.
tepovtaAnu AEX ac 13. 40: txt BCDHL rel 36 Chr.
for es, ev D': txt D*.
17. wetemeunwaro D. om tous E.
precipitous as to have prompted a pun of
Stratonicus, the musician (see Athen. viii.,
p- 352), on a line of Homer, Ul. ¢ 143,
“Acaov 10, &s Kev Oaacov ddA€Opov Telpal?
ixna. Strab. xiii. 1, p. 126, Tauchn.
Paul’s reason is not given for
wishing to be alone: probably he had
some apostolic visit to make. 14,
MutvAyvnv | The capital of Lesbos, on the
E. coast of the island, famed (Hor, Od.i.7.
1 Epist. i. 11, 17) for its beautiful situa-
tion. It had two harbours: the northern,
into which their ship would sail, was wéyas
k. Babds, xduatt ckeTaCduevos, Strabo,
xili, 2, p. 187. 15. wapeBad.| we
put in: so Charon, in the Frogs, to his
boatman, wd, rapaBadod, 180; and 271,
mapaBadov Ta Kwriw: see many examples
in Wetst. Then they made a short run in
the evening to Trogylium, a cape and town
on the Ionian coast, only forty stadia dis-
tant, where they spent the night. He had
passed in front of the bay of Ephesus, and
was now but a short distance from it.
MfAntov| The ancient capital of Tonia
(Herod. i. 142). See 2 Tim. iv..20, and note,
16. wexpixer} We sce here that the
ers THY nuepay D: + nuepa H.
ship was at Paul’s disposal, and probably
hired at Philippi, or rather at Neapolis, for
the voyage to Patara (ch. xxi. 1), where he
and his company embark in a merchant
vessel, going to Tyre. The separation of
Pauland Luke from therestat the beginning
of the voyage may have been in some way
connected witle the hiring or outfit of this
vessel. The expression kekptket (or Expive,
which will amount to the same thing, only
it must not be taken ‘for the pluperfect,’
here or any where else) is too subjectively
strong to allow of our supposing that the
Apostle merely followed the previously de-
termined course of a ship in which he took
a passage. mapaty. T."Ed.| He
may have been afraid of detention there,
owing to the machinations of those who
had caused the uproar in ch. xix. F. M.,
in his notes, gives another reason: “ He
seems to have feared that, had he run up
the long gulf to Ephesus, he might be de-
tained in it by the westerly winds, which
blow long, especially in the spring.” But
these would affect him nearly as much at
Miletus. 17.] The distance from Mi-
letus to Ephesus is about thirty miles.
15—20.
TIPAZEIS AMOSTOAQN.
ad
8 ¢ \w D w ~ oper f jae J Ww Matt. iii. 13,
We oe TADEYEVOVTO TOOC avTOY, ELTEV aUTOLE Yuste Gees vs
ees f) eS , won} de ec: Zz? +f , 20. viii. 19.
ETLoTAaGUE, a7ro sd ponte MueryaC ag ng exéBnv ELC xi. Gonly,
‘ ? , Josh. xviii. 8.
h. x. 30 reff.
thy Aotar, “mac pel) mwa TOY Tavra Xedvoy " eyevouny, * consti peas
ch. i.
b d
19 SovA cvwy tT! Kuoly “pera Taonc *“Tarewogpoobvnc ese fae
only 2 see
Kal Saxpvev Kal TeIpATHOY tw § cup (array pot gy _ ch. xxiv. 1,
20 ae
rac Poominhhoas TOV ‘Tovdaiwy, we ovocy ' UTEOTEL- see ch. xxi.
2. xxv. 1.
(xxvii 2 reff.) Josh. xiv. 9. a = Mark v. 16. ch. ix. 27. b = (see note) Paul
(Rom. vii. (6) 25 als.) only, exc, Matt. vi. 24. Luke xvi. 13. Ps. ii, 11. ech. xvii. 11 reth.
d (‘all possible’) ch. iv. 29. xxtii.1. Rom.i.29. Eph.i.3. 2 Pet.i.5. Jude 3 al. e Eph. iv. 2.
Phil. ii. 3. Col. ii. 18, 25. iii. 12.
f= Luke xxii. 28. Gal.iv.14al. Deut. iv. 34.
iver. 27. Ga!.ii.12. Heb. x. 38 onlyt.
pndév broateAAopevov.
18. for mapeyevovro, exkAnpuvorto L-gr.
ouoge ovr. avt. D* 40-marg (ouwo eovtwy D'):
(interpolations for par ticularity) : txt BCHLN rel 36 Chr ec Thl.
mpos avtovs D!: ap. avtos Dt.
p-
for ad, ep D!:
Paul only, exc. 1 Pet.v. 5+. (-¢
Povwr, | Pet. iii. 8. -ppovew, ue oe 2.)
& ch. iii. 10 reff. he 24 refi.
Diod. Sic. xiii. 70, ets TO AowTOv O Kupos bechcuicar aitetv,
So Jos. B. J. i. 20. ).
aft avroy ins ouov ovtwy avtwy A:
ouobvpadov E73: et simul essent vulg
for avTots,
aft emotacbe ins adeAda: D: pref 5. 8. 73 sah.
om h 38. 93: txt D+.
eyevounv, D has ws tpretiay 1 kat TAELOY ToTaTwS weO ULLwY NY TaYTOS xXpovoU:
for tws to
D-corr
for evs, em E.
has rws for moramws, D'(?) roy mavta xpovoy, and D5 adds eyevouny: fui per omni
tempore D-lat.
19. aft cupiw add wed vuwy C c 15. 18. 36 Chr-txt.
see 2 Cor ii. 4), with CHL rel 36 syr xth-rom arm Chr We Thi:
om ABDERX 13. 40 vulg Syr copt sah xth-pl Lucif.
(prob interpolation :
He probably, therefore, stayed three or
four days altogether at Miletus. TOUS
ampeoB. | called, ver. 28, émiskdrovs. This
circumstance began very early to con-
tradict the growing views of the apostolic
institution and necessity of prelatical epis-
copacy. Thus Irenzus, iii. 14. 2, p. 201:
‘In Mileto convocatis episcopis et presby-
teris, qui erant ab Epheso et a reliquis
proximis civitatibus. Here we see (1) the
two, bishops and presbyters, distinguished,
as if both were sent for, in order that the
titles might not seem to belong to the same
persons,—and (2) other neighbouring
churches also brought in, in order that
there might not seem to be érioxoret in
one church only. That neither of these was
the case, is clearly shewn by the plain words
of this verse: he sent fo Hphesus, and sum-
moned the elders of the church (see below
on d:7A or, ver. 25). So early did interested
and disingenuous interpretations begin to
cloud the light which Scripture might have
thrown on ecclesiastical questions. The
EK. V. has hardly dealt fairly in this case
with the sacred text, in rendering ém-
oxdmous, ver. 28, ‘ overseers :? whereas it
ought there as in all other places to have
been bishops, that the fact of elders and
bishops having been originally and aposto-
lically synonymous might be apparent to
the ordinary English reader, which now it
is not. 18.| The evidence furnished
by this speech as to the literal report in the
Acts of the words spoken by Paul, is most
important. It isa treasure-house of words,
ree ins 7roAAwy bef Saxp.
oupBavovtwy C.
idioms, and sentiments, peculiarly belong-
ing to the Apostle himself. Many of these
appear in the reff., but many more lie
beneath the surface, and can only be dis-
covered by a continuous and verbal study
of his Epistles. I shall point out such in-
stances of parallelism as I have observed,
in the notes. The contents of the speech
may be thus given: He reminds the elders
of his conduct among them (vv. 18—21):
announces to them his final separation
Jrom them (vv. 22—25): and commends
- earnestly to them the flock committed to
their charge, for which he himself had by
word and work disinterestedly laboured
(vv. 26—35). a6 Tp. hu. | These words
hold a middle place, partly with éertoracée,
partly with eyevéunv. The knowledge on
their part was coextensive with his whole
stay among them: so that we may take the
words with éezictac6e, at the same time
carrying on their sense to what follows.
ped? Up. eyev. | So 1 Thess. i. 5,
oidare oiot eyevnOnuey ev suiv,—ii. 10,
bu. paptupes. . . as dolws. . . buiv rors
mioTevovow eyeviOnuev. See 1 Cor. ix.
20, 22. 19. So0vAevwv TH kup. | With
the sole exception of the assertion of our
Lord, ‘ Ye cannot serve God and mammon,’
reff. Matt., Luke, the verb SovAedw for
‘serving God’ is used by Paul only, and
by him seven times, viz. besides reff.,
Rom. xii. 11; xiv. 18; xvi. 18; Col. iii. 24;
1 Thess. i. 9. pet. 7. tam.| Also a
Pauline expression, 2 Cor. viii. 7; xii. 12.
metpacpav| See especially Gal.
Q 2
228
k part., Chee Aauny TwY
xii.
vii. "35. xy
3 v.47.) Sil.
10 only.
Dent. xxiii. 6.
1 constr., ch.
ddakat beac
TIPAZ EIS ATMOSTOAQN.
k , 1 - s
ouupEepovTwY TOU [I]
! \
" Onpocta kat
XX.
m ’ ~ € ~
avayyetAat vu Kat
°KaT otkouc, 21 P Stapaptu-
oopmevoc Tovdaiore TE kal "EAAnow THY ete Ocov 9 pera-
xiv. 18 reff.
met voray Kat "ict ‘ee Tov ieuptov may ‘Inoowv.
25. xvi.13, o5
&c. ver.27. @“ %
ee Kat vuv * do | dedepiévoc eyo A " TvEevaTe Topebopat
Dent xniv-8 ce “TeoovoaAn ta Ev auTy ouvavry} GOVTa Mot pr
n ch, 7 ’ s 7]
re A
om Matt. xxiv. ELOWC, 23.“ ray Ore TO mvevpa 70 ayiov * Kata * woAw
nee as el U
ne Ea oat pol sis OU Ort 7 Oeoua Kal = UNMET HE
Bel viii. 2
)
ts Bete > névovow.
4 aXX’ ovdevoe * Noyou © Toloupat THY * poyny
r= ch. xxiv. 24 reff. s ch. xiii. 11. t —here only. deden. loxupotépa avayky, Xen. ae viii.
ey u = ch. xvii. 16 reff. v =hereonly. Eccl. ii. 14. ix. 11. (ch. x. “25 reff.)‘ = here
only. Amos ix, 8. xch. xv; 21\(36), ‘Tite3,,5: y mase., Mark ix. 26. 1 a. Zii. 2.
Eph. iv.17, 18. Rev.iv. 8. xix. 14al. Winer, edn. 6, § 59. 4. z ch. Xvi. 26 reff. ach xi.
19 reff. b see ver. 5. ce = and constr., here only. see Job xiv. 3. xxii. 4. dch.
xv. 26 reff.
20. trav cunpepovtwy bef vrecreiAauny C. om py D Lucif. om vuas D
Thl-sif Lucif Jer.
Kat otkovs kat Onuooia D.
21. diauaprvpauevos H m Bas-ms Thl-sif :
-povmevos D}, rec ins Tov bef @eov
(corrn for uniformity), with ADHL 13. 36 rel Bas-ms (Ee Thl-fin: om BCEX dhk
Bas Chr Thl-sif.
aft morw ins Tnv EHL rel Bas Chr Gc Thi:
a 13.36; also D, which reads 61a 7. kupiov nu. tno. xp-
om A B(Mai) CX
om nuwy E. rece aft
ino. ins xpiatov (common addn), with ACDERX 13. 36 rel Syr copt «#th-pl Chr Thl-fin :
om BHL bc g hsyr sah eth-rom Bas We Thl-sif Lucif.
22. rec eyw bef dedeuevos, with DHL rel am Chr Epiph: txt (characteristic order)
ABCERX ak 13 vulg Ath-mss Thl-fin.
tepocoAuma D. cuvavtnoavtTa (prob
originally a mistake) A D-gr E-gr Hm 13: cuuBnooueva (gloss) Ca 15. 36. 68. 69.
180 lect-12 Ath-mss, Thl-fin :
e1dws, yiwworwy D.
23. 70 ay. mv. D-gr:
Ath-mss,.
txt BLN rel vss Ath Chr ce.
To Ty. wo. To ay. © 47. 137 Epiph Chr.
ins tacay bef woAw D vulg Syr eth Lucif.
rec om por (as unnecessary ?), with HL rel xth-rom (ec Thl-sif:
evo: BNI. for
om Kata 7roALv
dieuaptupato AEN? 13. 40
ins ABCDERN a b de h m 13. 36. 40 vulg syrr copt xth-pl arm Ath Cyr-jer, Bas Thl-
fin Lucif Jer.
1! m 36 Epiph.
with L rel Thdrt ec Thl-fin :
vulg(not demid al) syr-w-ast sah Lucif.
24. ree Aoyov, with AD! EHLN? 13 rel 40: txt BCD'‘&! Syr sah eth arm.
aft mrovovma: ins ovde exw, with EHL rel 36:
om BCD'N! vulg Syr sah eth arm.
pot ovde D!:
iv. 14. 20. tmeoterkdpnv | So again
ver. 27. The sense in Gal. il. 12 is similar,
though not exactly identical—‘ reserved
himself,’ withdrew himself from any open
declaration of sentiments. In Heb. x. 38
it is different. TaV cupdep. | See reff.
21. cis 0... . eis 7. Kp. “I. | This use
of eis is mostly Pauline: and in ch. xxiv. 24
it seems to be taken from his own expres-
sion. 22. SeBepevos TH Tvevpare |
bound in my spirit. This interpretation
is most probable, both from the construc-
tion, and from the usage of the expression
7d) mvedua repeatedly ‘by and of Paul in
the sense of his own spirit. See ch. reff.,
where the principal instances are given.
The dative, as here, is found Rom.
xii. 11, 7G wv. Céovtes,—1 Cor. vy. 3,
rec Aeyov, with A B(sic :
rec we bef kat OAupers (alteration perhaps to avoid mewevovow),
me aft wevovow vss, so D(but for pe, wor): txt ABCEHN
ack 13. 40 vulg arm Cyr-jer Bas Did Chr Thl-sif.
see table) CN rel: txt DEH 13 f (k ?)
at end add ev tepocoAvpors D
rec
ins exw ovde bef morovmar AN? 138. 40, exw
ree aft Thy Wuxnv ins pov, with
mapav TQ mvevm. (1 Cor. xiv. 15, 16 ?),—
2 Cor. ii. 13, odk eoxnka &veow TH mv.
ov, and al., see also ch. xix. 21. How
he was bound iz the spirit is manifest, by
comparing other passages, where the Holy
Spirit of God is related to have shaped his
apostolic course. He was bound, by the
Spirit of God leading captive, constraining,
his own spirit. As he went up to Jeru-
salem Scdeuevos TH mvevpati, so he left.
Judea again Sedeuevos TY capKt,—a pri-
soner according to the flesh. He had
no detailed knowledge of futurity—nothing
but what the Holy Spirit, in general fore-
warnings, repeated at every point of his
journey (kara mwéAw; see ch. xxi. 4, 11, for
two such instances), announced, viz., im-
prisonment and tribulations. That hee no
\ ABCDE
HLNab
edfgh
kimo
13
21—25.
TIPAZEIS: AIMOSTOAQN.
229
e , ’ ~ € f nt ~ ry g , \ 4
TIULaVY EMAUVTW@ WE TEAELWOAL TOV dodmoy OU Kal THv &= James v.7.
\ i 7 ] oe ~
” Stakoviay nv " eXaBov ‘Tapa TOU KupLOU "Insov, * Sta-
Ny ~ x ~ ~
paotipacbar to evayyéAtov THe * yaptroc rou @eov. ai.
25 1
c os , ’ oz ~ , “
flov upete mavrec, Ev oic “ SinAPov * Knpvoowy thy *~ Bact- 25.
Jer. viii. 6.
ich. ii. 33 reff. k = ch. xiii. 43 reff.
Oewpety, ver.38. Opav, Col. ii, 1, idetv, 1 Thess. ii. 17. iii. 10.
\ ~ aN AY? \ SN iv > , t St , ,
Kal VUY LOOU EYwW OLOG OTL OUKETL opeobs TO TOOCwWTOY
1 Pet.i. 19 al.
Prov. iii. 15.
Viii. 11.
f = John iv. 34
Sir. 1. 19.
see Phil. iii.
12. Wisd.
iv. 13.
g Paul (ch. xiii.
2 Tim.
iv. 7) only.
h = ch. i. 17, 25. vi. 4. _ Rom. xi. 13+. (ch. vi.lal. L.P., exe. Heb. i. 14. Rev. ii. 19.)
t = here (Rev. xxii. 4) only.
u =ch. viii. 4 reff. 1 Chron.
ver. 22.
vhere only. k. TO evayy. THs B., Matt. ix. 35, «. 7. B. 7. Yeov, ch, xxviii. 31 only.
xxi. 4.
w absol., Matt. viii. 12. xiii. 19, 38 al.
D'EH vulg: om ABC D‘(and lat) LX e¢ 13. 36. 40.
for ws, ews N°: wste Eb cdo 18. 40. 137: ws ro C104: rov D.
exavtov D!: txt D2.
Terciwow BN
rec aft Tov Spouoy ov ins wera xapas (interpolation appy: see Phil i. 4, Coli.
ll, Heb x. 34 de: the finishing his course appearing not emphatic enough), with
CEHL rel 36 syr Chr He Thl: om ABDN 13. 40 vule Syr coptt eth Lucif Ambr.
aft diakovay ins Tov Aoyov D vulg Lucif Ambr.—for ny, ov D!-gr: txt D*.
mapeAaBov Dbeck o 137.
Lucif. om Tov bef @eov D!: ins D5,
25. om idov E113. 40. 73 Syr Lucif.
int. for ovketi, ove &.
aft Siauaptupac@at ins iovdaois Kat eAAnow D sah
oda bef eyw C m Syr: om eyw 180 Iren-
rec aft tTyv BactAeay ins Tov Beou (supplementary addn,
as shewn by the variations), with EHL rel vulg Syr wth Thdrt He Thl: tov moov D
sah ; 7. xup. ino. Lucif: om ABCN ¢ 13. 36 syr copt arm Chr.
inner voice of the Spirit is meant, is evident
from the words kata méAw. (Two of the
three other places where this phrase occurs
are from the mouth or pen of Paul.)
23. To mv. Stapaptvp.] compare Rom.
vill. 16, 7d mvedua ocumpaptuper TE TY.
NMG@V. 24.| The reading in the text,
anidst all the varieties, seems to be that
out of which the others have all arisen,
and whose difficulties they more or less
explain. The first clause is a combination
of two constructions, ovdevds Adyou To.0d-
wat THY Wuxhy euavTod, and od rooduat
(nyotua, Phil. iii. 7, 8) thy Wuxhy timlay
euavT@. The best rendering in English
would be, I hold my life of no account,
nor precious tome. Then again the con-
fused construction of the former clause
shews itself in the &s of the latter, which
is not ‘so that,’ but ‘as,’ q. d. before, ‘so
precious.” ‘IZ do not value my life, in
comparison with the finishing my course.’
Render then the whole verse: But I hold
my life of no account, nor is it so pre-
cious to me, as the finishing of my
course. Teher@oar| See the same
image, with the same word, remarkably
expanded, Phil. iii. 12—14, There in ver.
12 he has used tereAcfwuar,—and,—as is
constantly the case when we are in the
habit of connecting certain words together,
—the dpduos immediately occurs to him,
which he works into a sublime comparison
in ver. 14. Spépov] A similitude
peculiar to Paul: occurring, remarkably
enough, in his speech at ch. xiii. 25. He
uses it without the word ép., at 1 Cor.
ix. 24—27, and Phil. iii. 14. Kal
+. §.] and (i.e. even) the ministry, &c.
kat in this sense gives that which, in
matter of fact, runs parallel with the meta-
phorical expression just used,—stands be-
side it as its antitype. é\aBov | Com-
pare Rom. i. 5, 5? ob é\dBopev xdpiy ck.
amooT OAH. 25.]| It has been argued
from éy ois 6:4A@ov, that the elders of
other churches besides that of Ephesus
must have been present. But it might
just as well have been argued, that every
one to whom Paul had there preached must
have been present, on account of the word
maytes. If he could regard the elders as the
representatives of the various churches, of
which there can be no doubt, why may not
he similarly have regarded the Hphesian
elders as representatives of the churches
of proconsular Asia, and have addressed
all in addressing them ? Or may not these
words have even a wider application, viz.,
to all who had been the subjects of his
former personal ministry, in Asia and
Europe, now addressed through the Ephe-
sian elders ? See the question, whether
Paul ever did see the Asiatie churches
again, discussed in the Prolegg. to the
Pastoral Epistles, § ii. 18 ff. may re-
mark here, that the word oiSa, in the
mouth of Paul, does not necessarily imply
that he spoke from divine and unerring
knowledge, but expresses his own convic-
tion of the certainty of what he is saying:
see ch. xxvi. 27, which is much to our
point, as expressing his firm persuasion
that king Agrippa was a believer in the
prophets: but certainly no infallible know-
ledge of his heart :—Rom. xv. 29, where
230
!
x ch. xsvi. 22. yp
Gal. v. 3. Asta <
Eph. iv. 17.
¢ z 0 , ’ a? be: ~ b aw , s
ities iiig oT KaVapog eu “ avo tov ’ atmatog TayvTwY
only 4. P.
Ww. Os,
Jos. B. J. iii.
8. 3 end.
y Matt. xxviii.
Deov vuiv. 78 °
? e
IIPAZEIS ATOSTOAQN.
XX.
26 Sore * paoTvpopat Umiv ev Ty * onpeoo Y nuépa,
GU yep
ec , ~ ‘ ? - ~ . d ‘ -
“umeoTetAauny “Tov uy “avayystr at tacay THY ° ovAny rou
, Sd © m4 \ ‘ ~F
T OOCEXETE OUD © EAUTOIC Kal TaVTiTW TOLL-
A
15. Rom.xi. 7 © ies - ,o¢@ g ZA h? ,
8. 2 Cor. viw ev w@ URaCc TO TvEvuad TO aytov EVETO ETIGKOTOUC,
iii. 14 only.
Josh. v. 9. Jer. i. 18. zch. xviii. 6. Gen. xxiv. 8. a= Matt. xxvii. 24. 2 Kings iii. 28.
b ch. xviii. 6. c ver. 20 (reff.). dch. ii. 23 reff. Wisi. vi. 4. e Luke xii. 1. xvii. 3. xxi. 34.
ch.v. 35 only. Deut. iv. 9. f here bis. Luke xii. 32. 1 Pet. v.2, Sonly. Jer. xiii. 17. g = 1 Cor.
xii. 18, 28. Gen. xvii. 5. h (here first.)
Phil. i.1,
1 Tim. iii. 2. Tit.i.7. 1 Pet. ii. 25 only. 2 Chron.
xxxiv. 12. Isa.Ix.17. (-my, 1 Tim. iii.1. -aetv, 1 Pet. y. 2.)
26. ree (for d:071) 10, with CHL 13. 36 rel Thl: txt A B(sic: see table) EX g: 8:0
kat f 32. 57. 104.—for dioTs to ort, axpe ovy THs onuepov nucpas D!, propter quod
hodierno die D-lat: txt D®.
rec (for exus) eyw (see ch xviii. 6, where there is no
varn), with AHL rel copt Bas, Chr, (Xe Thl-sif: eyw em: a 69. 105 arm Gild: exuc
eyo sah Jer: txt BCDEN ¢ 13. 36. 40 vulg syrr Amm Bas, Chr, Damase.
mavTwy add vuwy KE adel syrr copt eth.
27. om un D'-gr 667. 73. 81. 177! Lucif: ins D5(?).
aft
ree uu bef tacay 7. Bova.
t. 6., with AEHLNS rel syrr coptt Bas, Chr e Thi Iren-int Jer Gild: txt BCDN! m
13 vulg.—nuy D!: txt Dt.
28. om ovv (mposexere is the beginning of an ecclesiastical portion) ABDN o 13. 36
lectt vulg copt Did Thdrt Lucif: ins CEHL rel spee syrr Chr (ec Thl Iren-int.
also a firm persuasion is expressed :—Phil.
i. 19, 20, where oida, ver. 19, is explained
to rest on @morapedorla Kal eAmis in
ver. 20. So that he may here ground his
expectation of never seeing them agai, on
the plan of making a journey into the west
after seeing Rome, which he mentions
Rom. xv. 24, 28, and from which, with
bonds and imprisonment and other dangers
awaiting him, he might well expect never
to return. Sothat what he here says need
not fetter our judgment on the above ques-
tion. 26.] The use of paptipouat is
peculiar to Paul, see reff. 28. mposey.
éavtots| If we might venture to trace the
hand of Luke in the speech, it would be
perhaps in this phrase: which occurs only
as in reff. tT. zotpvi@| This simili-
tude does not elsewhere occur in Paul’s
writings. We find it (reff.) where we
should naturally expect it, used by him to
whom it was said, ‘ Feed my sheep.’ But
it is common in the O. T. and sanctioned
by the example of our Lord Himself.
TO Tv. T. &Y.| See ch. xiii. 2. ero |
So Paul, reff. 1 Cor. émiokdtrovs |
See on ver. 17, and Theodoret on Phil. i. 1,
emirkdmous Tods mpeaBuTepous Kader augd-
Tepa yap elxov Kat’ éxeivov Toy Kaipby Te
évéuara (Olsh.). The question be-
tween Oe00 and kvpfov rests principally on
internal evidence—which of the two is
likely to have been the original reading.
The MSS. authority, now that itis certain
that B has @evd a prima manu, as also X,
is weighty on both sides. The early pa-
tristic authority for the expression afua
Gcod is considerable. Ignat. Ephes. i.,
p- 644, has ava(wruphoarres év aluari Ocod.
Tertull. ad Uxor. ii. 3, vol. i., p. 1293,
“pretio empti, et quali pretio? sanguine
Dei.” Clem. Alex., ‘Quis dives salvus,’ c.
34, vol. ii., p. 344, has Suvduer Geod ratpés,
K. aluatt Geod madds, k. Spdow mvevmaros
aytov. On the other hand Athanasius
(contra Apol. ii. 14, vol. ii., p. 758) says,
odSamod S€ alua Oeod Sixa capxds Tmapa-
dedadnacw ai ypapal, 7) Ocdy Sixa capKds
maddvta 2) avacrdvta. In attempting to
decide between the two readings, the follow-
ing alternatives and considerations may be
put: (I.) 1F kvpfov WAS THE ORIGINAL, it
is very possible (1) that some busy scribe
may have written at the side, as so often
occurs, 8e0d. This having been once done,
. the interests of orthodoxy would perpetuate
the gloss, and by degrees it would be
adopted into the text and supersede the
original word, or become combined with it,
as is actually the case in HL and a vast
body of mss. Or, continuing supposition
I., it may have been (2) that the expression
éxxAnolay Tod Kuplov, not found any where
else, may have been corrected into the very
usual one, éxkd. (rod) Gcod, which occurs
eleven times in the Epistles of Paul. Or
(3), which I consider exceedingly improbable
(see below), the alteration may have been
made solely in the interest of orthodoxy.
Such are possible, and the two former
not improbable, contingencies. On the -
other hand (II.) IF @e00 Was THE ORI-
GINAL, but one reason can be given why it
should have been altered to kvupfov, and
that one was sure to have operated. It
would stand as a bulwark against Arianism,
an assertion which no skill could evade,
which must therefore be modified. If @eot
26—29. TIPAZ EIS ANOXSTOAQN. 231
i U ‘ ’ ’ ~ ~ a & , ape :
‘Tomaweyv tHv EKKANGLAY TOU * Ocov, Hv © weptewTomoaro * 784. E ss,
\ ~- ew - tol SOR aN: Ss ¢ Les , 2 Kings v. 2.
cia TOU QALUaTOC TOV LOLOU. EyW olou OT erceAcvoovrat k Luke xvii. 33.
1 Tim. iii. 13
> ~ m ‘ oa ef o = ; y= ~ only, Gen
M&Ta THvV apt tv fou UKOL apelc slic UMaC: AI) ¥X<1. 18! Isa.
Xxxi. 5.
1 Jonn x.1. ch. xix. 30. m here only t+. 3 Mace. vii. 18.
vii. 15 (x.16. Loke x.3, John x. 12bis) only. (Ezek. xxii. 27.)
Herodot. ix. 77. n= Marr,
o = here only. (ch. xxv. 7 reff.)
70 ay. wv. D-gr. * kvolov AC'DE a 13, 36. 40 syr-marg coptt arm Iren-int
Amm Eus Ath-ms (Constt) Did Chr(on Eph iv. 12) Thdor-stud Thl-fl-ms Lucif Aug
Jer Sedul: xpiorov Syr wth-pl Orig(but has also ray exkAnotay alone) Ath-4-mss
Thdrt, (ef cuvrpéxete eis Thy exxAnolay roo kuplov hv mepiemoincato TH aluats Tod
xptorov Constt): kupiov rat Peov CHL rel: kupiov Oeov 3. 952: Gcouv BN c vulg syr
syr-lect Ign Ps-Ath Epiph, Bas Antch (ic Thl-fin Ambr Ors Cassiod Primas. aft
wepleToimoato ins eavtw D sah, sibi constituit Iren. rec Tou idiov aimartos (altera-
tion, says Meyer, owing to Oeov, because tov wiov might be referred to Christ [as @
gen): but surely this is carrying subtlety somewhat too far. It has been evidently @
corrn for simplicity, not observing the emphasis), with HL rel Ath Chr @e Thi: txt
ABCDER a ec m 18. 36. 40 arm Did Iren-int Lucif. :
29. rec aft eyw ins yap (¢o0 connect and strengthen the sentence), with C3HHL rel
syrr sah Chr Ge Thl: ot: eyo B: eyw de &3 copt: car eyw wth: txt ACDN! 13. 36
vulg Iren-int Lucif Jer. rec aft oda ins Touro (like preceding), with C3EHL rel
syr Chr Ge Thl: om ABC!DN a 13. 36 Thdrt Iren-int Lucif Jer. apetw D.
stood in the text originally, 7# was swre to had rejected. And this decision is con-
be altered to xvgtov. The converse was
not sure, nor indeed likely, from similar
reasons, the passage offering no stumbling-
block to orthodoxy. (III.) PauLine
USAGE must be allowed its fair weight in
the enquiry. It must be remembered that
we are in the midst of a speech, which is (as
observed in the Prolegg. to Acts, § ii. 17 a)
a complete storehouse of Pauline words
and expressions. Is it per se probable,
that he should use an expression which
nowhere else occurs in his writings, nor
indeed in those of his contemporaries ?
Is it more probable, that the early scribes
should have altered an unusual expression *
for an usual one, or that a writer so con-
stant to his own phrases should here have
remained so? Baesides,—in most of the
places where Paul uses éx«xAnoia Tov Gcod,
it isin a manner precisely similar to this,—
as the consummation of a climax, or in a
position of peculiar solemnity, cf. 1 Cor.
Koape RVs Gale dew diced May Wiens AID s
and, czteris paribus, I submit that the
present passage loses by the substitution of
kuptov the peculiar emphasis which its
structure and context seem to require in
the genitive, introduced as it is by mpos-
CVETE (peua cu toimatvery, and followed by
the intensifying clause hy mepreroihoato
dia Tov aluatos Tod idtov. (LV.) On the
whole then, weighing the evidence on both
sides,—seeing that it is more likely that the
alteration should have been to «upfov than
to @cov,—more likely that the speaker
should have used @cod than kupiov, and
more consonant to the evidently emphatic
position of the word, I have decided
for the rec. reading, which in Edd. 1, 2 I
,
firmed by observing the habits of the
great MSS. respecting the sacred names.
It appears that B has zo bias for beds
where the others have «épios: we find it
thus reading in Luke ii. 38 (so DLX!EX) ;
ch. xvi. 10 (so ACEN); xvii. 27 (so
AHLR) ; xxi. 20 (so ACELN) ; Col. iii. 16
(so AC!D'FR) ; while on the other hand it
has «cv w in Rom. xv. 32, where the others
have @v or xv w; xv in Eph. v. 21, where
rec. has @v; xv in ch. viii. 22, with
ACDEN, where rec. and the mss. have @vu:
similarly in ch. x. 33, and xv. 40: in
Rom. x. 17 xv, with CD!N}, for 6u: xiv.
4, «s, with AC'N, for @s. This evidence
seems to remove further off the chance
of deliberate alteration here to 6eod, and
leaves the above considerations their full
weight. (V.) Of course any reading which
combines the two, kupiou and 6¢09, is by the
very first principles of textual criticism in-
admissible. (VI.) The principal names on
either side are—for the rec. 6¢08, Mill,
Wolf, Bengel, Matthii, Scholz: for kuptov,
Grotius, Le Clerc, Wetst., Griesb., Kuin.,
De Wette, Meyer, Lachmann, Tischendorf,
Tregelles. meptet. | Luke and Paul
(in pastoral Epp. only), see reff. 29.]
Gres is here used in an unusual sense.
An instance is found, Jos. Antt. iv. 8. 47,
where Moses says, éwel mpds robs jueré-
pous ume mpoydvous, kal Oeds Tijvde por
THY Nuepay THs mpds exelvovs apitews
Gpie..... which is somewhat analogous,
but more easily explained. That in Herod.
ix. 77 (init.) also seems analogous. In De-
mosth. de Pace, p. 58 (fin.) we have rv réTe
&pikw eis Tovs woAscmlous éero:écaro, which
232
IIPAZEIS AMOSTOAQN.
XX.
30 N96 c ~ , ~ q ’ ,
ULWVY AUTWV avaoTi-
P ‘¢ ~ f ,
pRom.xi.21 P derdguevoe Tov ‘ royuviov, °° Kalé
Xxxiii. 3. sah 8 a X = r 5 , s =-t? ~
2Kingsai, GovTat avogec Aadouvrec rai ana iat TOU rss
4, 6. A a eee A 3]
= ch. v. 36, is
ae Tope ualytac” Orlow eavtTor. uo * pene na as “avn
from Exod. 4 wt x ' SS er >
8. pbysOUTeE ort “rottlay * viKra Kal * nuépay OUK
y Matt. xvii. ’ , - ‘ , b ~
Vb. Lake # silat iit # eae Saxo buy voller “ éva éxaoTov.
8, 1 La
Pains kat “ra vuv * mapa Denar vpac to Oew Kal Tw 8 doyy
only, Deut. ~
eae E | me ° " y aptroc avrov, TW Suvanévy | ot oBouiaae ed i dovwat
k
« Zr hia, ry xAnpovopiay ° EV TOLC * Nytaspévorc Tac. ° apyu-
xxvi Mie be
Take xxii 41. olou 1 Xevatov 7 | uatispou oveevoc ™ ereOunoa’ °* avrot
only. Jer. xii. 14. uch, y. 37 reff. v = Matt. xxiv. 42. 1Cor.xvi.13 al. (Jer. v. 6.)
w Pavlonly. Eph. ii. 11. 2 Thess. ii. 5.
-tifw, Gen. xv. 9. see ch. xxviii. 30.)
Esth. iv. 16. elsew. gen., as ch. ix. 24 reff.
2 Mace. xi. 6. , b Rom. xv. 14.
only. P. Jobiv.3. (-@ecta, 1 Cor. x, 11.)
xxili. 46. ch. xiv. 23. Ps. xxx. 5.
43 reff. i =ch. ix. 31 reff.
vii. 25. ix. 29. John xix. 24.
7 al.) Prov. xxiii. 3, 6.
30. om Ist avtwy B e sah eth.
(for eautwy) avtwy, with CDEHL rel Bas Chr ec Thl:
txt D‘.
vulg Syr coptt «th Thl-fin Lucif Jer Oros.
31, vuxrav A. for kat, 5e D':
xxi 2.)
32. vutr(sic) &.
(ds, 2 Macc. x. 6.)
y ch. xxvi. 7.
z constr., ch. xii. 10 reff.
1Cor.iv. 14. Col. i 28. iii. 16.
1 Tim, ii. 9 only. Ps. xliv.9
rec aft vuas ins adeAgar (for solemnity :
x here only +. (-17s, 2 Chron. xxxi. 16.
2 Thess. iii. 8. Paul only, exc. Mark iv. 27.
a Heb. v. 7. xii. 17.
1 Thess. v. 12, 14. 2 Thess. iii. 15
¢ ch. ii. 6 reff. 4 ch. iv. 29 reff. e Luke
fch. xiv. 3. constr., ch. xiii. 26 reff. heh. xiii
k =—and cane Eph. i. 18. (see ch. xxvi. 18.) 1 Luke
m constr., 1 Tim. iii. lonly. (Rom. vii.
for amooray, arortpepew D-gr Syr. rec
txt ABR.
at end ins yuuwoy DEabedko
[D-lat is deficient from ver 31 to ch
were it genuine, as
Meyer observes, there would be no possible reason for omitting it), with CEHL rel 36
eeth-rom Chr:
for Gem, kupiw B 33. 68 coptt.
eimev oixodounoat adA eroltkodouncal, Seikvus oTt dn wKodounOnoav.
aft tw Oew, c 137 lect-58 : om ABD 13 vulg syrr coptt zth-pl Jer Oros.
rec errokodounoa, with HL rel Chrexp, (ove
But may not
this have been the history of its alteration, to render the word more strictly appro-
priate ?): txt ABCDE® 13. 36.
o 14). 662. 69. 76. 81. 105! Syr Chr,.
vss: om ABDE® vulg copt.
CEN. add avrov A.
mavtwy D-gr.
83. for Ist 7, ka: D vulg(not am &c) spec Ec.
36. add vuwy DE spec arm.
add vuxas DE 29. 76 lect-58 sah exth:
rec aft douvv. ins vurv, with CHL 13. 36 rel
rec om tyv, with DHL rel:
aft ev ins av[ ..
pref, a b
see table)
for mac, Twy
ins A B(sic:
]s (? avtots) D?.
ovBevos AEN: txt BCDHL rel
$4. rec aft avro ins de, with 13: yap 106: om ABCDEHLX rel vulg syrr «th arm
is most like the usage here. Perhaps, ab-
solutely put, it must signify ‘my death ;’
see the above passage of Josephus.
AvKor Bapeis] not persecutors, but false
teachers, from the words eised. eis tpas,
by which it appears that they were to come
in among the flock, i. e. to be baptized
Christians. In fact ver. 30 is explanatory
of the metaphoric meaning of ver. 29.
peiSopar is only used by Paul, except
2 Pet. ii. 4, 5. 80.] tpav avr. does
not necessarily signify the presbylers: he
speaks to them as being the whole flock.
31. | pYnp.. tt is only (reff.) used by
Paul. voxta Kk. pépov| This ex-
pression is remarkable: we have it (see
reff.) in Mark, but Luke always uses the
genitive, except in the speeches of Paul:
and so Paul himself, except as in reff.
voverov (reff.) is used only by Paul.
On the three years spoken of in this verse,
see note, ch. xix. 10, We may just remark
here (1) that this passage being precise and
definite, must be the master key to those
others (as in ch. xix.) which give wide and
indefinite notes of time: and (2) that it
seems at first sight to preclude the idea of
a journey (as some think) to Crete and
Corinth having taken place during this
period. But this apparent inference may
require inodifying by other circumstances:
ef. Prolegg. to 1 ‘Cor. § v. 4. 32. Tt.
Noy. THS Xap. avr. | I should be inclined to
attribute the occurrence of this expression
in ch. xiv. 3, to the narrative having come
from Paul himself, or from one imbued
with his words and habits of thought. See
ver. 24. 7® BSuv.] Clearly spoken of
God, not of the word of His grace, which
cannot be said Sotvar KAnpov., however it
might oikodoujoa. The expression
KAnpov. ev T. ny. Tao. is strikingly similar
to Tijs KAnpovoulas a’tod ey tos aylos,
Eph. i. 18, addressed to this same chureh,
ABCDE
HLN ab
edfgh
klmo
13
30—38.. ‘ TIPAZEIS ATIOSTOAQN. 233
, id ~- , \ « 2 > 9 -~ Pry
YiIVWOKETE OTL TAIC ? Xpslatc fou Kal TOLG OVOLY MET EMOU ™= Ch. xxvii.
10. Rom. xii.
13. Phil. ii.
25. iv. 16, 1Y.
Tit. iii. 14.
Sir. xxxix.
33
oe , e 7 ~ 35 p , q £ ‘8 ¢ Gq. =
UTNHOETHOAV at KELOEC auTat Tavra UTEOELGA ULV
¢ e r ~ el ae) , Wet + ae!
OTL OUTWC KOT tLwVYTaC et avriAapBavecbat TwWvV acOe-
och. xiii. 36
(reff.). xxiv.
23 only ft.
eo > ‘ = A f > ~ , *
ott avtoc eimev “ Makagwv éorw “ padrXdov didovat 1] P constz.,1 Cor.
, u , ~ Vv , ~ Vv ’ > ~
VOUVTWY, MVYNMOVEVELY TE TWV Noywv TOU KUOLOU Inoou,
- \ ~ ’ ‘ \ A 7 > ~ -
AapBavev. cat ravra simeov * Ole ra * yOovaTa auTov go take tiie”
A ~ ’ ~ , e ‘ \ Q 7 | Mt.) vi.
OUV Taolv auToLe mpocnvsaro. 37 y iKavoc oe * kAavOuoc pa rene
ai , \ ab 2 , ZIT Sabai of uA »\ ~ only. Esth.
EYEVETO TAVTWY, Kal” ETLTEGOVTEC ETLTOV “TOaYNAOV TOV FE
ri Cor. xv. 10
, d , > ¢ ? , , | eee
TlavAov “ katepitovy avrov, °° 6duvmmevor padtora ‘emt reff
s Lukel.
~ , rei Soe) Sear he eZ <i ke 1 Tim. vi. 2
TW Aoyw @ elonkel, OTL ovKETL péAXoVOLY TO ' TpdcwTOY only EP.
. oa. iw.
(cuvavteA.,
Rom. viii. 26.)
(2 Cor. xii. 10. Jobiv. 4.) see 1 Thess. v. 14. uw. gen., Luke xvii. 32 al. 1 Chron.
f Tim. vi. 3. w constr., Mark ix. 42. 1 Cor. ix. 15. see Matthia, § 458.
x ch. vii. 60 reff. y ch. xi. 24 reff. % Matt. ii. 18. viii.12al5. Luke xiii. 28 only, Gen.
xlvi. 29. a ver. 10. b Luke xv. 2U only. Gen. xlvi. 29. c ch. xv. 10 reff.
d Matt. xxvi.49|| Mk _ Luke vii. 38, 45. xv. 20 only. Exod.iv. 27. Ruth i. 9, 14,
48 (xvi. 24, 25) only. Isa. x1. 29. f = James v.lal. Zech. xii. 10.
h = ch. xix. 27 al. i see ver. 25 reff. k ch. xv. 3 reff.
Bas Chr Thl-sif Aug. odare A, Tas xpetas(sic) D!: txt D2.
pov ins maow D!, aft avra ins wov D sah: wou avra: Syr copt wth.
35. ins kar bef mavta C'D2 b o 36. 40 Syr. for mavta, maot D!: txt D2.
Twv acbevovvtwy bef avTiAauBavecba A. om te (A! ?) D! coptt: ins D?. Tov
Aoyov La d? ef k 4. 142, 22. 42. 57. 65. 69. 73. 96. 99. 126. 156. 163. 191. 192 lect-58
sah eth arm Chr Thl-sif: rou Aoyov h 26. 38. 40. 93 lect-18 vulg (both corrns, because
but one saying is cited). om ingov A 2. 30. 68. 96. 142 Epiph Chr Bas. ouTos
and wakapios D!: txt D?. rec d:50va: bef wadAov, with am: txt ABCDEHLN
13 rel vulg spec syr arm Chr Damase Thl Aug.
86. eas D': txt D-corr!. om avtov D!: ins DS,
om autos C! 36 arm. mposevéato B'(Mai) D.
87. for de, Te RN. rec eyeveto bef kAavOuos (corrn of order to bring kravOuos
and rayvtwy together), with HL rel ec Thl-sif: txt ABCDEN ahk m 13. 40 vulg
Thl-fin. om tov D-corr c 180 Thl-sif. karepidwy &).
38. wadiora ext Tw Aoyw bef odvywpevor, omg w erpyeer (ins D-corr’) and adding (aft
> - ji ~ k / \ SN 2 \ x ~
aQuTOU fewoetv. T OOET EMT OV Oe auTOV é&¢ TO TAOLOYV,.
t = here only.
xvi. 15 vl
e = Luke ii.
gattr., ch. i. 1 reff.
aft xp.
ouptacw L.
oduv.) ort exmev, D1: om exrev D-corr.
txt Dt. om avtov D!: ins D®,
See also ch. xxvi. 18. 33.] See 1 Sam.
xii. 3; and for similar avowals by Paul
himself, 1 Cor. ix. 11, 12; 2 Cor. xi. 8, 9;
xii. 13. 34.] See 1 Cor. iv. 12, which
he wrote when at Ephesus. xpeta, with
a gen. of the person in want, is an expres-
sion of Paul only ; see among reff.
banperety is used only twice more ; once by
Paul, ch. xiii. 36, once of Paul, ch. xxiv. 23.
The construction is varied in this sen-
tence. Tats Xp. “ov, kal (not Tay dyTaY,
but) tots otow per’ éuod. This is not
without meaning—his friends were among
his xpetai—he supplied by his labour, not
his and their wants, but Ais wants and
them. ai x. avrat| also in Paul’s
manner: compare Taév decuav roiTwy, ch.
xxvi. 29,—and ch. xxvili. 20. 35.
awavta] In all things: so Paul (only), see
reff. Kkomi@vtas | A word used by
Paul fourteen times, by Luke once only
(Luke v. 5 [xii. 27 v. r.]). TOV
a&a8evovvtwv| Not here the weak in faith
for overt meAAovow, meddrct [oo |e D!:
for ets, emt D.
(Rom. xiv. 1. 1 Cor. viii. 9), as Calvin, Beza,
Grot., Bengel, Neander, Meyer, Tholuck,
—which the context both before and after
will not allow :—but the poor (rods révn-
Tas aoGevovvtas, Aristoph. Pac. 636. 8 Te
yap aabevéotepos 6 mAovaids Te Thy Bikny
tony €xet, Kurip. ap. Stob. exv. [ Wetst.]}),
as Chrys., Theoph., Heinrichs, Kuin,
Olsh., De Wette. Mak. éotwv k.7.A. |
This saying of our Lord is one of very
few not recorded in the Gospels, which
have come down to us. Many such must
have been current in the apostolic times,
and are possibly preserved, unknown to
us, in such epistles as those of James,
Peter, and John. Bengel remarks, ‘alia
mundi sententia est:’ and cites from an
old poet in Athenzeus, viii. 5, avdnros 6
did0vs, evtuxhs 8 6 AauBdvwv. But we
have some sayings the other way: not to
quote authors who wrote after this date,
and might have imbibed some of the spirit
of Christianity, we find in Aristotle, Eth.
234
1 constr., ch.
iv 5 reff.
mch xiii.13 2
refi.
n= Luke xxii.
Al. (ch. xx.
30 refi.)
2 Mace, xii.
10,
och. xvi. 11
only t.
pch. xxv. 17,
xxvii. 18.
Luke vii. 11
(w. Huépa,
s 87) only.
2
Vv
% avny Onuer.
here only. u=—ch. xxvii. 5. (ch. viii. 5 reff.)
(see note), ch. ii. 5 reff. Winer, eda. , § 45. 6.
Cuap. XXTI.1. avaxdevtas X': om avax6. A'(appy): ins aft nuas A2.
[Ka]t emi[ B javt|e|s avnxOnuey aroomacbevtwr Se | nuw |v D!:
omacbevtes BE?.
txt Dt. for nAOouev, nrowev D.
IIPAZEIS AMOSTOAQN.
XXI. ! we 8! eyévero o
€ ~ , e ~ ,
de Pekne etc tHv Podov, Kcaxeiev cic Haraoa.
XXI.
> ~ c ~ n? é
avayOnvat nuagc aTooTacvEvTac
ax avtwv, ° evOudponnsavrec HAVomEV etc THY Ko, ? ry
2 \
Kal
€ a ~ ~ ? ‘ , ,
evpovrec mAowv “dtaTeowv etc Powikny, * emifsavrec
a2 / \ ‘ , Vt
avapavevrec Of THY Kumoov kau Kata-
ts e] ‘ ae es , , , vy U \
Aurovteg aurnv ‘evwvupov exAéonev etc Luptay, Kat
u he , , 4 v? -~ ‘ \ cad w Ft
KatnADouev ete Tuoov’ * exetce yap To mAowv “ Hv
q Matt. ix. 1. xiv. 341Mk. Mark v. 21. Luke xvi. 26 only. Deut. xxx. 13.
8 Luke xix. ll only. Cant. vi. 4 (only ?). constr. pass., Rom. vi. 17.
rabsol., here only. — ch. xxvii. 2.
Gal. ii. 7. Heb. xi. 2 al. t constr.,
vch. xxii. 5only. Jub xxxix. 29. w coustr.
amro-
om tny D. rec cwv, with HL 1m:
Coum vulg: Chio tol: txt ABCDEN rel 36 syrr coptt arm (ec Thl-fin Cassiod,
Cho am. (13 def.)
matepa AC.
. for e&ns, emtoven D.
at end ins ka: zvpa D vulg-ms, uppa sah.
om Tnv (bef podov) CD 40 Chr,.
2. diamepovy E 73. 105: diawepoy LN3 ak Thi-fin: d:amopevouevor 137.
8. Steph avapavavres (corrn, not perceiving the force of the passive), with B2(sic :
see table) 8 a? b ¢ o Chr(some mss) : txt AB CEHL 13. 36 rel.
katadecrovtes AHL h! 13 (but -révres HL).
om «a A k m demid(not am fuld).
om ty E.
om emAcomev A: erAevoauey E?: navigavimus vulg E-lat: collavimus D-lat.
ree (for katnAOouev) kaTnxXOnuev, with CHL rel Chr Ge Thi: depositi sumus
E-lat : venimus vulg: enavigavimus D-lat: txt ABEN 13 coptt eth.
rec nv bef to mAowv, with HL rel 386: txt ABCEN ¢ 13.
vulg syr Chr ec Thl.
137.
Nicom. iv. 1, waadady eoriw rod edevbepiou
7 Siddvar ois det 7) AopBdverw bev Hei,
kal uh AapBdavew bOev od det. Tis ape-
THS yap pmGAAov Td eb motety 4} Td Cd
maoXev. XXI.1.] The E. V., ‘After
we had gotten from them, does not come
up to the original: Selxvvor thy Biay To
eimeiy Gmoonacbevtas am aitay, Chrys.
evOvSpopn.| See ref., having run
before the wind. Cos, opposite Cnidus
and Halicarnassus, celebrated for its wines
(e¥xapros raca, otvw 5€ Kal aplorn, Kabd-
mep Xlos x. AéoBos, Strab. xiv. 2), rich
stuffs (‘nec Cow referunt jam tibi pur-
pure,’ Hor. iv. 13. 13), and ointments
(ylverat 5€ uwtpa KdAALoTAa KaT& Térous
- ++. GQuapdkivoy 5& Koov kal uhdwor,
Athen. xv. p. 688). The chief town was
of the same name (Hom. Il. 8. 677), and
had a famous temple of A’sculapius (Strabo,
ibid.). It was the birth-place of Hippo-
crates. The modern name, Stanchio, is a
corruption of és ray Ka. See Winer, RWB.
Rhodes was at this time free, ef.
Strabo, xiv. 2; Tac. Ann. xii. B8: ‘ Reddi-
tur Rhodiis libertas, adempta seepe aut fir-
mata, prout bellis externis meruerant, aut
domi seditione deliquerant.’ See also Suet.
Claud. 25, ‘ Rhodiis (libertatem) ob poeni-
tentiam veterum delictorum reddidit.’ It
was reduced to a Roman province under
Vespasian, Suet. Vesp. 8. ‘The situation
of its chief town is praised by Strabo, 1. e.
exe. H A133
The celebrated Colossus was at this time
broken and lying in ruins, ib. Patara,
in Lycia (‘ caput gentis,’ Liv. xxxvii. 15), a
large maritime town, a short distance E.
of the mouth of the Xanthus. It hada
temple and oracle of Apollo, Herod. i. 182.
‘Delius et Patareus Apollo,’ Hor. iii. 4.
There are considerable ruins remaining,
Fellows, Asia Minor, p. 219 ff. Liycia, p.
115 ff. Winer, RWB. Here they leave
their ship hired at Troas, or perhaps at
Neapolis (see note on xx. 16), and avail
themselves of a merchant ship bound for
Tyre. 3. avahavevtes| for the con-
struction, see reff. and Winer, edn. 6, § 39.
1: having been shewn Cyprus, literally.
Wetst. cites from Theophanes, p. 392,
TeptepepovTo ev TH meAayet, avapavévtwy
dé ad’rtay thy yijv, eldov abrovs of orpar-
nyo. ‘The graphic language of an eye-
witness, and of one familiar with the
phraseology of seamen, who, in their own
language, appear to raise the land in ap-
proaching it.’ Smith, Voyage and Ship-
wreck of St. Paul. But would not this re-
mark rather apply to the active participle ?
Compare ‘aerias Phzeacum abscondimus
arces,’ Nn. iii. 291. evovupoy |
sc. avrhy, i.e. to the E. This would be
the straight course from Patara to Tyre.
éwh. ets ¥.,—we held our course,
steered, for Syria. KaTy\8.| we
came down to, the result of having borne
eoP[.]-
VEtKnY
ABCE
HL ab
edfgh
klmo
13
1—5d.
? , Zz ‘ ,
“amtopootiComevov tov * youov.
> Li
uabnrac * ereusivaper
/ ~
TatAw e\eyou “Sa Tov TVEVMATOC ya) * extBatvew Ec
TIPAS EIS AMOSTOAQN.
b > - cay e , Creed =
auTOuU neMeoac e7mTa, OLTIVEC TW
235
x here onlyt.
kuBepuntns
XEtuwveov
ém.yivo-
jhéveav cmro-
doorileTar,
42? , = N
QVEVDOVTEG OF TOUC
« 7 5e ie “fF 94 7 g? , (Ths? Th gs Philo de
TepocoXuna. OTE 0é EyEveTO 5 eEaoricat nuMac TAG Prem. 5, vol.
il. p. 413.
y Rev. xviif. 11, 12 only. Exod. xxiii. 6 only, 2 Luke ii. 16 only f. a= ch. x. 48 reff.
beh. xviii, 19 reff. ce ch. x. 41 reff. d ch. xi. 28 ref. e = and constr., ch. xx.
18. (XxXvii. 2 reff.) f constr., ver. 1 al. g = here (2 Tim. iii. 17) only +. Jos. Autt. iii.
22. h = Loke ii. 6, 22, 43.
4. rec kat avevpovtes (corrn of copula, as frequently), with CHL rel D-lat syrr wth
Chr Thl: txt ABC'E a m 13. 36. 40 vulg copt Thl-fin.
not seeming in place) Hubedefghk1o 187 Chr Thl-fin.
om tous (corrn, the art
autos (alteration
to suit oitwes which follows) AEL k Thl-fin: mpos avtovs Chr,, apud eos D-lat E-lat :
txt BCHN 13 rel.
eAcyav B: repeated by B! after rvevuaros (see table).
rec avaBaiveww (substitution of more usual word), with EHL rel vulg Chr Did Ge
Thl-sif: txt ABCN 13(appy) 36. 40 Thl-fin.
rec tepovoaAnu, with HL rel Epiph
Chr Did: txt ABCEN a k 138. 36. 40 vulg D-lat Thl-fin.
5. rec nuas bef efaprioa (alteration of order to avoid nuas tas nuepas), with CHLN
rel 36 Chr: txt ABE: ove de eyevero eferOew nuas nuepas etaptica: ew. 13: sequenti
autem die exeuntes ambulamus viam nostram D-lat: post hos autem dies amb. v. n.
down upon. T¥pov] This city, so
well known for its commercial importance
and pride, and so often mentioned in the
O. T. prophets, was now a free town (Jos.
Antt. xv. 41. Strabo, xvi. 2, obx ind Trav
Baotrkdwy 8 expiOyoay adtdvouot jdvov,
GAAG wal rd Tay “Pwualwy) of the pro-
vince of Syria. éxeioe | If this is an
adv. of motion as generally, the reference
may be to the carrying and depositing the
cargo in the town (De Wette), or to the
thitherward direction ofthe voyage(Meyer):
but in the only other place where éxeioe
occurs (ref.) it simply = éxe?, so that per-
haps no motion is included. atroopr. |
The pres. part. indicates the intention,
as diamepay before. 4. 8é] Imply-
ing, ‘the crew indeed were busied with
unlading the ship: but we, having sought
out (by enquiry) the disciples” .....
* Finding disciples’ (K. V.) is quite wrong.
It is not improbable that Paul may have
preached at Tyre before, when he visited
Syria and Cilicia (Gal. i. 21) after his con-
version,—and again when he confirmed the
churches (ch. xv. 41): tots uad. seems to
imply this. jp. wr. | The time taken
in unlading :—they apparently proceeded
in the same ship, see ver. 6. The notice
here is very important, that these Tyrian
disciples said to Paul by the Spirit, that
he should not go to Jerusalem,—and yet
he went thither, and, as he himself de-
clares, dedeuévos Ta mvevuatt, bound in
spirit by the leading of God. We thus
have an instance of that which Paul asserts
1 Cor. xiv. 32, that the spirits of prophets
are subject to prophets, i. e., that the reve-
lation made by the Holy Spirit to each
man’s spirit was under the influence of
that man’s will and temperament, moulded
by and taking the form of his own capa-
cities and resolves. So here: these Tyrian
prophets knew by the Spirit, which testi-
fied this in every city (ch. xx. 23), that
bonds and imprisonment awaited Paul.
This appears to have been announced by
them, shaped and intensified by their own
intense love and anxiety for him who was
probably their father in the faith (see on
ver. 5). But he paid no regard to the
prohibition, being himself under a leading
of the same Spirit too plain for him to
mistake it. See below on vv. 10 ff.
5. éfaptioat| This is ordinarily a naval
word, signifying to fit out or refit a ship
(with or without mAoioy, Passow). But
this can hardly be the meaning here.
Meyer would render ‘when we had spent
these days in refitting, so that rT. fm.
would be the accusative of duration,—
‘when we had refitted during the days,
But not to mention that ras Fu., without
tavtas, would be harsh in such a con-
nexion,—is not the aorist agaprica: fatal
to the rendering? Would it not in this case
be present, if implying the continued action
during the days,— perfect, if implying that
that action was over (in which latter case
ju. would be dative)? The aorist, as
almost invariably in dependent clauses,
must refer to some one act occurring at one
time. So that if the meaning given by
Theoph., He. wAnpdoa (Hesych. reAcd-
oat) be found nowhere else, it is almost
necessary so to understand the word here.
And it is doing no violence to its import :
the same verb which indicates the comple-
tion of a ship’s readiness for a voyage,
might well be applied to the completion of
a period of time. Our own word ‘fulfil’
has undergone a similar change of meaning
since its first composition: and mAnpacat
is used both of manning a ship and of ful-
236
i=ch. xv. 40
reff.
k ch. xv. 3 reff.
] w. prepos.,
ch. xxvi. 11.
Luke xxiv.
50. Levit.
xxiii. 14.
m Luke xiii.
33. ch. xiv.
19%, Neh xiii.
20.
n ch. vii. 60 reff.
o Matt. xiii. 2,
48. John xi.
4. ch. xxvii.
39, 40 only.
Judg.v. 17 F.
Sir. xxiv. 14
vat. only.
p absol., ch. x.
Yreff. Ezra
Kole
gq here only +.
r = Matt. xiv.
32 | Mk. xv. 39. John xxi.11. Jonah i.3 vat.
v.10. u ch. xxvii. 9, 10 only ft.
moAAHv Oddv ditvucav, Xen. Cyr. iv. 2.15.
i. 40. iv. 40. ch. ix. 43. xviii. 3.
xxii, 58 al. ¢e see ch. ii. 14 al.
om efeAdovres A 105.
" rouv
nuépav pay 9
Syr.
TIPAZ EIS AMOSTOAQN.
’ ~ \ € -
EKELVOL O& ‘uméorpepay tic
> > od
Tap auTolc.
~ ~ 7
@MiA\irrov tov * evayyeAtctov, Ovroc
VY ’
s ch. viii. 25 reff.
Wisd. xiv. 1 only.
zch. x. 9 reff.
yuvatw CE: txt ABN rel.
XXI.
Cre i Wa , ’ , k , cr he
nuéoac, | ekeXOovtec exoorvoueba, “tooTEMTOVTWY Ymac
, A \ \ , le m ~ ,
TavTwY cov yuvatgl Kal TéKvotc ‘Ewe ™ EEw THE TOAEWC,
\obp / Xn va ? \ ‘ oO , s Pp ,
kat " Oévtec ta” yovara emt Tov ° arytadov ? rpocevgamevor
> , > , \ > , ‘ -
6 9 arnoractueba addANXove, Kat “ avePnuev ec TO wAoLov,
AN ‘ - \ .
ra tora. 7 Hyeic 8: rov
Vv Uy > \ , Ww , ,
Stavucayrec a7Tro Tupou KaTHYTHOaMEVY ELC
er Nase 2: , ‘ > nN ‘ y , ’
TIroAguaida, Kal aoTacamevolt TOUG aoe poug ~ Emetvauev
8 77 de eravoiov “eke Oovrec
? ‘ > , ’ s
nABopev etc Katoageray, Kat etceAPovrec ee Tov oikov
be (eg ai ¢ ,
EK T@WVY eTTA,
t John xvi. 32. xix. 27. Esth.
v here only t. 2 Mace. xii. 17 only.
w ch. xvi. 1 reff. x ch. xviii. 22 reff. y John
a Eph. iv.11. 2 Tim. iv. 5 only. b Luke
om ews & D-lat.
in & mposevéauevor is written before em 7. avy., but marked for erasure by XN! or 3,
and repeated in its proper place.
5, 6. ree for mposeviauevor amnomacaucba adkAnAous Kat, mposnvtapeba kat aoma-
oapevor aAAnAous, with HL rel vulg Chr Ee Thi: txt A B(sic: see table) CEX ad
13. 36. 40 Syr.—mposevé. L 4. 100. 106 Chr We.—amecracapeba C: annomacauevor
40: arnoracucba A.
6. rec emeBnuev (corrn to more usual term), with HL 13 rel He Thi-sif: eveBnuev
(more usual) BEX® k 73 Chr: txt ACN! ac d 36. 40. 137 Thl-fin.
7. kateByucv (corrn to more usual word) AEN®.
emeuewauev A k 40.
TToAcuaLdav NI.
8. rec aft efeAOovTes ins on wept Tov mavaAov (eA. begins an ecclesiastical portion),
with HL rel eth-rom Ge Thl-sif; 0: atooroAa 47 lectt 13. 14: om ABCE(8&) cehk
13. 36. 40 vulg D-lat syrr copt arm Chr Thl-fin.—N has o written, but marked for
erasure ‘prima manu.’ Steph nAdov (fo suit o: wept T. mavadov), with HL rel Gc
Thl-sif: txt ABCENX k 13. 36 vulg syrr coptt eth Eus Chr.—nAéayer B. rec
ins tov bef ovtos (for precision), with a 13: om ABCEHLR® rel Eus Chr ec Thl.
[ D-lat is deficient in vv 8—11; but readings are preserved in Scriv’s notes. |
filling a period of time. é€ed0.] from
the house where they were lodged.
éws efw r. 1.| “ We passed through the
city to the western shore of the ancient
island, now the peninsula, hoping to find
there a fitting spot for the tent, in the open
space between the houses and the sea.”
Robinson, iii. 392. emt Tov atytaddy |
‘© Yet had we looked a few rods further, we
should have found a very tolerable spot by
a threshing-floor, where we might have
pitched close upon the,bank, and enjoyed,
in all its luxury, the cool sea-breeze, and
the dashing of the surge upon the rocky
shore.” id. ibid. 7. Tov mAody S1a-
vio.| Having ended our voyage, viz.
the whole voyage, from Neapolis to Syria.
The E. V., ‘when we had finished our
course from Tyre, is allowable, but this
would more probably have been tov amd
Tépov. ‘ With their landing at Ptolemais
their voyage ended : the rest of the journey
was made by land’ (De Wette.) ad
Tupov will thus be taken with katnytjca-
pev. IIrodepatda | Anciently Accho
(Ancx#, LXX, Judg. i. 31,—in Gr. and
Rom. writers “Axn, Ace), called Ptolemais
from (probably) Ptolemy Lathurus (Jos.
Antt. xiii. 12. 2 ff., see 1 Macc. x. 56 ff.;
xi. 22, 24; xii. 45,48; 2 Macc. xiii. 24).
It was a large town with a harbour (Jos.
Antt. xviii. 6.3). It was never (Judg. i.
31) fully possessed by the Jews, but be-
longed to the Pheenicians, who in after
times were mixed with Greeks. But after
the captivity a colony of Jews is found
there (Jos. B. J. ii. 18.5). The emperor
Claudius gave it the ‘ civitas,’ whence it is
called by Pliny, v.17; xxxvi. 65, ‘ Colonia
Claudii Ceesaris.’ It is now called St. Jean
d’Acre, and is the best harbour on the
Syrian coast, though small. It lies at the
end of the great road from Damascus to the
sea. Population now about 10,000. The
distance from Ptolemais to Cesareaisforty-
four miles. For Ceesarea, see on ch. x. 1.
8. Did. r. evayy.] It is possible that
he may have had this appellation from his
having been the first to travel about
preaching the gospel: see ch. viii. 5 ff.
The office of Evangelist, see reff., seems
to have answered very much to our
ABCE
HLNab
edfgh
kl mo
13
D zpo-
PNTNS +e
ABCDE
ALNab
edfgh
klmo
13
6—11.
Nees ae yy 5 eiapreay
Euelvapley ~ TAO AUTH,
, d , 7
OAOEC maobévor Toopnrevoveat. ETLIMEVOVTWV
TIPAZEIS AMOSTOAQN.
237
9 , 3: 3 , ,
TOUTW € noav Ou-yareoec TEO= dch. xix. 6
Okey
, _ tell.
¢ ech. x. 48 reff,
f = ch. ii. 40
oe, f , as aig eh 8) ' ft.
tygoacg — mAstouc, SkatndOsy tic amo tne Tovdaiac = ch. vil. 5
I , Peed a Ni Mus . \ cd BY 2
‘apogpytne ovopmatt Ayafoc, 1 kat EAD@v TEdG Nag beh.si.27
es are ‘
Kal aoac TYHV
Any \ ‘ - 5 , , \ -
mooac Kal Tac Xeloac elmev Tade AEyet TO TWvevpa TO
RiP e 3 cok , ¢ e ,
aytov, TOV avopa OU €O0TLY Covn avuTyn OVUTWC onaovow
> e ‘ e > ~ l > ~
Fa IepovoaAnu ot lovdatoe Kat Tapadwoovo.y £l¢ KElpac
22al.fr. Job xvi, 12.
Ge - Tl ax < e - nN
@WvHnVY TOU GUAOU, noacg EavUTOU TOVC 24
i= Mark xv.
al.
sk here bis.
Matt. iii. 4
j Mk. x.9
| Mk. Rev.
1.13. xv.6
only.
3 Kings ii. 5.
1 = Matt. xvii.
9. rec wapOevar bef teooapes, with EHL rel We Thi: rapbevor bef Ouyarepes C Syr
Eus: txt ABX a k m 13 D-lat.
10. rec aft empevovtwr de ins nuwy (addn for precision), with ELR? rel syr-marg
Chr: avtwy X!: txt ABCH k 13. 36 syr Bas.
11. om ka: D-lat: aveAPwy Se D!-gr: txt D’.
mpopntns bef amo Ts tovdatas L.
rec for eavtou, Te abtov (im some
late mss abtou probably from misunderstanding, supposing that it was Paul’s hands
and feet that he bound), with HL rel Chr Ec Thi: txt ABCDER ab c (m) 0 18. 36
Cyr-jer Bas,
kat Tous todas (corrn from Luke xxiv. 39
Meyer thinks 105.
this would be more
necessary to be observed),
(Ee Thi-sif: ins D?.
missionary : Theodoret,
says, é€xeivor mepiidytes
Euseb. H. E. iii. 37, epyov émetéAouy
ebayyeAtoT@y, Tois ert Tdumay avnkdols
tov THS wlaTews Adyou KnpUTTEW Toby
xpioroy pidoTimovmevol, Kal Thy TeV Oclwy
evayyeAlwv mapadiddvar ypaphv. The latter
could hardly have been part of their
employment so early as this; nor had
evayyéAoy in these times the peculiar
meaning of a narrative of the life of Christ,
but rather embraced the whole good tidings
of salvation by Him, as preached to the
Jews and Heathens. See Neander, Pfl. u.
L., pp. 258, 264. Euseb., iii. 31, appa-
rently mistakes this Philip for the Apostle :
as did also (see Valesius’s note, Euseb. 1. c.)
Clement of Alexandria and Papias.
bvtos ek T. Ewta] See ch. vi. 5, and note.
Meyer and Winer (edn. 6, § 20. 1. ¢.) well
remark (see De Wette also), that the par-
ticiple without the article implies that the
reason why they abode with him was that
he was one of the seven: ‘ut qui esset,’
&e. and in English being (one) of the
seven. The fact of Philip being settled at
Ceesarea, and known as 6 evaryyeAloThs,
seems decisive against regarding the occur-
rence of ch. vi. 8 ff. as the establishment of
any permanent order in the church.
9. This notice is inserted apparently with-
out any immediate reference to the history,
but to bring so remarkable a circumstance
to the knowledge of the readers. The four
on Eph. iv. 11,
éxhpuTtov: and
also Orig (8no. eavtov xeipwr K. To8wv) Aug Cassiod.
, 40? see var read John xi. 14: so De W.
x. x. arose from its being the natural order of binding: but surely
likely to be the orig] order of narrating, than to strike a copyist as
with Aa'edm coptt eth Chr(omg tas and tous) (ec and
Orig(above): txt BCDEHLN 13 rel 40 vulg syrr
D 26. 63. 97. 98. 106 Chr Epiph and (prefixg ameA@ovta) Orig.
aft evs ins ras N'(N* disapproving).
rec Tas KeElpas
for ev, ets
arm Cyr-jer Bas Thl.
om o: D! Chr
daughters had the gift of rpopnteta: see
on ch. xi. 27. Eusebius (see, however,
his mistake above) gives from Polycrates
traditional accounts of them,—that two
were buried at Hierapolis, and one at Ephe-
sus. From that passage, and one cited
from Clement of Alex. (50 @uyarépes
abrov yeynpakvia: rapOevoi, Polycr., Euseb.
iii. 81... .. SlAurmos Tas Buvyatépas av-
Spdow eédwxe, Clem., Eus. iii. 30), it
would appear that two were afterwards
married, according to tradition. To
find an argument for the so-called ‘honour
of virginity’ in this verse, only shews to
what resources those will stoop who have
failed to apprehend the whole spirit and
rule of the gospel inthe matter. They are
met however on their own ground by an
argument built on another misapprehen-
sion (that of Philip being a deacon in the
ecclesiastical sense): &ste ody kal T@ kot-
vevhoavTt yduwy diaxoveiy ekeort.
10.] This Agabus in all probability is iden-
tical with the Agabus of ch. xi. 28. That
there is no reference to that former men-
tion of him, might be occasioned by different
sources of information having furnished
the two narratives. 11.] Similar sym-
bolical actions accompanying prophecy are
found 1 Kings xxii. 11: Isa. xx. 2; Jer.
xiii. 1 ff.; Ezek. iv.1ff., 9 ff.; v.1, &c.
De Wette remarks that tdde Acyer 7d
mvedua Td &ytov is the N. T. prophetic
formula, instead of rdde Aéyer 6 Kdpios of
238 IIPAZEIS AMOSTOAQN. XXI.
re chine 1D Sees 7 ee ~ m Nos <r
ma ee EU WV. WC OF YKOVGaALEV TauTa, TAOEKA OUMEV NUELC
al. fr.
2 Mace. ix.
26. constr.,
here only.
h here only t
see Gen.
REVI. 7.
och. iii. 12 reff.
p ch, xi. 2 refi.
q 1 Cor. xv. 29
reff.
\ en? , ° ~ A p > , 5] ‘ 2 e
TE Kal Ol" Evromtot ° Tov py © avaaivew avToy Etc Isoov-
i? > , € - / a /
13 tére amexolOn o HavrAvoe Ti 9 wotsire KNatovrEc
Lox 6 , if ‘ , i > ‘ Q > 7
kat | ovvOpumtovtéc pov thy kaoclav 5 fyW yao ov povov
oadnpn.
d<Onvat aAAa Kal aroPaveiv °* etc ‘TepovsaA jm * eroluwe
ul iy = oN aes oe ea ~ ’ bd ~ ‘
case EX “uma tov ‘ ovouatog tov Kveiov Inoov. May
reff, w , 8: ? - » ¢ s Bind oF - ’
t 2 Cor. xii, 14 meopnevou d¢ avrou novxacauey etovtec Tov Kkuptouv
et. iv. «
only. Dan.
A 7 A \ A id ,
ee Te ¥ MéeXnna ° ywiabw. 15 2 Mera 8 rac ” néoac * rauTac
(all w.éxecv.)
see 2 Cor. x.
6. ~ \ \
u =as above (t). nAGov be Kal
ch. vii. 1 reff.
Mark v. 23 al. v ch. ix. 16 reff.
’ , a) ! o: ele , “ b
* exuoxevacanevot ? ave aivouer etc TcpocdX\upa’® 1 ouy-
w absol., ch. xvii. 4. Luke xvi. 31. Esth. iv. 4 vat. Xen.
Cyr. v. 1. 8. xX = Luke xiy. 4. ch. xi. 18 (Luke xxii. 56. 1 Thess iv. 11) only. Neh. v. 8. y Marr.
vi. 10. xxvi. 42 only. z here (ch. i. 5) only. see ch. xv. 36. xxiv. 24. Heb. viii. 10. a here
only¢. 2Chron. xxxiv.J0. é7. 60a édtvarto trokiya, Xen. Hell. vii. 2. 18. b =ch. i. 21 reff.
12. maparadrouuey D!: txt Dt. om te D Thi-sif.
mavdoy I) eth. emBawe D. om avtoyv E 93. 95 Bas.
(see next ver) C m 13. 40.
13. rec amexpi0n Se, with C! 13 syr Chr: amexpion re HL A f gh k1lm eth He Thi:
emmev de mpos nuas D ( from the various assignment of tote to ver 12 or ver 13, it was
omitted altogether, and then some copula became necessary): txt ABC2EX 13 rel 36.
40 vulg Syr coptt arm Cassiod. aft mavdos ins ka erey AEN a b dk 0 13 vulg
Syr copt zth arm Cassiod. om KAaovTes rat XR}. for cuv@puntovres, bopu-
Bovyres D! Tert Jer: txt D°. for yap, 5¢ E-gr 95! vulg-ms Terty. aft de@nvau
ins BovAoua D. for evs, ev N(but ers is written over the line ‘ prima ut videtur
manu’). eTomuws exw bef ers repovcadnu A eth. aft ijcov ins xpiotou CD
Syr arm Cyr Thdrt Tert Jer, Ambrst Aug.
14. ins o: bef evrovres D!. aft em. ins mpos adAAnAous D. ree To GcAnna
bef tov kupiov (alteration of characteristic order), with DHL rel vss Chr: txt ABCEN
m 13 vulg arm.—for xup., 0eov D-gr 32. 73 seth. rec yeves9w (corrn to more
usual), with HL 13 rel Chr: txt ABCDER f g m 0 36. (yew. AB'DEN.)
15. rivas nuepas D-gr. rec atrockevacauevol, with c 13: wapackevac. C a 7.
69. 73. 105: amoratapevor D: emoxepauevor H 68. 106: preparati vulg syrr copt
wth: preparantes E-lat: referimus nos D-lat: txt ABEL(X) rel 36. 40 Pamphil Chr
(@e Thl-sif Thl-fin-comm.—emoxevacayevov (but corrd) N- avaBa.vonev
CDL'?: om N}. rec tepovoaAnm, with HL 13 rel vulg Ee Thi: txt ABCDEX
aft ot evtomiot ins Toy
at end add torte
~ ~ > ‘ ' ‘ c —
TWV pabnrov avo Katoapstac Ouv ny, =
a 36 Euthal Chr.
16. om ouvnAOoy Se kar Tw pabytwy D}(and lat).
ins ex bef twy wad. E vule.
the O. T. 12. rod py] A similar
gen. after exhortation, is found ch. xv. 20.
13.] The rére, which has been
changed in the ree. for the ordinary copula,
gives solemnity to the answer about to be
related: q. d. It was then that Paul said.
ovvOpimrovres] The present part.
does not imply the endeavour merely, here
or any where else, but as Meyer quotes
from Schaefer, Eurip. Phen. 79, ‘Vere
incipit actus, sed ob impedimenta caret
eventu.’ yap] Either, ‘your pro-
ceeding is in vain, for ....’—or ‘ cease
todo 80, for....’ ets ‘Iep.] on my
arrival at: the motion to, which was the
subject in question, is combined with that
which might result on it: see reff. and ch.
ii. 39. 14. +. k. 7d O€X. yuv.] One of
the passages from which we may not un-
fairly infer, that the Lord’s prayer was used
for amo, ex D!: txt D?.
for ayovtes, ovto de nyayov D, simulque adducerunt
by the Christians of the apostolic age. See
note on 2 Tim. iv. 18. 15. émickeva-
odpevor| The remarkable variety of read-
ing in this word shews that much difficulty
has been found in it. The rec. drocKeva-
gduevor (which may perhaps have arisen
from the mixture of amoratduevor (D)
with émoxevacduevor), would mean, not,
‘having deposited our (useless) baggage,’
—but, ‘having discharged our baggage,
‘unpacked the matters necessary for our
journey to Jerusalem, from our coffers.’
But émok. is the better supported reading,
and suits the passage better: having
packed up, made ourselves ready for the
journey. ‘ Carriages’ in the E. V. is used,
as at Judg. xviii. 21 (where it answers to
Td Bdpos, LXX-vat), for baggage, things
carried. 16.) Two renderings are
given to the latter clause of this verse : (1)
ABCDE
HLNab
edfgh
klmo
13
€K
Keca dD.
ABCE
HL ab
edfgh
klmo
13
a1 >S7. = ae
Dneav...
ABCDE
HLN ab
edfgh
klmo
13
12—20. TIPAZEIS ATOSTOAQN. 239
“zap w © &ema0ouev Mvacwvi ron Kurptyy ¢=ch.xvii.15
cw
ayovTec
17 gh
ip ' = £ Mc nen ae oe d atir., here
apyatwy uabnry. yevomevwry oe HuwY © ELC Ieoo- only? see
, i? , ket / hi) ce ae ©..3 ' ~ noie.
coAupa ‘aopévwc * awedegavto nuac OL acer pol. 1g TH ech. x 6 reff.
Velo , m2 c = ey toa Sie as felt Avs ee
oe ETLOVGH ~—- ELC EL O TlavAoe ouv Huw Tpog lakw Por, Se
, n ’ Car.) , 19 ‘p? h constr., ch.
TAaVTEC TE TaOEYEVOVTO OL ToeaPUrEpot. Kal* ao7mra~ iv.1. xvi. 16.
2 Cor. xii. 21
al. see 2 Cor.
iv. 18.
Winer, § 30.
11 note.
i here (ch. ii.
4\rec.)onlyft.
, b) ‘ qr - aA r@? gy? bd Ul
OaAMEVOS AUTOUC eEnyetro kal) ev EKAOTOV WV ETOLNOEV
e \
20 ou Oe
, , u NZ ‘ ) , > Sr ? ee =
aAKOUOaYVTEC cooSalov TOV VEOV, ELTTOV TE auTwW Orwpsic,
€ x > =, ff \ ~ t , b -
(0) Osdc Ev TOIC eOveotv ora TNC Stakoviac auTou.
2 Macc. iv.
12, x. 33 F. only. k ch. ii. 41 reff. Ich. xvi. 11 reff. m ch. iii. 3 reff.
n absol., ch. xvii. 10 reff. och. xi. 30 reff. = ch. xviii, 22 reff. q ch. x. 8.
Pp
Luke only, exc. John i. 18. Judg. vii. 13. rch. xvii. 27 reff,
t ch. xx. 24 reff. u Matt. xv. 31. Luke v. 25, 26. ch. xi. 18 al.
v = John iv. 19. xii. 19. ch. xxvii. 10. Heb. vii. 4. 2 Macc. ix. 23.
Xv. 12,14. Luke xxiv. 35.
s attr., Rom. xv. 18 reil.
Exod. xv. 2.
D-lat. add nuas DE sah arm. for rap w, mpos ovs D!-gr(Wetst : txt Ussher).
aft Eevio. add kot tapayevomevor ets Tiva (THY Syr-marg) KwunY eyevoucba Tapa
D Syr-marg. vaowvt D'(and lat) fuld tol: tavw@v N demid copt: pracw B ¢
1. 18. om Tivt Al, panty bef apxaw D(Wetst) sah. D-lat has
the passage thus: et cum venerunt in quendam civitatem fuimus ad nasonem quendam
eyprium discipulum antiquum et inde exeuntes venimus hierosolyma susceperunt
autem nos cum letitia fratres.
ver 8. |
[readings of D-gr are in Scriv’s notes, see above on
17. rec edetavto (substitution of simpler word), with HL rel (e Thi: vmedeé.
D(Mill &c): txt ABCEN a k 13. 36. 40 Chr-comm.
18. for d<, re AEN 40 syrr xth: txt BCHL 13. 36 rel vulg D-lat E-lat coptt Chr
Ce Thi.
ournymevor D 34.
19. ovs acmapuevos(sic) dinyerto eva exartov ws emoincey D!-gr: txt D?.
D!: ins D-corr!. om dia & 1.
20. axovoyres HL k.
making Mvdowv, &e. depend on &yovres,
and agreeing by attr. with @, as E. V.,
‘and brought with them one Mnason,....
with whom we should lodge’ (so Beza,
Calvin, Wolf, Schétt., &e.): and (2) re-
solving the attraction into &yovres mapa
Mvdowva, map’ & &. ‘bringing us to Mna-
son,’ Se. (So Grot., Valcknaer, Bengel, De
Wette, Meyer, al.) Both are legitimate :
and it is difficult to choose between them.
The probability of Mnason being a resident
at Jerusalem, and of the Cesarean brethren
going to introduce the company to him,
seems to favour the /atter : as also does the
fact that Luke much more frequently uses
&yw with a person followed by a preposi-
tion than absolutely. | Of Mnason nothing
further is known. a&pxaiew probably
implies that he had been a disciple é€
a@pxijs, and had accompanied our Lord
during His ministry. See ch. xi. 15, where
the term éf apyjs is applied to the time
of the Pentecostal effusion of the Spirit.
17—XXIII. 85.) Paun at JERUSA-
LEM: MADE PRISONER, AND SENT TO
C#SAREA. 17. ot adeAdoi] The
Christians generally : not the Apostles and
elders, as Kuin., who imagines from vv.
20, 21, that ‘ecetus non favebat Paulo.’
But (1) this is by no means implied: and
for map., noav Se rap avtw D': txt D®.
edofaoav DX Thl-fin.
sah (Ec: txt ABCELN ad f g k 0 13. 36. 40 vulg Syr copt arm Chr Thl.
te, ecmovtes CD ee g hm syr Chr. (ermav EN: ecrev 13.)
aft o: mpeoBurepa ins
om ev
rec kupiov, with DH rel syr
for e:royv
om avtw D. rec
(2) James and the elders are not mentioned
till ver. 18. 18. *IdxwBov] James,
‘the brother of the Lord:’ the president
of the church at Jerusalem: see ch. xii. 17:
xv. 13; Gal. ii. 12, and notes,—and Pro-
legg. to the Epistle of James, § i. 24—37.
On the particular kind of attraction (reff.),
in a gen. plur. after a partitive adjective,
see Winer, edn. 6, § 24 2. b.
20.] While they praised God for, and fully
recognized, the work wrought by him
among the Gentiles, they found it re-
quisite to advise him respecting the sus-
picion under which he laboured among the
believing Jews. They, led, naturally per-
haps, but incorrectly (see 1 Cor. vii. 18),
by some passages of Paul’s life (and of his
already-written Epistles ?), in which he
had depreciated legal observances in com-
parison with faith in Christ, and spoken
strongly against their adoption by Gentile
converts,—apprehended that he advised on
the part of. the Hellenistic believers, an
entire apostasy from Moses and the ordi-
nances of the law. Gewpeis} This
can hardly be a reference (as Olsh.) to the
elders present, as representatives of the
Hupiddes of believing Jews; for only those
of Jerusalem were there :—but refers to
Paul’s own experience, and knowledge of
240
w = Luke xii. 7? t ,
1. seh. xix. 19 aden pé, TOTAL
ren. ,
x —ch. xv. 5 %, TETIOTEVKOTWY,
re
= ch. xxii. 3. |
1 Cor. xiv. 12. apxovew
Gal. i. 14.
Tit. ii. 4.
1 Pet. iii. 15
(Luke vi. 15.
ch.i. 13) only.
“4
Tovdatove, Aéywv pn ©
TIPAZEIS AMOSTOAQN.
©SidacKkere ato Mwvotwe
XXI.
a td se Ando '
°“rovuc “Kata Ta eOvn Tavrac
TEOITEMVELY avrove Ta TéKVa noe
2 Macc. iv. 2. co 4) g - FP) Oe
(Exod. xx. 5 eae cow a pees Tl ovv torw 3 ' ravTwe
al. rs ‘ = ,
ee Ra de * ouverOEty ' rAnDoc, akovoovrat yao ort édnAvbac.
ff. 2) ~- 5 ! ¢ a | ce ”
b 2 Thess. ii. 23 TOUTO OUVY TOLNGOV O GOL Aéyoner. Ecol’ Huw avopec
3 only. , m ? ‘ m? Rd = me ke 94 0 ,
te al TETOapEC evynv EX OVTEC Ep EAUTWV ~ TOUTOUC
str., Mark nN € ' ‘ > - ‘ , te |
oes? ohn «© mapadaBav q ayviaOnrt ovv avroic, Kal * dataynoov er
xiv. 26. Heb. , = ah , . , ‘ , ,
et ni avtotc wa * Evenoovrar THY Kepadny, Kal YvwoovTal Tav-
d here only.
¢1 Cor. vil. 18 reff.
h 1 Cor. xiv. 15, 26.
L.P. Tobit xiv. 8. 2 Macc, iii. 13 only.
m ch, xviii. 18 (reff.) only. n = here only.
q = here bis. ch. xxiv. 18. John xi. 55 (James i iv. 8
here only. w. Umép, 2 Cor, xii. 15,
8 1 Cor. xi. 56 only. NwuMB. vi, 18,19.
f ch. vi. 14 reff.
(for ev To.s tovdaiois) tovdarwv, with HL rel syr Chr Thdrt, He Thi:
i = Luke iy. 23. ch. xxviii. 4.
WiPek 35,22;
w. év, James iy. 3.
gconstr., Gal. v.16. 2 Cor. xii. 18. (see ch. ix. 31.)
(Rom. iii. 9.) 1 Cor. (v. 10) ix. 10, 22. xvi. 12 only t¢.
k =ch.i. 6 reff. 1 absol., see ch. ii. 6 reff.
o ch. ix. 20 reff. p = ch. xvi. 33 reff.
1 John iii.3) only, Exod. xix. 10. rw. 7,
absol., Mark v. 26. Luke xv. ]4onlyt, 1 Macc. xiv. 32.
ev Tn tovdaia D
Syr sah Jer Aug: om ev 7. tovd. N: txt ABCE a 13. 36. 40 vulg copt 2th Ambrst.
aft mayres ins ovra D (rovra D!) 38 tol Syr Ambrst Aug Jer.
21. katnxonoay 25.40: karnknoay D!':
NI,
Aug:
Neyer D Jer:
kata €6vn D!,
Aeyo Rl
diffamaverunt D- lat : txt D?.
for mavtas, eo.y D'(and lat): om AE 13 vulg copt Jer
txt BCD!HLN rel 36 vss Chr (ec Thl.
Bn opiAew Tepiteuvery E vulg Jer Aug.
tos eOverw D!}, neque gentes ejus ambulant D-lat.—ins avtov bef mepir. D!:
om de
tovdaios D!: txt Dt, om
NTE ev
avtous D!,
22. om der cuveAderw wAnOos and yap (expunged as not understood) BC! 15. 73.
137. 180 syrr coptt eth arm:
ins AC?-DEHL® rel vulg Chr Ge Thl.—ins 7o bef
mAn90s D'.—ree mAnOos bef cvveAOew, with DHL rel Chr: txt AC2EX adh 13. 40
vulg.—om yap C?:
23. for 6, omep KE.
24. ex avtovs Aald:
rel 36 Chr:
om ‘yap ort N?.
ets avtous D.
txt Bi(sic) D?EX ¢ k 1 o 13.—tvpwvta: D'.
matical corrn aft wa), with HL rel Syr Chr ec Thl-sif, cognoscant D-lat :
eAndAvées B.
for ep’, ap(sic) &.
ree gupnowytat, with AB?C(D')HL
rec yvwou (gram-
txt
ABCDEX a d m 13 (86) 40 vulg syr coptt (Thl-fin) Jer Aug.—(-cwvra 36
the vast numbers of the Jews who believed
at Jerusalem, and elsewhere in Judea.
mécat pupiddes is perhaps not to be
strictly taken: see reff. Baur suspects,
on account of this expression, that the
words T@v memoT. are spurious ; but quite
without reason. Eusebius quotes from
Hegesippus (H. E. ii. 23), mwoAA@y kad
Tay apxdvtwy motevdvTwy iy OdpuBos
Tov “loudalwy Kal ypamuatéwy kal Papi-
calwy Acydvrwy Ott Kwduvever Tas 5 Aads
"Inootv tov xpirtbv mposdongvy. On the
other hand, Origen (tom. i. in Joann. § 2,
vol. iv. p. 3) says, that probably the whole
number of believing Jews at no time had
amounted to 144,000. Oneioly... imdp-
xovar, see note, ch. xvi. 20, 21. 21. kart-
nxyenoav| they were sedulously in-
formed (at some time in the mind of the
speaker. The sense of the aor. must be
preserved. Below, ver, 24, it is the per-
fect): viz., by the anti-Pauline judaizers.
Tois Veo | the dat. of the rule, or
Sorm, after which : see reff. 22. mav-
Twos 5. cuvedO. wA.] Not, as E. V., Calv.,
Grot., Calov., ‘the multitude must needs
come together,’ i.e. there must be a meeting
of the whole church (rd 7A7j@0s, ch. ii. 6) :
but a multitude (of these Judaizers) will
certainly come together: ‘they will meet
and discuss your proceeding in a hostile
manner.’ 23. evxyv] A vow of Na-
zarites. This vow must not be confounded,
historically or analogically, with that of ch.
xvili. 18: see note there, and Num. vi.
2—21. 24. mapadaBar | i
taken to thyself, as comrades.
ovv avt.| become a Nazarite with Giese
The same expression occurs in the LXX,
Num. vi. 38, in describing the Nazarite’s
duties. Satay. én ait.| “More
apud Judaos receptum erat, et pro insigni
pietatis officio habebatur, ut in pauperum
Nasireorum gratiam ditiores sumptus ero-
garent ad sacrificia (see Num. vi. 14 ff.)
que dum illi tonderentur, offerre necesse
" pupiddec eloly ev Tole ‘Tovdaiorg Tw he
Kat TaVTEc Cndwrat TOU vonov * uT- oatee
m
* carnynOnoav oe TEpl cov Ort amoataciay 13
21—27.
‘TIPAZEIZ ANOSTOAQN.
241
« i , \ - ? , ? ‘
tec Ore ‘wv “KaTNXnvTat TEDL GOV " OVdEV EoTLY, aXXa tattr, Lake
Vv Pa Ay, \ow ; x , \ ,
OTOLX ELC Kat auToc purAacowv TOV vopmoyv.
oe Twv
\ - b Lad ? , id Se ,
VaVTEC pnoev TOLOUTOYV TNHOELY QUTOUC, El fA) purascecbat
b) ‘ , d BS) , \ ‘ * \e ‘
auTouc TO TE EL wAoOvrov Kal [ro] ala Kat TVLIKTOV
\ e ’ °6
Kal ToOoVvElaY.
»” 3 g , , € / ‘ ? -
av pac Ty) EX OMEVY) nMEPa OvvV auTotc
> XA e , i f) QA ju ,
El¢ TO LEOOY, dtayyéd\Awy TYHV exTANHOwolv
¢ ~
=k 4 7 im
TOV AyVLOMOV, EWC OU
Das (os ¢ mo , 27,
QUTWY 7 7oocpooa.
~ e > ‘
TouvreAcioNat, of ato TiC
2 Tim, iv. 15.
2 Kings xx. 10.
g=ch. xx. 16 reff.
h ch. iii. 3 reff.
j here only +t. 2 Mace. vi. 14 only. (-povv, ch. xiii. 33.)
Levit. i. 2,3 al.
Heb. x. 5, 10, 14, 18. Ps, xxxix. 6. p
q Mark xiii. 4. Luke iv. 2, 13.
42rellt. Heb. v.1, 3. ix. 7.
o =ch, xxiv. 17.
Xxvil. 33. Jer. xKxXVi. (XXIX.) 10.
8only. Jobi. 5,
Thl-fin.)
D!-gr: ambulans D-lat: txt D? or 4.
? ? - e da a ’ a ,
TETLOTEVKOTWY ever TN ELC emTeoTelAaper, KOL-
TOTE 0 TlavAoe * rapaXdaBwv rouc
d 1 Cor, viii. 1 reff.
ins ep: bef wy C ae 36. 40.
\ d =ch. xxv.
25 TEPt 11.
v ellips., here
only. oT-,
Rom. iv. (2.
Gal. v. 25.
vi. 16. Phil.
iii. lO only.
Eccles. xi. 6
only, but
not =.
w ch. xv. 27,
32. Matt.
XXVii. 57.
=, = ~ X=ch. xvi.4
TwWY NuEpwr . eH
y= ch. xv. 5
Cue KY P
fe \ hi? ,
ayviabeic elcnjet
, co n aan? reff.
mpocnvéx On UTEO EVOC EKAOTOU zch. xv. 20
. Oe pe ON ae ea te See eee
WC OF © EflE OV al t7Ta HMEOAL reff.
"A ' I 8 i 0 ? b = ch. xv.
olac OVOaLOL EAGAMEVOL reff.
Cc Ww. acc., =
ech. xv. 20 (reff.). f ver. 24.
i Luke ix. 60. Rom. ix. 17 (from Exod. ix. 16) only,
k here only. Num. vi. 5. 1 ch. vii.
m Heb. x. 8. n ch, xvii. 27 refi.
= Luke vii. 2. John iv. 47. ch.
(Rom. ix. 28.] Heb. viii.
ins kat bef ororxers A: oTt mopevov
om «kat D!(and lat) : txt D? ors, rec
tov vouwoy bef pvAacowy, with HL rel Syr ec Thi-sif: txt ABCDEN ac m 13 vulg
Chr Thl-fin.
25. for <Ovwy, avOpwrwy BE.
nets) yap D sah.
D2or4,
aft €Ovwv ins ovdev exovar Acyetv Tpos ce, and (aft
amecteiAauey (more usual word) BD 1 40 syr copt: txt
ACEHLX® 13. 36 rel vulg D-lat Syr sah Chr Gc Thl.
kpwovtes D! 100: txt
om mndev ToLovtoy Type avrous et un ABN 13. 40 vulg Syr copt eth
(prob because no such clause is found in the apostolic decree ch xv. 28. It can hardly
have been interpolated) : ins CDEHL rel 36 syr arm Chr Aug.—rowovto CE.
om To bef aya ABCDX a ec 18: aro 1dwAobuTwy kat alwatos Kat
myikTov Kat Topyvias KH: txt HL rel Chr ec Thi.
ins To bef mviktoy 1 m 40. 99 Chr Thl-fin.
Te Dc 187.
om ka 15. 36.
the order, mop. k. mviKT. K. aia.
26. om o DE. emiovon D.
D-lat. om 7 D.
essn\Oev D.
om
om kat tyixtov D sah Jer Aug:
Syr eth-pl invert
for ews ov, orws D: donee
27. cuvtedouperns Se Ts EBdouns nuepas D: cum advenisset dies septimus Syr.
queAAov EL ck m.
rest supplied by D?.
erat.” Kypke. Jos. Antt. xix. 6. 1, relating
Agrippa’s thank-offerings at Jerusalem,
says, 61) kal NaCipatwy EvpaicOa diérate
MdAaouvxvovs. Ontheshaving the head,
see Num. vi. 18. De Wette remarks :
«James and the elders made this proposal,
assuming that Paul could comply with it
salvd conscientid,—perhaps also as a proof,
to asSure themselves and others of his senti-
ments: and Paul accepted it salvd con-
scientid. But this he could only have
done on one condition, that he was sure by
it not to contribute in these four Nazarites
to the error of justification by the works
of the law. He might keep, and encou-
rage the keeping of the law,—but not with
the purpose of thereby deserving the appro-
bation of God.’ 25.]| Sve ch. xv. 28,
29. 26.] Paul himself entered into
the vow with them (ovv avtots ayv.), and
the time settled (perhaps the least that
could be assigned: the Mischna requires
Vou. II.
aft o: ins de D-gr.
aft covSaror ins eAnAvOotes D.
a only of azo is written by D!, the
Oeaoamevot avTov ev TH
thirty days) for the completion of the vow,
i. e. the offering and shaving of their heads,
was seven days. No definite time is pre-
scribed in Num. vi., but there, seven days
is the time of purification iz case of un-
cleanness during the period of the vow.
SiayyéAAwv |] making known to
the ministers of the temple. Thy
éxtrAyjpwotv | the fulfilment, i. e. that he
and the men had come to fulfil: an-
nouncing their intention of fulfilling.
€ws o0 mposnvéexOy | ‘donec offer-
retur, Vulg. The aor. indic. is unusual in
an indirect construction, where the aor.
subj. is almost always found (ch. xxiii. 12,
21; xxv. 21). But we have Plat. Gorg.
p- 506, 7d€ws... dv... SierAcydunv, Ews
avTG Thy TOV “Audlovos amédwxa pjow,—
and Cratyl. 396, ob av éemavéuny Sietioy
+... €ws Gmremelpadny Tis codlas TavTynol Th
moire. (De W.) 1 ™posdopa | See
Num. vi. 13—17. 27. ie np. |
242 TIPAZEIS AMOSTOAQN. XXI.
rch. ii. 6 reff. avroy év ith ep cilia, ial mann Tov oxAor, Kal ABCDE
8 Matt. a HLNab
0. uke, “ emeBadov * ex avrov Tac * xElpac 8 «oalovrec “Avépec odtah
80. chav. Ie ‘lap troleeed * BonOetre. obro¢ éoTw 0 avOowroc o OKatTa 13 |
Lee cey Naov Kal TOU vOLOV Kal TOU “TOTOV TOUTOV TavTac
abe che tii. wavraXn SudacKkwy, “ Ere re kat “EXAnvac * eenyayev
iene gic TO lepov Kat y kexolywkev Tov “ aywov " romov TOUTOV.
Isa. xxiv. 11, 99 z ef
Wied ) Tov éovo ev T
2'Mace, vii noay yae * * mpocwpaxorec Tpogipoy ”
only.
ech monet adv aut@, Ov EvouZov OTe Ele TO LepoY "ech yayey
rii, 30.
w Lake “8 0 Ila vAoc.
26 only. see ihe. , - ‘
See * ouvepony TOU Aaov, kal : emtapopevor tov TlavAov
Pe cane, & cicov avrov ‘t&w Tov lepou, Kal evfiwe * exhetoOnoav
(xxxv.) 4. 31 h
y Matt. xv. 11, at opar. Carobyrey TE aurov aToKTEélval, ‘aveBn +2.
&c. j. Heb. Bupac Gs
30 > Zech On TE 1 moAte OAn, Kal eyévero
k , ¢ n ,
ie ay | paatc TH xeniext THe ™ oreipnc OTL OAN ouyxuvyerat ABDE
only t. e ~ b
z constr., ch. lepovoaAte 32 9 ae 1 aurie P mapa aBwv oTpaTwrac edfgh
xxii. 29 reff, klmo
a = here (ch. ii, 25 from Ps. xv. 8) only t. b =ch. xxiv. 5 (xvii. 28 reff). see 1 Mace. xiii. 44. c here 13
only +t. Judith x.18. 8 Mace. iii. $ ouly. (-rpexerv, ch. iii. 11.) dch. xvii. 19 reff. e James
Gomis: Eccl. i. 5. see ch. xvi. 19. f ver. 5. g ch. v. 23 reff. h = ch. xiii. 8 ret.
isee ch. x. 4. k here only ¢. Susan. 55 Theod. 1 = John xviii. 12. vv. 33,37, &c. 1 Kings
xviii. 13. m ch. x. 1 reff. n ver. 27. o ch. x. 33 refi. pch. xvi. 33 reff.
tepw bef o: a. T. a. tovdaoc C 180: Oca. avtoy bef o: a. 7. a. sovd. e 137.
avvexeay C 180: ovverxov 20. 41: ovverewnoay te E: concitaverunt vulg E-lat :
confuderunt D-lat. om tmavra E 2. 41. emeBarav AN): emBadAovow D:
emeBaddAov b! o Thl-sif. rec tas xetpas bef er avtov (corrn of arrangement),
with HL rel coptt @e Thi-sif: txt ABCDEN achkm 13. 40 vulg syrr arm Chr
Thl-fin.
28. aft tomov ins Tov ayiov AC? 73 lectt-13. 14. tovtous (but s marked and
then erased) X!. rec mavtaxov (alteration to more usual word), with HL rel Chr
(ec Thi: txt ABCDEN b ¢ 0 18. 36. om te D m. essnyev D! 95': txt D’.
om te D!: ins D2. Kexowavynkey B2E 0 86. 137: exowwwvnoey D!: exorvwoev
D-corr: Kexowwvkey (but v marked and erased) X?.
29. for mpoewp., eopaxotes HI, ewpaxores df gh k1m vulg(not tol) sah eth Chr
Thil-sif. om Tov &. evonioaper D : putaver unt D-lat. om o D.
30. roy mavdov EF. a. om autov D fuld. for rat to Oupat, exArcOnoay evbews
(cay being written above the line) X?!.
31. rec (for re) de, with D’HL rel 36 vulg syr coptt Chr: txt ABEN a Syr wth. (13
def.)—[ ka] (nt. D'. rec svykexutat, with EHLN®S rel Chr (ec Thi, confusa est
D-lat E-lat: txt ABD! 18, confunditur vulg. (ovyxuvera: B? [Mai] 13.)
Of the votive period: not (as Chrys. and to Gentiles. 29. Tpdd.] See ch. xx.
Bede) since Paul’s arrival in Jerusalem. 4, note. We here learn that he was an
Five days of the seven had passed: see Ephesian. 30.] The Levites shut
on ch, xxiv. 11. Cf. on the whole, Dr. the doors to prevent profanation by a riot,
Wordsworth’s note. aro 7. ’Ao.| and possibly bloodshed, in the temple:
From Ephesus and the neighbourhood, hardly, as Bengel, ‘ne templi tutel ute-
where Paul had so long taught. ‘Paulus, retur Paulus :'—the right of asylum was
dum fidelibus placandis intentus est (viz. only (Exod. xxi. 13, 14) for murder un-
the believing Jews), in hostium furorem awares (Meyer). But by ver. 14 there, and
ineurrit (viz. of the unbelieving Asiatic by Joab’s fleeing to the altar, 1 Kings ii. }
Jews).’ Calv., in Meyer, who adds, ‘In 28 ff., we see that it was resorted to on
how many ways had those who were at other occasions. 81. Cyrovvrwy K.7.A. |
Jerusalem this Pentecost, already perse- By beating him: see ver. 32. avéBy |
cuted Paul in Asia ?’ Notice the simi- went (was carried) up; up, either because
larity of the charge against him to that of his high station, as commanding officer,
against Stephen, ch. vi. 13. 28. or because he was locally stationed i in the
“EAAnvas| ‘The generic plural: only one tower Antonia, ov erlooking (fromthe N. es 3
is intended, see next verse. They meant, the temple, where the riot was. t
into the inner court, which was forbidden ydudpxw +t. ow.) Claudius Lysias (ch.
28—37.
Kal VE exarovrapxac ‘Karéopagen em avurove.
TIPAZEIS AIMOSTOAQN.
243
ol o& Sovrec qh. x. 1 ref
here only.
TOV 'XtAtap Xov Kal Touc orparuwras * eravoavro TU- ome xe
xvi. ll. Xen.
mrovrec tov L[lavAov. 33 tOre ‘eyyisac 0 XAtapxoc Anab. vii. 1.
? , ’ ~ \
~ emeAaf3ero auTou Kal
\ > A s vn oA \ / , 7
Kat émuvlaveto Tic [av | Ely Kat TL EOTLY TETOINKWE.
34 X GXdXor Ot
Suvapévou oe avrou yvovat TO
Pov,
35 6 OTE Of & eyévero emt TOUC
” Fy
ox an ) 4
Alpe avtov.
’ ~ , s c \ 7
Et7Telv TL TpPoc Cline 0 Oe EpN
24. Mark vy. 38. ch. xx. 1. xxiv. 18 only. Jer. xxx. (xlix.) 2.
Heb. (xi. beets 1), 13.
dimpers. and constr., here only. (ch. iii. 10 reff.) 2 Mace. iii. 2.
bis. ch. xxii. 21. xxiii. 10, &c.
40 only. 3 Kings x.1, 20.
ech. iii. 2 reff. fch. v. 26 reff.
h ch. i. 6 reff.
xiv. 44 (only).
Cic. de Fin. ii. 5.
32. for mapad., AaBwv B, sumptis D-lat.
Chr Ge Thi: txt ABD'EN 13.
* exéXevoev OcOnvat
*aXdXAo Te Yemspwvouv ev TW oyAw*
*aspadréc dia tov “Ooou- |
bape ” ’ ‘ , ‘
EKEAEUCED ayeoae auTov ec THY
(ol ,
avaBaluovc,
~ ‘ ‘ f U
oracecOat avroy vTo Twy otoatiwrwy Sia THY Play tov
6 nKoAovd 10 TO TANO v Aaov KoaZ
nkor\ovIa yao ro tANDoG Tov Aaov KealovTec
7 né\wv TE ercayeo Oat ele THY ” mapEL-
€ ~ ~
BorAnv o TlavAoe Eyer Tw Kidtapxep
i w. aor., ch. ii. 29. Matt. xix.3. 2Cor. xii. 4. Esth. iv.
k John xix. 20 only.
20, (-dpoun,
2 Mace. vy. 3.)
s constr., ch.
xiii. lv reff.
t Luke xii. 33.
xviii. 40.
xxiv. 15.
ch. xxiii. 15.
Gen. xxvii.
* advceot duct,
ty
27.
uch. xvii. 19
2 mapemPoAny. reff.
J 7 é v constr., ch.
xii. 19.
ouvepn Ba- w ch. xii. 6 reff.
~ xch. xix. 32
(ref.) only.
y ch. xii. 22
reff,
z=ch. xxii.
30. xxv.26
ote et
Heb. vi. I$
h f onlyt. Xen.
Eu oT iv. 6.
K“EAAnvort yiwo@okete § a mitt. xxvi.5
4 Y C5 |) Mk. xxvii.
iv t
eGeorly foot
b = here
c ver.
(-Bety, ch. xvii. 5.)
Rev. xx.9 only. Isa. xxi. 8.
== Luke xxiii 18. Isa. Lil. 1. see ech. ie 22.
2. Ezraiv.14. 1 Mace.
Fuvier ‘“EAAnueoti, Xen. An. vii. 6. 8. ‘ Gracé scire,’
rec exatovtapxous, with D?HL rel 36
33. eyyioas 5¢ HL rel Syr Ee Thi: txt ABDEN a ¢ m 13. 36 vulg syr eth Chr
Thl-fin. advoeow dvoww DEH:
aAvoeot Suow Mm:
txt A B(Mai) LN 13 rel.
rec ins av bef ey, with EHL rel Chr ec Thl: om ABDN a 36. (13 def.) TLS
ect memotkws(sic) D!.
34. for aAAo T1, aAAa D syr Chr.
(ce Thl-sif :
emeBowy c (m) 25. 40 Chr-ms :
rec (for erepwvovv) eBowv, with HL rel Chr
txt ABDEN 13. 36 Thl-fin.
rec un
duvayevos de and om avtav (emendation of style), with HL rel 36 Chr: txt AB(D)EN
m 13 sah Thl-fin.—rat wn Suv. avr. D
35. for ex, es D.
Aaov D.
36. om Tov Aaov D.
(He
D-lat.
37. om o wavAos D:
for emery, AoAnsa D.
13. 36 rel vulg syr copt Chr Thl-fin.
o m. bef ets arm.
xxiii. 26), the tribune of the cohort (whose
proper complement was 1000 men).
33. advo. Svat] See ch. xii. 6. He would
thus be in the custody of two soldiers.
~ ls [Gv] ety, who he might be
(subjective possibility) : and tt éotiv twer.,
what he had done (assuming that he must
have done something). 34. wapepB. |
The camp or barracks attached to the tower
Antonia ;—or perhaps ‘into the tower’
itself: but the other is the more usual
meaning of mapeuB. “For a full history
and description of the fortress of Antonia,
see Robinson, i. pp. 481, 485; Williams,
Holy City, i. 99; 11. 403—411; Howson,
ii. 311.” Wordsworth. 35. avaBadn. |
The steps leading up into the tower. The
description of the tower or fort Antonia in
for Bact. avtov, Tov mavaoy Bact. D.
om 7: DHL dfg
for oxAov,
rec kpafov (grammatical emendation), with DHL rel Chr
: txt AB E-gr Na bdk o 13. 36. 40 Syr copt Thi.
avaiperoOar D-gr: tollite
Tw XElALapx. amoxpiWers evrev D.
h 1 tol Syr eth arm Thi-sif: ins ABEN
Jos. B. J. v. 5. 8, sets the scene vividly
before us:—upyoeidis Se otoa To Trav
oXTMa, Kata yowviay tTécoapow Erepors
diclAnaro mupyots* av of pmev %AAat Tev-
theovta Td Bos, 6 5é emi TH pweonuBpwh
kal Kat avaToAiy ywvia Kkeluevos €Bdo-
Bhkovta mnx@v iv, ws Kabopav bAov am
avtod Td iepdy. Kaba 5& cuvaTTO Tals
Tov fepov oToais, cis dupotépas elxe KaTa-
Baoeis’ 5° av Katidytes of ppovpol, Kab-
jioto yap del en’ adtis tdyna “Pwoualov,
Kal diiotduevor wep) Tas oTods meTa TOY
bmAwy, év Tats éoprais Toy Simov, as LN-
TL vewT epiaGeln, mapepudarroy" ppovptov
yep. eménerTo TH moder mev Td icpdv, TE
iep@ Be a -Avtwvia. 37. ‘EXAnviott
yy.) as ‘ Greece nescire,’ Cie. pro Flace. 4,
—tovs Supiot) emiotapmévovs, Xen. Cyr.
R 2
244 NPAZEIZ AIOZTOAQN. XXI. 38—40.
ABDE
lob. xvii.6 38
ft HLNab
reff.
m here onlyt. 1 ?
ouk apa ov él 0 Atybrrioc 0 ™po rovrwy TwY NMEowy
Jos. B. J. ii. avactatwoac
13. 3.
n ch. xvi. 37
reff.
o here only t.
Gen, xxx.
42. Job xiii.
11 only.
p Lake xv 15.
xix.14. Heb.
viii. 11 only.
Prov. xi. ¥.
q Matt. xix. 8.
Luke ix 61.
ch, xxvii. 3
al. Job
xxxii. 14.
YT ver. 35,
ovyy. Xen. Cyr. vii. 1. 25.
15 only. dat., ch. xxii. 2.
rw Aaw, ToAARE OE *
sch. xii. 17 reff.
38. for ovr apa, ov D.
39. om emu N'.
D-gr.
Aovyov bef Aad. &'(N8 disapproving).
40. ins ka bef emitpeWayTos Se D'-gr:
for avrov, Tov x:Atapxov D sah.
for Tw Aaw, Tov Aaov H ec k Chr(some mss): mpos avtovs D Syr.
yevouervns bef ovyns B.
Te novxeias D.
vii. 5. 31: and reff. There is no ellipsis of
AaAeiv. 38. ovk dpa ov et} Thou
art not then, as I believed..... The
E. V., after the Vulg., ‘ art not thou’
(‘nonne tu es...) would require ap’ od
or o’Kovy, Winer, edn. 6, § 57. 3. See
also Luke xvii. 17 ; John xviii. 37.
Atytrrios| The inference of the tribune
was not, as in Bengel, ‘Greece loquitur :
ergo est Augyptius ;’ but the very contrary
to this. His being able to speak Greek
is a proof to Lysias that he is no¢ that
Egyptian. This Egyptian is mentioned
by Josephus, Antt. xx. 8. 6, dpixvetrar 5é
tis e& Aiyimrou kata TovTOv Thy Kaipoy eis
7a ‘IepordAvua, tpopnTrns civat A€ywr, Kal
cupBovActwy TH Snuotin@ WAGE ory
avT@ mpos dpos Td mposaryopevduevov EAatav
EpxerOa, & kal THs méAcEws KvTixpus Kel-
pevoy Gméxer orddia wevte’ OeAcw yap,
packer, avtots exetbev emideitat, ws KeAev-
cavTos avTod winrar TA THY ‘IepocoAvnwy
telyn, d¢ dv thy elsodov aitots mapétew
emnyyerareto. PHAE 5é ws ewbOeTo TaiTa,
KkeAever To’s oTpaTimtas avadaBeiy To
dmAa, kal.... mposBadAet Tots wep) Toy
Aiyirriov' kal teTpakoglouvs pty adtay
aveide, Siaxoclous 5€ (avtas EXaBev. 6 BE
Alyirrios aiths diaipdoas ek Tis pwaxns
aparys eyévero. But in B. J. ii. 13. 5, he
says of the same person, rep) Tpispuplous
GOpolCer Tay AmaTnuevwv, Twepiayaywv 5e
avrovs ex Tis épnulas eis 7d EAatay Kad.
DORK STAs iF isia''s 53 ste cumBodrjs yevouevns
ar ae Siapbapivar x. CwypnOjvar mrel-
otous Tav civ airg. It is obvious that
the numerical accounts in Jos. are incon-
sistent with our text, and with one another.
This latter being the case, we may well
KicxtAtouc avopac tov ™
” , I] -
"Eyo . avOpwroc pév étul lovdatoc Tapoetec, THC KiAdtkiac
ne eee A , p ! » ,
ovk ° aonnov TOAEwe © woXiTNEe, Céopat oé cou
~ A ,
fot AaXjnoat TG Tov Aaov.
0 TlavXoe & EOTWC el TwY ‘avaBabpiy * KAaTEGELOEV TH XEI9l
ovyne yevomernc
t Rev. viii. Lonly. Wisd. xvlii, 14 only. wiv moAAH mavtaxdbev
u absol., Luke xiii. 12. xxiii. 20 only. 2 Chron. xxix. 28 Ald. 2 Macc. xv.
eEavactatwoas E.
for Tapoeus to moAiTns, ev Tapow Se THS KIALKLAS yEeYyEevYNMEVOS
for emitp., cvvxwpnoa D: cujus rogo obsegro autem mihi D-lat.
kat emit., omg Se, D-lat Syr:
- 39
oiKaglwy ; ei@ev O& 0 IlavAoe
9 eriroapov
200A emeipapawror oe avrov
" mpocepwvnaev Ty
oipikapiov E.
ins
om de L 96.
€0TWS OT. ET. T. AV. Kal GELTAS D.
for de ovyns,
yevamerns A.
leave them out of the question. At dif-
ferent times of his rebellion, his number
of followers would be variously estimated ;
and the tribune would naturally take it as
he himself or his informant had known it,
at some one period. That this is so, we
may see by noticing that our narrative
speaks of his leading out,—whereas Jose-
phus’s numbers are those whom he brought
back from the wilderness against Jerusa-
lem, by which time his band w ould have
augmented considerably. TOUS TETP. |
the four thousand,—the matter being one
of notoriety. otxapiwy| From sica,
a dagger; they are described by Jos.
B. J. ii. 13. 3, erepov eldos Anotav ev
‘IepotoAvuors brepieto, of Kadrovmevor
orkapiot, wel jucpay Kal ev uéon TH To-
Aet hovevovres avOpdmous* udAtota 5 ev
Tais é€oprats mioyduevoe TH TAHOE, kar
tais eécOhoecw broxpimtTovTes miKpa ki-
pldia, tovrois vuttoy tovs diapdpovs.
. ™mp@tos pev ody bm avTav “Iwva-
> ‘\ > / \ A
Ons 6 apxcepeds dmorpaCerat’ pera, de
avTby Ka? nuepay cay bps riaA
The art. is generic. pév | Our
indeed,—implying ‘ not the Re ales oa but,’
—exactly renders it: I indeed am: so
Aristoph. Plut. 355, wa AC eye wey of, See
Hartung, Partikellehre, ii. 413. ouK
adoyjpov md. ] See note, ch. ix. 11.
The expression is an elegant one, and very
common. Wetst. gives many examples,
and among them one from Eurip. Ion 8,
early yap odk &onuos “EAAhvwy méAts.
There was distinction in his being a 7ro-
Airns of an urbs libera. “Many of the
coins of Tarsus bear the epigraphs pntpé-
moAts and adtdvomos.” Wordsw. from
Kat Cayayov et THY cpnwoy TOUC TET OG~ ae
13
XXII. 1—5.
IIPAZEIS AMOSTOAQN.
245
“"EPpaide Stadéxryy Aeyow [XXI. | “Avdpee adeA pot v ch. xxii. 2,
Kal marepec,
akovoaré a TNC Tpoc vuac vuv
xvi. 14
only t.
* atroXo- w ch. i. 19 reff.
Acts only.
ylac. 2 akovoavrec O& OTL eyed Eppaids ” duaecryy x w. mods
: rs, a Pa ere only.
‘i are tate avroic, padXoy y mapéayov *° novxiay. kat rice
dat., 1 Cor.
ow > Eyw etue avijo 'Lovdato eyerynuévoc ev Tapow ix.3, 1 Pet.
pn a te no OT ee ne ee nee
me KuAtKiac,
° rapa Tove Tooac
g ) ’ ~ U
axoiBeay TOU hail ies rset
TOU oe Kalo mavrec vst EOTE onMEpov"
" Bavarou, * deopevwv Kal? Tra le Se caree 10
Thy * don! eotwea™
a you:
dove etc apekere avdpac Te Kal ae sae
“ avateOpappévoc oe ev 7 ToXEt TavTY
Tapadma,
,
vonov,
xxv. 16 reff.)
y ch. xxi. 40,
f 8 , \ z= w.dat.,
ETO pS Opa KQaTQ@ Luke vii. 32
\ el Esdr.
ji. 21 (18).
‘Cn wTnC brapxey rr iy
Ame see Luke vi.
oc Taurny 13. abs., ch.
xxi. 40.
5 \ © bJob xxxiv.29.
WC Kal O ¢=1Tim. ii.
11, 12
2'Thess. iii.
aoylEpEvC P maprupet pol Kal mTav TO 9 peoBureo.ov S ae
Proy. vii. 9. (-cos, 1 Tim. ii, 2. 1 Pet. iii. 4.) dch. vii. 20, 21 onlyt. Wisd. vii. 4, vat. F.
(not A) only. e Luke viii. 35. ch. iv. 35, 37. v.2al. 4 Kings iv. 37 Ald. f =ch. vii. 22 reff.
g here only. Dan. vii. 16 (see note and ch. xviii. 26 reff.). h ch. xxiv. 14. xxviii. 17 only. Prov.
xxvii. 10. 2 Mace. vi. 1 vat.
1=ch. vii. 52 reff.
(Matt. xxiii. 4) only. Gen. xlix. 11.
iv. 15. Col. iv. 13.
for eBpatdi, 11a A.
ich. xxi. 20 reff.
m Rev. ii. 10, xii. 11 only.
q = Luke xxii. 66 (1 Tim. iv. 14) only t.
(-Aovv, Num. xxv. 13.) k ch. ix. 2 reff.
expe Gav., 2 Mace. xiii. 14. n = here
o constr,, ch. viii. 3 reff. p Rom. x.2. Gal.
(Susan, 60 Theod. F.)
Cuap. XXII. 1. ree vuv, with a f 13 Chr Ee: txt ABDEHLX® rel 36 Thl.
2. mposdwver DEH am fuld tol He Thl-sif: rposepwrncey Lab ck 0 36. 40, adlo-
cutus est K-lat: txt ABN rel Chr Thl-fin, loguebatur demid.
om autas D:
this point to ver 10. |
NOVXIav, NovXaTav D.
(| D-lat is deficient from
avtwy A'(perhaps). for maperxov
3. rec aft eyw ins wey, with HL rel syr copt eth Chr Gc Thl: om ABDEN a 13. 36
vulg sah. avnp bef ejut X).
yeyevynuevos D: yeyevnuevos A o.
aft memaidevomevos ins 6¢ H k m Chr.
uuets tavtTes D.
4. for os, ea: D Syr eth.
copt. .
5. om o D! 56. 180:
Baptupnoe: D: ewaptupe B:
Akermann, p. 56. 40. ty “EBp.
Stad.] The Syro- Chaldaic, the another:
tongue of the Jews in Judea at this time :
his motive is implied (ch. xxii. 2) to be,
that they might be the more disposed to
listen to him. Cap. XXII. 1.] This
speech of Paul repeats the narrative of his
conversion to Christianity, but this time
most skilfully arranged and adapted (within
legitimate limits) to avoid offence and con-
ciliate his hearers. Proofs of this will ap-
pear as we goon. See an enquiry into its
diction and rendering into Greek, in the
Prolegg. § ii. 17, B. 3.] De Wette
and others would place the comma after
tavtTn, so to make the two clauses, begin-
ning with yéy. and avat., exactly cor-
respond. But (not to insist, with Meyer,
on the reason that a new circumstance is
introduced with each participle) it is surely
better, as the rule of the sentence seems to
be to place the participles before the words
which qualify them, to take év rf wéAc
ins D-corr!.
tovdaos bef avnp D.
yauadindov B 36 Chr.
mexpt De:
emimaptupet 137.
ev Tapow T. KA. bef
Tatdevomevos
om urapxwv D vulg. €oTE
ews k. gvaarcnv D 96. 142. 180 am
aft apxtepevs ins avavias 137 syr-w-ast.
for may, oAov D.
TavTn mapa T. 7. T., all as the qualifica-
tion of avareOpaupevos, and punctuate, as
commonly done, after Tauadina. On
Gamaliel, see note, ch. v. 34. The
expression mapa t. 7145. (see ch. iy. 39,
note) indicates that the rabbi sat on an ele-
vated seat and the scholars on the ground
or on benches, literally a¢ his feet.
kata akp.] (The art. omitted aft. a prep.)
According to the strict acceptation of the
law of my fathers; = kata thy axpiBe-
oTdtTyv alpecw THS jueTépas Opnokelas,
ch, xxvi. 5 ;—i. e. as a Pharisee. So Jos.
B. J. ii. 8. 18, Bapioato: ... of SoxodvTes
meta axptBelas einyetoOat Ta voutmma.
Some of the older Commentators make tod
matpgov vduov governed by merad,, and
take kat’ a«piB. adverbially ; which would
give a very vapid sense, the accuracy and
carefulness of his education having been
already implied in mapa tr. mw. Tayadria.
Kaas ...] Not meaning ‘in the
same way as YE are all this day’ (but now
246
r =ch. ix. 2
TIPASZ EIS ATMOZTOAQN.
XXII.
a
ROS: 5 \ , A , ‘ ‘ > a
= Tao WY Kal " exiatoAac oc£apevoc mooc TouUC adeA povc ABDE
sch. xxi. 3 SY j ‘ ’ , LA \ ‘ s 2 <4 ” HLNa b
only. Job €lc Aapackov ETODEVOMNY, AGwWY KaL TOUC — EKEIGE OVTAC ag
XXXIX. 2h ’ gy aie , oy t - aly mo
Lheape Oedemevouc ele lepovoadnn, wa tinwonDwow. . eyeveTo = 13
elva@y, Jos. ‘
Antt. iii. 2.1. S u aaa petal = FON) ‘
(ah eva Oé (OL TOOEVOMEVM Kal eyyiGovre T™) Aapackw TEOL
only, Ezek. 7
v.17. i * peonp(pian * E aigunc EK TOU sel inl meptaatoaipat pwc
eb. x. 29.
"Rei ikavoy Tepl ELE, 7 imeoa Te ats TO * Bapoc Kal Riss
’
eg pwvne Aeyovonc pot DaovrA Laovd, rl fe »StoKec; 8 eyo Hoe A.
al. fr. ~ > ! ’ 5 , a os? , ? , ABDE
oe 3 g amskoiOny Tie fl, KUQIE, EITEY TE TOOC ME Kyo ery
reii.).
w—ch.x.9 sit Ingoue 6 Nag aioe ov ov ° Srioee ce. ot 8 ody kime
Matt. xx.3. € Elp i ¢ oO pe I¢ ic. 3
2 Macc. v. 1.
xch. vii, 26 EUOL OVTEC TO Lev dwe EVeacavro [Kal ° Eudofsor é evovro
only. Gen & f f ’
xviil. 1. THY O& dwrnv ovK ° novgay TOU ahovvrs ar elTrov
ych. a bh
only ft. ’
z= ch. xi, 24 de Ti TOUjsW, KUOLE 5 0 Oé KUOLOC elirev To0c ple ° Ava-
re . , , , ae , \
avereonly. . otag mopsvou ec Aapackov, kaxet oot “ AadnPyoerat rept
b ver. 4. Yd < Few , - c \ > o ?
cch.x.4ref, WAVTWY WY | TETAKTAL GOL ToMoal. 11 We de ovk ® p= ....av-
Ach, ix. 4 reff. , hp ass a we cs « 4 , Ik twv D.
ee éBXezov avo THC cone Tov pwrog EKELVOU, Xstoayw- ABEH
f = ch. xiii. , cHAAN ~ 1 , =\ 6) ’ A , LNabe
48. xv.2al. YOUMEVOC UTO TwY GuvOYTwY pot NAVOY Etc Aauackoy. fghk 1
1 Macc. xii. ’ mo 13
26. constr., here only. Xen. de Rep. Lac. xi. 6, Tots dé EmeaGuc téTaKkTac. g = Mark viii. 25 onlyt.
h =ch. xii. 14 reff. Exod. vi. 9.
k ch. ix. 8 onty.
2 Macc. ix. donly.
aft wy om ka D 3 fuld coptt.
E eth. om atwy to dedeuevous H.
for ets (bef tepouc.), ev D.
i= Luke ix. 31, 32.
Judg. xvi. 26 F. only. (-76s, ch. xiii. 11.)
for moos Tous ad., mapa Tw adeApwy D.
1 Cor. xv. 40, 41.
LLuke ix. 18 only. Jer. iii. 2
0. Esdr. vi. 2.
atau
exet D: ut adducerem inde vinctos vulg.
6. for eyev. to peonuBp. D! has evy:Covte dLe w jor weonuBpias Sapackw (ry Sau. D?):
txt D°,
ule] Di.
7. for er. Te, kar er. D.
cavre cavre (as lat, ver 13) D1 25
for ex, a{mo] D!: txt D?.
mepeotpavey H 137: -ar D-corr: -va
[ereca, so ABEHN d f m 36. 40 Ath Thl.]
for ent, ec D!:
txt D? ors, at end ins
oKAnpov cot mpos KevTpa AaKTiCew EH demid syr-marg Ath.
8. aft amexpiOny ins Kat evra &.
patos &},
9. &! has omitted cay in efeavayto.
Syr copt arm Bede :
for ve, d<¢ D (al?).
ins DEL rel (36) syr sah eth Chr He Thi.
may place the possibility of omn from similar ity par [so Meyer | ;
interpolation from the evaornneroav evveot of ch ix.
eve BRI. valo-
om kat eupoBa eyevovro ABHN 13 vulg
(On the one hand we
on the other,
the fact noticed by Tischdf that
eu. yev. ts a phrase almost peculiar to St. Luke oe not tell distinctly either way :
evveot could not be used in this connexion.)
10. era D.
Ta B?(Verc).
Chr :
om kupios D k, simly sah eth.
for wept to vot, Tt oe Set (see ch ix. 6) H 4°. 34. 95', 98-marg 100
de omnibus que te oporteat facere vulg (H-lat).
ll. ovdeveBAemoyr (i. e. either ovdev <Breroy or ovd’ eveBAerov) B:
nkovoy H-or X%.
evrerakTat B(Mai): evreraa-
om oo E.
eBAeroy E 18,
aveBA. 68. 100 Thl-fin: ut autem surrexi (surrexit D') non videbam D-lat syr-marg.
for uvmo, amo A.
in another way): but as ye all are this
day: ‘I had the same zealous character (not
excluding hisstill retaining it) which you all
shew to-day.’ <A conciliatory Comparison.
5. 6 apx.| ‘The High Priest of that
day, who is still living? i. e. Theophilus,
see onch.ix.1. Similarly, the whole San-
hedrim = ‘those who were then members,
and now survive. map @y kai| from
whom, moreover. Tpos TVS adedd. |
to the Jewish (thei) brethren (see ch.
xxviii, 21). Bornemann’s rendering,
‘against the (Christian) brethren,’ is al-
together inadmissible. If ever Paul spoke
to the Jews as a Jew, it was on this
occasion. kat Tots éx.| even those
who were there. éxetcoe | if resolved,
would be eis Aauackdy,—a similar con-
struction to eis olkéy éotw, Mark ii. 1,
‘those who had settled at Damascus and
were then there.’ 6.] On Paul’s con-
version and the comparison of the accounts
in chapp. ix., xxii., and xxvi., see notes on
ch. ix. I have there treated of the dis-
2 Cor. ili. 7,18. Exod. xvi. 10.
6—19. TIPAZEIZ ATOZTOAQN. 247
m? nN } 6 reff.
evAaPne m wopeod. 7 gp lin} ref
Phil. iii. 5.
’ ' , 3d’ ON ‘
12 ’Ayaviac Sé Tle avno "kata TOV
oO , or ‘ / ~ , >
MaoTUEOULEVOS -UTO TaVTwWY TWY ?KaTOLKOUYTWY lovdatwr, Hee Vill. 8
bd ‘ 7, \ ’ ‘ os 4 x > al, Deut.
2 eXOov moog me Kal TéemiaTacg ElTéy jor VaovAr adeAPs, oi! oe
ree x Ses ee ee 16 fed fr? eee reff.
avaBArcpor. Kayo auty Ty wpa" avéBAcpa ‘etc avrov. peellips, eh.
Y ees Vanes 5 « u Nee ~ v 1 veo 7 ; anil cae
o 6@ eivev O “Os0¢ Tor TATEOWY — NUWY ~ TOEODEXELOL~ 9A Ny,
, x ~ Nps. 9ér > ~ \ PY ~ \ y Sf xa. Vere
Gato GE yvwvatl TO éAnfa GQuTov Kat LOELY TOV ci ae
‘ \ ) ~ Zz ‘ ae ~ , > - 15 °¢ cert ix, 12
Kal akovoat ~ dwyny “ek TOV GTOMAaTOE aUTOU, ort Eo Ch eins
a , re . , 5) s b 7 7 reth.
Maptuc auTW ToOoCg TavTac avQowmoue wv ewOaKaC KGL t — Matt. xiv.
” 16 \ a RD. enat 3 . D 19 al Gen
nkoveac. Kat vuv te “pésAAgte 3 © avacrac Pawrioa ae
ke \ c , fs , Deut. i. 11 al.
Kat °amwoAovoat rac Soe eries oou, ‘emucad caus Ev0¢ Wo Ree
v ch. v. 30 reff.
Uroorpeparre etc Teoou- week. iii 20.
xxvi. 16 only.
x" ial ga a g
Ovona eer eyevero O€ fot
b Exod. iv. 13.
ee Kal mOocEvy opevou ou ev TW Leow yevéaba BE © Yosh li 49.
k 2 Mace. iii. 7.
ev | exoracel Ly Kal we * avrov Ayovré fol ' Srrevaoy | vii,p only.
’ , ay € , , > = ,
Kat eéeA0e " raya é& Tepovoadnu, diote ov " mapa- ivis.Nce'
Seéovral cov [riv] ” apruplay "rept éuod. ! kayo doy ghri3,"
° nN ra Old oD.
ESOVTal OOU | THV MaOTVOLAY © TEOL EULOU Ka ye ELTmOD: re
y absol., ch. vii. 52 reff. zch. xi.9 ai. Isa. Ixvi. 6. a= ch. i. 8 reff. battr.,
ch. i. L reff. see ver. 10. c= hereonly. Xen. Cyr. i. 3. 15. ‘awer. 10. e 1 Cor,
vi. ii aniy. Job ix. 30 only. f ch. ii. 2) reff. g ch. viii. 25 reff. h absol.,
k = Mark iv. 38 al. Ich. xx. 16 reff. constr.,
m Rom. xvi. 20 reff. n = Mark iv. 20. ch. xvi. 21 (reff.).
o = John i. 19. iii. 11, &c. 1 John v.9. Rev.i. 2,9. xi. 7 al. p here
ich. x. 10 reff.
Gen. xviii 6. xxiv. 18, 20,
Exod, xxiii. 1.
only. see John i. 7.
12. rec (for evAaBys) evoeBns, with E rel ce: om A vulg (the omn has prob been
because the sentence is complete without the epithet : evaeBns, a gloss on evAaBys): txt
BHLNabegk o 13. 36. 40. paptupowevos Al, aft KaToikovyTwy ins ev
ch. x. 9 reff.
Sauackw (supplementary gloss) Hl 13 rel demid tol syr eth arm Chr, Thi: aft sov6.,
73: om ABER f g vulg Syr copt ec.
13. exe ABN. eBrXeWa A.
14. mpoexeipnoato ALL k: mposexepnoaro (but s marked and erased) & om Ist
kat Al, om tov Ak 1 95}.
15. papt. av. mp. 7. avOp. bef eon B. aft wv ins te E-gr b c 0 36.
16. ree (for avrov) tov kvpiov, with HL rel Thi-sif ie: add inoou k 43. 99 (expla-
natory corrections): txt ABEN a c 13. 36 vulg D-lat syrr coptt eth arm Chr Thl-fin.
17. mposevxowevw, omg pov, KE e 98. 95. for we, wor L a?-marg 99. 106. 137 :
om 25. 40. 96. 105 arm. in XN o@au of yeveoOar is written twice.
18. for ew, ov & 180 sah. ree ins tyv, with EHL rel 36 Chr Thl ce: fes-
timonium mewm D-lat: om (as unnecessary ?) ABN a 13.
marks, that the two meanings of avaBAerw
here unite in the word: I looked, with
recovered sight, upon him. 14—16 is
not related, but included, in ch. ix. 18, 19.
14. 60. +. wat. Hp.| So Peter, ch.
iii. 13; v.30. In ch. ix. 17, 6 KUptos is
crepancies, real or apparent. 11.] See
notes, ch. ix. 8, 18. 12.| That Ananias
was a Christian, is not here mentioned,—
and dvip .. . *Iovdalwy is added: both,
as addressed to a Jewish audience. Before
the Roman governor in ch. xxvi., he does
not mention him at all, but compresses
the whole substance of the command given
to Ananias into the words spoken by the
Lord to himself. A heathen moralist could
teach,—‘ Quid de quoque viro, et cui dicas,
seepe videto’ (Hor. Ep. i. 18. 68): and a
Christian Apostle was not unmindful of the
necessary caution. Such features in his
speeches are highly instructive and valuable
to those who would gather from Seripture
itself its own real character: and be, not
slaves to its letter, but disciples of its spirit.
13. avéBA. eis attév] De W. re-
the word: this title is given for the Jews.
tov Sixatov] So Stephen, ch. vii.
52. How forcibly must the whole scene
have recalled Aim, whom presently (ver.
20) he mentions by name. 16. amé-
Aoveat...] This was the Jewish as well
as the Christian doctrine of baptism.
See ref. 1 Cor. and note. avTo |
of Jesus, tod Sucaiov. Paul carefully
avoids mentioning to the Jews this Name,
except where it is waavoidable, in ver. 8:
so avrdy again, ver. 18. 17.] viz. as
related ch. ix. 26—30, where nothing of
248 IIPAZEI= AIMOSTOAQN. XXII.
hk ok Le sel, ’ PES ” r ’ \
4 constr. ch, Kupte, avtot erioravrae ore eyw “nny dvAakiZwy Kat Ep
mabe aR es ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ , 3. Ae
er, + Oeper ‘ata Tac suvaywyae tovg “ mioTEvovTacg © ETL tek ee
4d only. A9 ’ , ‘ ca x , ~ w ,
sch. v.40 ref. ot. ~ Kal Ore * eEey vvvero TO alua Xtepavov Tov ~ wap- t
t Luke ix. 6. 3
iid 3. , \ 2S ciel oe x? ‘ ‘yy ~
cy Bh Skvi, TUQOC Gov, Kal avTog “Hunv * EpesTwo Kal aia werd
ll. , ct ¢ ~ a? , ) Se
uchix.42 Kal” puAdsowy Ta marta TwY * avalpovYTWY aUTOY. 21 kal Daas $a
ATTWVss
reff.
V -xuv., Matt. xxiii. 35. xxvi.28. Luke xi. 50 al. _, __W see note,
2 Tim. iv.6 only. Zech. i. 10. y 1 Cor. vii. 12, 13 refi.
a = th. v. 33 reff.
x ver. 13. perf., ch. xxviii. 2-
z = Luke xi. Zl. Exod. xxii. 7.
19. memiorevkotas E: qui credebant vulg D-lat E-lat. ;
20. rec etexetto (corrn to more usual form), with HL rel Chr: txt ABEN 13. 36
Thi-fin. (efeyuvero B2E 13.36: txt AB'X.) om oredavov A 68: 7. wapt. bef ore.
38. 73 (the omn is hardly accountable, if it was originally in the text: at the same
time, the MS authority is too light to allow of its being now omitted. Meyer suggests
the similarity of ending, orepavov tov: but this would occasion the omn of tov, not of
atepavov): txt BEHLX Chr Thi (ec. mpwtouaptupos Lack m: mpwtou mapr.
7 syr. eotws A 37. rec aft cuvevdoxwy ins Tn avaiperet avtov (interpolated
JSrom ch viii. 1), with HL rel (13) 36 syr Chr Thl Cc: +n Bovan tw avatpovvtwy
avtov (and Ai@aCovrwy for avaip. below) Syr: om AB D(appy: D-lat ends with con-
sentiens) EX 40 vulg coptt «th. om ka bef pvAacowy HL b cf lo syr Chr
Thl-sif ie: ins ABDENR rel 36 vulg coptt.—duva. te ¢ 137.
this vision, or its having been the cause of
his leaving Jerusalem, is hinted. 18. |
mept énov is to be taken with waptuplay,
not with the verb, as Meyer and Winer
maintain. Their objection, that then it
must be thy papt. THY ep) euod is an-
swered by remarking, (1) that Paul does
not always observe accuracy in this usage
of the article: e. g. Eph. vi. 5, trakovere
Tois Kupiots Kata odpKa, for T. KUp. Tots
Kata odpka, OY Tols KaTa oapka Kuplo.s,
which he has written in the ||, Col. iii. 22,
—1 Thess. iv. 16, of vexpol ev xpiote
avacthoovTa: mp@atov. See also Rom. vi.
4; Col. ii. 14, and notes :—and (2) that
there may have been a reason for the irre-
gularity here, inasmuch as, if either the
article had been expressed after uapr., or
Thy wT. eu. wapt. had been used, cov would
have appeared to be governed by zapa-
detovrair—‘ they will not receive from thee
thy testimony concerning me,’—which is
not precisely the meaning intended to be
conveyed. (See Mr. Green’s Gram. of
Wey sip,) 168) 19.| The probable ac-
count of this answer is, that Paul thought
his former great zeal against Christ, con-
trasted with his present zeal for Him,
would make a deep impression on the Jews
in Jerusalem: or, perhaps, he wishes by
his earnest preaching of Jesus as the Christ
among them, to undo the mischief of
which he before was the agent, and there-
fore alleges his former zeal and his con-
senting to Stephen’s death as reasons why
he should remain in Jerusalem. avrot
ean only refer to the same persons as the
subjects of mapadétovra: above: not (as
Heinrichs) to the foreign Jews ;—** Idcirco
iter apostolicum extra urbem detrectat,
quod undique odio petitum se iri preevidet,
Hierosolymis autem in apostolorum col-
legio delitescere se posse opinatur :”—a
motive totally unworthy of Paul, and an
interpretation which happily the sentence
will not bear. 20. pdptupds cov }
“«E. V. ‘thy martyr, following Beza:
Vulg., and Erasm., testis tui. The Apostle
may have here used the (Hebrew, ty, as
Wordsworth) word in its strict primary
sense ; for a view of Christ in His glory
was vouchsafed to Stephen, and it was by
bearing witness of that manifestation that
he hastened his death (ch. vii. 55 ff). The
present meaning of the word martyr did,
however, become attached to it at a very
early period, and is apparently of apostolic
authority: e. g. Rev. xvii. 6, and Clem.
Rom. 1 Cor. v., p. 217 (cited in note on ch.
i. 25)... . The transition from the first to
the secondary sense may be easily accounted
for. Many who had only seen with the
eye of faith, suffered persecution and death
as a proof of their sincerity. For such
constancy the Greek had no adequate term.
It was necessary for the Christians to pro-
vide one. None was more appropriate
than udprup, seeing what had been the
fate of those whom Christ had appointed
to be His witnesses (ch.i. 8). They almost
all suffered: hence to witness became a
synonym for ¢o suffer; while the suffering
was in itself a kind of testimony.” (Mr.
Humphry.) Dr. Wordsw. well designates
this introduction of the name of Stephen
““A noble endeavour to make public repa-
ration for a public sin, by public confession
in the same place where the sin was com,
oe aTtootéeAw ae:
ef h
oe Aoyou, Kal “ emnpay THY
20—25.
s , , ¢ rN ? 7 b ‘
eiev mpocg pe [lopevov, ore eyw etc EOvn ° waxpay
22 "Hkovov O&
f
amo Tne yne Tov ToLwUToV, ov yap
23 h
Kal < KoviogTOV BadrXovrwy ELC Tov aépa,
, NM rae > ‘ 1 ,
X'Atapyxoc ecayesOat auTOvy &l¢ TYHV maocuPoArnv,
D 7 : o>? rs se, ef p? - 5 7 a
paotisuy averaZeabat auTov, lva eTLyV@ t nV
e r? , ep eel
OUTWC ETEPWVYOUY AUTH.
~ t'oc- « ‘ 4 ut ~ c ,
TOLG luaaLY, ELTEV TOOE TOV EGTWTa EKATOVTADYOV [o , 22!
xii. 19. Ezra iii. 13.
Ich. xxi. 34, 37 reff.
xi. 86 (Mark iii. 10. v. 29, 34.
29 F. only. Susan, 14 Theod.
rch. xii. 22 reff. dat., here only.
Job xxxix. 10. Isa. v. 18, 27.
uabsol., ch. xvi. 9. Matt. xx. 0.
21. eue C.
22. nkovoay D syrr.
eOvos H-gr 25.
hended, as the varr shew), with a Thl-fin Ge:
TIPAZEIS ANOSTOAQN.
Kpavyalovrwy TE auT@v Kal
p=ch. xxiii. 28 reff. Gen. xxxi. 32.
s here only t+.
Sir. xxx. (xxxiii.) 26 only.
xxvi.73. John xii. 29 al.
efamoateAXw De Ath:
rec kaOykov (the meaning of the imperf not being appre-
249
ae b absol , Luke
xv. 20, ch.
i) ame! fe ii. 39. (xvii.
auTou aypt TOUTOU Tou 28 reff.) Eph.
d a , ~ , e s ii. 13, 17
pwvny auTwv Aeyovrec Alps only. Zech.
* cance avrov yy, ochre?
‘ ane ii. 14 reff.
imTouvTey Ta (marca ay Vili. 33
re
24 t =1 Cor. v. 5,
éxéAevoev 0 Th, 2 Gort
m 7 sth
el7Tac ca 2, &e 5)
ae) eeu ae
= ent.
aQiqlay Se earesic
95 Se s , ee 3 x. 33, constr.
a 1 € TOOETEWAV auTov iaperte
see ch. xxv.
22 reff.
» Matt.
i= (see note) here only. Herodot. iv. 94, 188. k ch. xiii. 51 reff.
m = Mark v. 43. x. 49. Luke xix. 15. Exod. xxxv.1. n = Heb
Luke vii. 21) only. Prov. xxvi. 3. over. 29 only. Judg. vi.
qe f
2 Mare. xv. 15. t Mark i. 7 | L.J. only.
Demosth. m€pt mupamp. p. 402, end.
amooreAw E-gr.
KkadyKet 68. 69. 987. 105: Kkabneay 18.
43: txt ABCDEHLNX rel 36 Hip Ath Chr, Thl-sif.
23. xpaCovtwy C ¢ g1 0 Chr Thi-sif @e-ed.
txt ABC Syr eth.
Te), with DEHLX rel 36 vulg copt Chr :
pimtovray DEHLa b o 40 Thi Ge-ed.
24. ree avtov bef o xtAtapxos, with HL rel 36 Thl-sif Hc:
ABCDERN ah k m 138. 40 vulg Chr Thl-fin.
txt ABCDEX am 13. 36. 40 vulg syrr Chr Thl-fin.
dropped out when the order was altered.)
(13) rel 36 Chr:
D': txt D?. yvw A 13. 36 Chr.
avtov D: avrov 137.
eure O€ k: txt ABCDEN.
rec de (alteration of characteristic
om avtwy D ?
for aepa, ovpavoy D Syr Cassiod: aepay &!.
om ¢ 137. 142: txt
ree ayeo#@a:, with HLh rel xth-rom :
(The ets- seems to have been
rec errwy (more usual form), with HL
etaerOar Em 40: eget. 4: averaew
Katepwvouv D c 137. for avtw, mept
25. rec mpoereivev (to suit the subject o xiA., no more persons having been mentd :
this the varr shew), with k 1 mo He:
mposetervey H Thl-sif: mpoeresvoy AK Thl-fin :
txt BLN abegh 13. 36 Chr(some mss have zposeteivov) vss, mposereway CD 40.
137. (f is doubtful.)
mitted.” kat avtos| I myself also.
21.| The object of Paul in relating
this vision appears to have been to shew
that his own inclination and prayer had
been, that he might preach the Gospel to
his own people: but that it was by the
imperative command of the Lord Himself
that he went to the Gentiles. 22. Tov-
tov T. Adyou| viz. the announcement that
he was to be sent to the Gentiles. ‘ Populi
terrarum non vivunt,’ was the maxim of the
children of Abraham. Chetubb. fol. iii. 2
(Meyer). Ka0yKev | ‘ decuerat :’ imply-
ing, he ought to have been put to death long
ago (when we endeavoured to do it, but
he escaped). 23. pirrovvrev | } Not
‘flinging off their garments,’ as preparing
to stone him, or even as representing the
action of such preparation: the former
would be futile, as he was in the custody of
the tribune,—the latter absurd, and not
borne out by any known habit of the
Jews: but shaking, jactitantes, their gar-
exatovtapxyny D 73.
om o mavaos D syr Chr: ins
ments, as shaking off the dust, abominating
such an expression and him who uttered it.
The casting dust into the air was part of
the same gesture. Chrys. explains it, fu7-
TACOVTES, EKTIWATOTOVTES. 24.] The
tribune, not understanding the language in
which Paul spoke, wished to extract from
him by the scourge the reason which so
exasperated the Jews against him. In this
he was acting illegally; ‘ Non esse a tor-
mentis incipiendum, Div. Augustus con-
stituit.’ Digest. Leg. 48, tit. 18, c. 1 (De
WW): erepov, | they were thus cry-
ing out against him. 25.) And
while they were binding him down with
the thongs. Dr. Bloomfield quotes from
Dio Cassius, xi. 49, "Avtiyovoy éuactiywoe
oTaup® mpodjoavtes, and explains rightly,
I think, the zpo in both verbs to allude to
the position of the prisoner, which was,
bent forward, and tied with a sort of gear
made of leather to an inclined post. De W.
and others render tots iuacw, ‘for the
250
TlavAoc | YE.“ a
v=ch.i.6
reff.
IIPAZEIZ AIOZTOAQN.
€ ~ \
vOpwmrov Popatoy Kat*
XXII. 26—30.
’ , wv
akarakptTov Y g&-
web. xvi.87 egriy Uply * paoriey ; 26 axovoac && 0 EKATOVTADY OC
h. xvi. 37
* only t. mooced ov Tw! XiAapyy amny yerlev Aeywr Ti wéAXEte
y w. pres., ch. 27
x hereon 7 Oe 5 0 yao avOpwmoc obroc ‘Pwpaide € cory > WAOE=
yum. XXii. ¢ e ~
25. Wisd.v. EAQ@Y Of 0 Nlapyoc cimev aury Aéye pot, ov Popatog
Cyt, els 6 88 tpn Nai. 2 i0 NM 'E N
Cig. Et 5 0 GE eon Nat. aTEKol n 0 x! tapxoc yo TOA-
if aes ’ ‘
soiecttia. AOD * kepadatov THY
Viii. 1) only.
a wtept
= here h.
ii. 12) only t- d?
° modereiay rabrny
dé TlavAoc eon ‘Eye Of kal yeyevynpat.
améoTnoay an aurov ol nédovrec avuroy
Moose tia 0
s
29 ewMiwe ovuv
’ 7
* averacev*
£ ere iil.
f IG) e -?;
c= andeonstr Ww
Fak. xxiv , Kal 0 XtAiapyoc 8s Epo non ° ETLYVOUC Ore P fatoc
82. w. &, ch.i. 18. w. ed, ch. viii. 20, Matt. x.9. (Luke xxi.19. 1 Thess iv. 4 only.) dch. v. 38 reff.
e ver. 24. f Matt. x.18. John vi. 51. viii. 16, 17. ch. iii. 24. g ch. six. 34 reff.
ABCEHLN 13. 36 rel vss Thl (ec, but copt arm put it after eev. (If the words
originally formed part of the text itis very unlikely that they should have been omitted,
while insertions of this kind are very common:
strong, it seems best to insert the words in brackets.)
D. for ekeori, cot &}.
26. for axovgas Se, Tovro ak. D.
36 rel Chr.
add ort pwuatoy eavtov Aeye: D 137.
but the mss evidence being so very
efeotiv vu bef av@pwmov...
exatovtapxns ACDN!: txt BEHLX? 13.
rec amnyyeivev bef Tw
xirapxw (alteration of order to avoid the ambiguity, mposerO. Tw xX. OF TW X. ATNYY-);
with HL rel Thl-sif ic: txt ABCDER a (c) h k m 13. 40 vulg copt arm Chr Thl-fin.
—l[e|rny. D'(Wtst, Kipl) : txt D®.
in place of Aeywr.
vulg syrr copt arm. om yap D! wth:
1.
rel demid Chr:
for edn vou, ermev ex D.
28. rec aft amex. ins re, with H rel vulg Thl We:
om AL 40 arm Chr:
by D? ?
been now overborne by the intruder.)
m! 13.
29. for evfews ovy, Tote D.
scourge’ (dat. commodi) ; but why should
aot be varied ? and can it be shewn
(as Dr. B. asks) that the word in the plural
will bear this meaning ? éxatovT-
apxov| The ‘centurio supplicio prepo-
situs’ of Tacitus and Seneca,—standing by
to superintend the punishment. ei
av0. x.7.A.] See ch. xvi. 87, note.
28.] Dio Cassius, lx. 17, mentions that,
in the reign of Claudius, Messalina used to
sell the freedom of the city, and at very
various prices at different times: 7 moAc-
Tela usydAwy Th mp@Tov xpnudtwv mpa-
Ocioa, ere®’ ottws imd Tis edyxepelas
éemevwviOn, este ral AoyoromOjva sre
Kav bdAdAwd tis oKe’n ouvTeTpiumeva 5G
tw, moAditns eorat. éy® Sé Kal
yey-| But I (besides having the privilege
like thee of being a Roman citizen) was
also born one. How was Paul a Roman
om Aeywy D c 137 syr:
rec ins opa bef tt (interpolated appy to give precision, and
break the abruptness of the text), with DHL rel eth Chr:
ins D?(?).
27. TOTE mposend. 0X. emnpwtnoev avtoy D.
om ty C.
om 2nd de CR! 42. 96. 142 Thl-sif: om Se kau copt.
om 6e X!.
D syr-w-ast ins avtw
om ABCERN 13. 36. 40
for avtw, Tw TavAw L. om pot
rec ins et bef ov (interpolated, to make the interrogation plainer), with L
om ABCDEHN ac fhm 13. 3€ am fuld tol syrr copt arm Ammon-e.
de BCEN ac k 13. 36 syrr copt:
Kat amoxpiers o X. [Kat] ermey (avTw) D, kar erased, avtw added
for moAAouv, o1da rocov D and “alia editio ”
able, and possibly original, roddov being a gloss:
mentd by Bede. (Remark-
but if so, the genuine reading has
mavados Se epn D: om H,
yeyevnuct A D-corr e
ins moAitns bef pwuatos E vulg.
citizen by birth? Certainly not because
he was of Tarsus: for (1) that city had no
such privilege, but was only an ‘urbs
libera,’ not a Colonia nor a Municipium :
and (2) if this had been so, the mention
of his being a man of Tarsus (ch. xxi. 39)
would have of itself prevented his being
scourged. It remains, therefore, that his
father or some ancestor must have obtained
the civitas, either as a reward for service
(‘urbes, merita erga P. R. allegantes,....
civitate donavit,’ Suet. Aug. 47) or by pur-
chase. It has been suggested that the
father of Saul may have been sold into
slavery at Rome, when Cassius laida heavy
fine_on the city for having espoused the
cause of Octavius and Antony, Appian,
B.C. iv. 64, and very many of the Tarsians
were sold to pay it. He may have acquired
his freedom and the citizenship afterwards,
XXIII. 1.
1
IIPAZEIS AMOSTOAQN. 251
ity i SedeKwe. ™ oe emavotoy * pres. ch.
xvi. 38 reff.
, = Oe , IeeaN ' a i . 19.
BovAduevoc yvwvar To “aoparéc, “70 TI ™ KaTNyoortTal * co
¢ ‘ 1 8 ’ 7 PS \ oy, n
u7o twv lovdatwy, EAvoey avtov Kal exéAgvoevy "our-
’ \ @ | ‘ € }
‘ eoTl Kal OTL aUTOV 30 J
constr., ch.
i. 17. viii. 16.
ix. 33: X11. 6.
xviii. 25.
~ . , ~ \ ~ N \ <i. 3:
eAbsiv trove apXleosle Kal TAY TO ° auvidowoy, Kat? car- Go
= , jch. x. 9 reff.
ayaywv tov TlavAov * fornoev ete avrovc. XXIII. ! "are- k= ch. xxi.
Uy ic ~ ee 5 einGe
vicac & 0 [lavAoe Tw ° cuvedolw ELTTEV "Aveoze aded pot, Santee
iv. 21. Rom.
n = ch. i. 6 reff.
r w. dat.,
Viii. 26.
och. iv. 15 reff.
ch. ili. 12 reff. L P.
m pass., Matt. xxvii. 12. ch. xxv. 16 onlyt. 2 Macc. x. 13.
p ch. xxiii. 15 refi. q constr., here only. (see ch. vi. 6.)
rec nv bef avroy, with HL rel Chr Thli-sif Ee: txt ABCEN 13 Thl-fin.
for dedexws, Sedwxws A! 36. 38. 73. 99. 101. 106 Thl-sif: de3nxws A2C: Sedorcws 962.
105. add kat avtn TH wpa edvoev avToy syr-w-ast: Kat Tapaxpnua eAvoev avTov
137. (Henceforth in Acts, D being deficient, its readings may be approximated
to by noticing those of its nearest cognates, 137 and syr-w-ast.)
30. emiovon ¢ 137. om To E. KaTnyopeto ¢ 137. rec (for v7o) mapa,
with HL gm Chr Thl-sif Ee: txt ABCEN 13. 36 rel 137 Chr Thl-fin. ins
meuwas bef eAvcey 137 syr-w-ast. rec aft avtov ins aro twy Secuwy (supple-
mentary gloss), with HL rel xth-pl Thl Ee: om ABCEN a 13. 40 vulg syrr coptt
zeth arm Chr. rec eAGew (see note: or the preceding -cev perhaps, as Meyer,
caused the omn of ovv-), with HL rel Syr copt eth Thi-sif He: e:sea@ew 99. 137:
guveiseABew cz txt ABCEN a b k m 0 36. 40 vulg sah eth Chr Thl-fin. (13 def.)
rec for may, odov (see Mk xiv. 55), with HL rel Thl-sif ce: txt ABCEN ach k m13.
36. 137 Chr Thl-fin, away 40. (omne vulg, but so also in Mk xiv. 55 and Matt. xxvi.
59.)
rec aft cuvedpiov ins avtwy (gloss, referring to wovdaiwv above), with HL rel
(Syr) Thl Ge: om ABCEN a c h 13. 36. 40. 137 vulg syr coptt «th arm Chr.
Cap. XXIII. 1. tw cvvedpiw bef o mavAos ACEN a 13 vulg Syr Lucif: txt BHL
See Mr. Lewin, i. p. 4. But this is mere
conjecture. 29. wat... 8€] more-
over, ‘more than that.’ époB. | There
is no inconsistency (as De W.) in the
tribune’s being afraid because he had
bound him, and then letting him remain
thus bound. Meyer rightly explains it, that
the tribune, having committed this error, is
afraid of the possible consequences of it
(‘ facinus est vinciri civem R., scelus verbe-
rari,’ Cic. Verr. v. 66), and shews this by
taking the first opportunity of either wn-
doing it, or justifying his further deten-
tion, by loosing him, and bringing him be-
Sore the Sanhedrim. His fear was on ac-
count of his first false step ; but it was now
too late to reverse it: and the same reason
which leads him to continue it now, operates
afterwards (6 Séoquos IT., ch. xxiii. 18) when
the hearing was delayed. That jy dedexds
cannot, as Bloomfield and Wordsworth
suppose, refer only to the binding before
scourging, its immediate juxtaposition with
éAvoev in the next verse sufficiently shews.
Besides, the mere circumstance of a prepa-
ration for scourging having been begun in
ignorance, and left off as soon as the know-
ledge was received, would rather have re-
lieved, than occasioned, the fear of the
tribune. A more cogent reason still is,
that jv Sedexes can properly only apply to
an action stil continuing when the fear
was felt: that he had put him into cus-
tody. ‘The centurion believed Paul’s
word, because a false claim of this nature,
being easily exposed, and punishable with
death (Suet. Claud. 25), was almost an un-
precedented thing.’ Hackett. 39. 76
tt] The art. is epexegetical: see reff. It
seems remarkable that the tribune in com-
mand should have had the power to sum-
mon the Sanhedrim: and I have not seen
this remarked on by any Commentator.
Some of the ancient correctors of the text,
however, seem to have detected the diffi-
culty, and tohave altered cuveA civ into the
vapid eAdety in consequence. KaTay. |
From Antoniato the council-room. Accord-
ing to tradition (see Biscoe, p. 147, notes),
the Sanhedrim ceased to hold their sessions
in the temple about twenty-six years before
this period. Had they done so now, Lysias
and his soldiers could not have been present,
as no heathen was permitted to pass the sa-
cred limits. Their present council-room was
in the upper city, near the foot of the bridge
leading across the ravine from the western
cloister of the temple. Lewin, p. 672.
XXIII. 1.] atevioas seems to describe
that peculiar look, connected probably with
infirmity of sight, with which Paul is de-
scribed before as regarding those before
252
8 = (all pos-
sible)ch. xx.
19 reff. ,
t1Tim.i.5,19. TAUTHC
1 Pet. iii. 16, =
21. (Heb.
xiii. 18.)
u 2 Cor. i. 12
reff.
v Phil. i. 27
only t.
peta maons
+. . GpeTHAs
évOade
meT ONE
Tevpar,
THIS NMEpac.
vee
TOLYE
tf
pres., here only. Xen. Anab. ii. 3. 6.
xiv. 47, 6), 70.
Exod. xxx. 3 al. (see Eph. ii. 14.)
c = Matt. xxii. 44 (from Ps. cix. 1). xxvii.19. Rev. iv. 2, &c.
iv. 4.21. (-éu, 2 Pet. ii.16. -os, Prov. ii. 22.)
TIPAZEIS AIOSTOAQN.
~ eed OE > - \ ,
TOLC y TAOECTWOLV auTW TUNTEVY AUTOV TO OTOLA.
Luke xix. 24. John xviii. 22. xix. 26.
b Matt. xxiii. 27 only. Deut. xxvii. 2,4. Prov. xxi. ¥ only.
9.300
a ee ; Ser
eyo ® racy “ ouvednaee ‘ ayaby ‘ weroXirevjat tw Dew ayor
? i?
oO
ed ‘ ’ ! = oa ¢
oe aoy teoEUC Avaviae * exéta&ev
,
3 TOTE
€ ~ ‘ dees *% i e
o [lavAo¢g mpocg avrov eimev Torre oe * pire 0 Oedc,
\ ’
> KEKOVLAMEVE’ Kal ov “ «aly Kolo fe KaTa TOY
d ~ , ’ e
vouov, Kal “ Tapavon@v KeAzverc we tUmTecOar; * ot Se
y = i Tov. a L Ti Gcow «2 \ninGoeee
mageoTwreg eitov Tov aoyteoéa tov Oeov oLdovEte 5
Jos Life, § 49 and $2. tots vouorcw todcreveoOac, 2 Macc. vi. 1. (-revja, Phil. iii. 20.)
w. inf. aor., Mark vi. 39. Luke viii. 31 al. i
x w inf.
Esth. i. 8. y = Mark
z=ch. xiii. 34 reff. a here only.
dhere only. Ps, cxviii. 51. Ken. Mem.
ew. acc., John ix. 28 only. Deut. xxxiii. 8. pass., 1 Cor.
iv. 12. 1 Pet. ii. 23 only. (-ta, 1 Tim. v.14. 1 Pet. iii. 9. -os, 1 Cor. y. 11. vi. 10.)
rel 36 Chr Thl c.—om 6 B ¢ 40. 137 Chry.
2. for emeratev, exedevoey C a 36.
avtw X!.
THs nuepas bef ravtns c m 13. 187.
T. wapeoT. avtw bef ereratey ¢ 1387: om
3. mpos avtov bef o mavaAos XN: emev bef pos avroy C vulg(not am fuld tol) : om zp.
aut. 100. Kexoviagpmeve C! Orig.
4. emav BN.
him : and may perhaps account for his not
knowing that the person who spoke to him
was the high priest, ver.5. See ch. xiii. 9,
note. The purport of Paul’s assertion
seems to be this: being charged with ne-
glecting, and teaching others to neglect the
law of Moses, he at once endeavours to
disarm those who thus accused him, by as-
serting that up to that day he had lived a
true and loyal Jew,—obeying, according
to his conscience, the law of that divine
moAitela of which he was a covenant mem-
ber. Thus reroAirevat TG OG will have
its full and proper meaning : and the words
are no vain-glorious ones, but an important
assertion of his innocence. 2. ’Ava-
vias] He was at this time the actual high
priest (ver. 4). He was the son of Nebe-
deus (Jos. Antt. xx. 5. 2),—succeeded
Joseph son of Camydus, Antt. xx. 1. 3;
5. 2,—and preceded Ismael, son of Phabi
(Antt. xx. 8. 8,11). He was nominated
to the office by Herod, king of Chalcis,
in A.D. 48 (Antt. xx. 5. 2); and sent to
Rome by Quadratus, the prefect of Syria,
to give an account to the emperor Claudius
(Antt. xx. 6. 2): he appears, however, not
to have lost his office, but to have resumed
it on his return. This has been regarded
as not certain,—and the uncertainty has
produced much confusion in the Pauline
chronology. But as Wieseler has shewn
(Chronol. d. Apostelgeschichte, p. 76,
note), there can be no reasonable doubt that
it was so, especially as Ananias came off
victorious in the cause for which he went to
Rome, viz. a quarrel with the Jewish pro-
curator Cumanus,—who went with him,
and was condemned to banishment (Antt.
xx. 6.3). He was deposed from his office
for wapavouwy, mapa Tov vouov E vulg Lucif.
not long before the departure of Felix
(Antt. xx. 8. 8), but still had great power,
which he used violently and lawlessly (ib.
9.2): he was assassinated by the sicarii at
last (B. J. ii. 17. 9). 3.] It is per-
fectly allowable (even if the fervid rebuke
of Paul be considered exempt from blame)
to contrast with his conduct and reply that
of Him Who, when similarly smitten, an-
swered with perfect and superhuman meek-
ness, John xviii. 22, 23. Our blessed
Saviour is to us, in all His words and
acts, the perfect pattern for all under all
circumstances ; by aiming at whatever He
did in each case, we shall do best: but
even the greatest of his Apostles are so far
our patterns only, as they followed Him,
which certainly in this case Paul did not.
That Paul thus answered, might go far to
excuse a like fervent reply in a Christian
or a minister of the gospel,—but must
never be used to justify it : it may serve
for an apology, but never for an example.
TUmTEW oe peAde K.7.A.] Some
have seen a prophetic import in these
words ;—see above on the death of Ananias.
But I would rather take them as an expres-
sion founded on a conviction that God’s
just retribution would come on unjust and
brutal acts. totxe Kekov. | Lightfoot’s
interpretation, “ quod (Ananias) colorem
tantum gestaret pontificatus, cum res ipsa
evanuerit,” is founded on the hypothesis
(for it is none other) that the hgh priest-
hood was vacant at this time, and Ananias
had thrust himself into it. The meaning is
as in ref. Matt. ; and in all probability Paul
referred in thought to our Lord’s saying.
Kd0y Kpivwv pe] This must not be
taken as favouring the common interpreta-
ABCE
HLNabd
efgh
klimo |
13
2—6.
TIPAZEIZ ATMOSTOAQN.
253
* epn te 0 TlavAoce Our ee, adeA pot, 6 Ort EoTl apX- FE zon. xxii.
tE0E0C" YeyoaTrac yao [Src]! "Apxovra Tov Aaov = ouK Spee ay
®epsic “KaKwe.
Kal@e eimeiv, w. acc., Lake vi. 26.
5. rec om 2nd ott, with CEHL rel 36 Chr Thi-sif Ec:
tion of ver. 5 (see below): for the whole
Sanhedrim were the judges, and sitting to
judge him according to the law. :
Hence we see that not only by the Jews,
but by the tribune, who was present, Ana-
nias was regarded as the veritable high
priest. 5.] (1) The ordinary inter-
pretation of these words since Lightfoot,
adopted by Michaelis, Eichhorn, Kuinoel,
and others, is, that Ananias had usurped
the office during a vacancy, and therefore
was not recognized by Paul. They regard
his being sent to Romeas a virtual setting
aside from being high priest, and suppose
that Jonathan, w who was murdered by order
of Felix (Antt. xx. 8. 5), was appointed
high priest in his absence. But (a) there
is no ground whatever for believing that his
office was vacated. He won the cause for
which he went to Rome, and returned to
Jerusalem : it was only when a high priest
was detained as hostage in Rome, that we
read of another being appointed in his room
(Antt. xx. 8.11): and (8) which is fatal
to the hypothesis, Jonathan himself (6
apxepevs) was sent to Rome with Ananias
(B. J. ii. 12. 6, robs dip xtepets “TavdOny
kal "Avaviay .... dvemeupev él Kal-
capa). Jonathan was called by the title
merely as having been previously high
priest. He succeeded Caiaphas, Antt. xviii.
4. 3: and he was not high priest again
afterwards, having expressly declined to
resume the office, Antt. xix. 6.4. Nor can
any other Jonathan have been elevated to
it,—for Josephus gives, in every case, the
elevation of a new high priest, and his
whole number of twenty-eight from Herod
the Great to the destruction of Jerusalem
(Antt. xx. 10. 5) agrees with the notices
thus given. (See Wieseler, Chron. Synops.
der 4 Evy. p. 187, note: and Biscoe, pp.
48 ff.) So that this interpretation is un-
tenable. (2) Chrys. and most of the ancient
Commentators supposed that Paul, having
been long absent, was really wracquainted
with the person of the high priest. But
this can hardly have been: and even if it
were, the position and official seat would
have pointed out to one, who had been
himself a member of the Sanhedrim, the
president of the council. (3) Calvin, Ca-
merar., al., take the words tronically : ‘I
could not be supposed to know that one who
yvove of 6 oO TlavAoe 6 OTL TO ev fEOOC tory
Lev. xix. 14.
io Vili. 21
only. so
h pres., ch. xvi. 38 reff
ins ABN k 13 sah Thl-fin.
conducted himself so eruelly and illegally,
could be the high priest. This surely
needs no refutation, as being altogether
out of place and character. (4) Bengel,
Wetst., Kuinoel, Olsh., Neander, al., un-
derstand the words as an acknowledgment
of rash and insubordinate language, and
render ov« 7dew, ‘I did not give it a
thought, ‘I forgot: and so Dr. Words-
worth. But as Meyer remarks, ‘ reputare ’
is never the meaning of eidé€va: ; and were
any pregnant or unusual sense intended,
the context (as at 1 Thess. v. 12) would
suggest it. (5) On the whole then, I be-
lieve that the only rendering open to us,
consistently with the simple meaning of
the words, and the facts of history is, I did
not know that it (or he) was the high
priest: and that it is probable that the
solution of his ignorance lies in the fact
of his ¢mperfect sight—he heard the inso-
lent order given, but knew not from whom
it proceeded. I own that I am not entirely
satisfied with this, as being founded per-
haps on too slight premises: but as far as
I can see there is no positive objection to
it, which there is to every other. The
objection stated by Dr. Wordsworth, “ If
St. Paul could not discern that Ananias
was high priest, how could he see that he
sat there as his judge ?” would of course be
easily answered by supposing that Paul
who had himself been a member of the
Sanhedrim may have known Ananias by
his voice: or indeed may not (as above)
have known him at all personally. It is
hardly worth while to notice the rendering
given by some, ‘I knew not that there was
a high priest Had any such meaning
been intended, it would have been further
specified by the construction. Besides
which, it renders Paul’s apology irrelevant,
by eliminating from it the person who is
necessarily its subject. yéypatrat
yap | Implying in this, ‘and the law is the
rule of my life’ Even in this we see the
consuminate skill of Paul. 6.| Surely
no defence of Paul for adopting this course
is required, but all admiration is due to his
skill and presence of mind. Nor need we
hesitate to regard such skill as the fulfil-
ment of the promise, that insuch an hour,
the Spirit of wisdom should suggest words
to the accused, which the accuser should
254 MPAZEIS AMOZTOAQN. XXII.
ich. xxii. 30.
k = here only.
see Ps. xv. ¥.
/ v U > -j
TaddovKaiwy, 16 6 Eregov Pagisaiwy, EkoaZev Ev Tw * ouv-
Coe. > ’ ~ , ©; ,
11 Gor, xs. 12 edptw’ Avdosc aded pot, eyo Papisatoc cat, viog Papioaiwv*
ren. ‘ Ake , \ i > ~ ’ ‘
m—eh. xxiv. TE OL éArisoe Kat | avactacewe ! veKowy Eyw Kolvomat,
Ps. cviii.7. 7
n= ch. xv. 2
(reff.).
o ch. xiv. 4.
1 Mace. vi.
~ ~ , -
Touro 6: autov AaAnoarroc EYEVETO "gractc twv Dapt-
calwy Kat DaddouKkaiow, Kal° éaxioln ro’ rAn9oc’ ® Sad-
45. 8 ea \ ‘ * , s C3 q <p , ”
pabsol., ch. ii, OOUKQLOL MEV yao Eyouow By Elval avaoTaoltVv pyTE ay~
6 reff.
q absol., ch.
xvii. 18 reff.
r = Luke
xxiv. 37, 39.
Heb. i. 14. a \ ~ , -~w 7 - ’ x2 ,
= Sxl. TIVEC TWV yoaupatewy TOU MEpOUC TWwV Papicaiwy Olea
s = John xii. 42. Rom. x. 9,10. 1 Tim. vi.12. ~ t Luke i. 42. Rey. xiv.JS only. Neh. v.1. nas
above (t), Matt.xxv.6. Eph.iv. 31. Heb.v.7. Rev. xxi. 4only. v =ch.i. 15. xv.7 al. 2 Chron.
xx. 6. ‘ w ver. 6, x here only. 2 Kings xiy.6 (vompl.). Sir. viii. 1, 3. xxxviii. 28. li. 19
vat. only.
~ - e
yedov pire “ wvevpa, Papicator é * onodoyovow Ta aupo-
mm) ee tae Os tu be a Vy ,
TEoa EYEVETO c Koavy?) Meya ). Kat AVaAOTQAUTEC
6. rec expagev, with AEHL rel vulg Chr: txt BCR 36. rec (for 2nd dapicaiwy)
qapioaov (corrn, the relation being conceived to be that of a son to his father only),
with EHL rel vss Chr: txt ABCX 13. 36. 40 vulg Syr Tert. om 2nd eyw B copt.
7. for Aadnoarros, evrovtos AEN? abko13. 40 Thi-fin: erayros R!: txt Bisic:
see table) CHL rel 36 Chr Thl-sif Cc. for eyevero, ewetwecev B!; execey B?.
rec ins twv bef oad. (insn for uniformity), with HL rel 36 Ee: om ABC b k m o Thi-
sif.—t wy oadd. kat pap. EX ¢ g m syr Chr Thl-fin. Stecxic bn E.
8. caddovKai(sic) NX’. om pey Bo vulg E-lat sah: ins ACEHLX rel 36 syrr
copt Chr. rec for 1st unre, unde (corrn, see note), with HL rel Chr Thl-sif Ge :
txt ABCEX achk1 13. 36. 40 Thl-fin.
9. rec (for Tives TwY ypauuarewy) or ypaumarers, with rel Thi-sif: ypauuaters HL f
eth (Ee: tives (and om tov pepovs) AE 13 vulg copt: ties ypaumarers k 21? Syr:
Tives Twy (papicawy) ypauparewy m: txt B(C)N ac 13. 36. 40 sah arm Did Chr, Thl-
fin.— quidam scribarum et pars phariseorum sah: scribe et pharisei wth: for uepous,
not be able to gainsay. All prospect of a
fair trial was hopeless: he well knew from
fact, and-present experience, that personal
odium would bias his judges, and violence
prevail over justice: he therefore (Neand.)
uses, in the cause of Truth, the maxim so
often perverted to the cause of falsehood,
‘divide et impera.’ In one tenet above all
others, did the religion of Jesus Christ and
the belief of the Pharisees coincide: that
of the resurrection of thedead. That they
looked for this resurrection by right of
being the seed of Abraliam, and denied it
to all others,—whereas he looked for it
through Jesus whom they hated, in whom
all should be made alive who had died in
Adam,—this was nothing to the present
point: the belief was common—in the
truest sense it was the hope of Israel—in
the truest sense does Paul use and bring it
forward to confound the adversaries of
Christ. At the same time (De W.) by this
strong assertion of his Pharisaic standing
and extraction, he was further still vindi-
cating himself from the charge against him.
So also ch. xxvi. 7. vi. Papioalov |
A son of Pharisees, i.c. ‘A Pharisee of
Pharisees, —‘by descent from father,
grandfather,and upwards, a pure Pharisee.’
This meaning not having been appre-
hended, the -wv was altered into -ov.
é\rr. K. Gvaot.| the hope and the
resurrection of the dead. ‘The art. is
omitted after the prep., see Midd. ch. vi.
§ 1. 8.] See note, Matt. iii. 7, for
both Pharisees and Sadducees: and for an
account of the doctrine of the latter, Jos.
Antt. xviii. 1.4; B. J. 11.8. 14. In the
latter place he says, Wuxjjs Thy diauovhy,
kal Tas Kab? Gdov Timwplas Kal Tiuds avat-
povot. The former uAre has been
altered to undé to suit Ta duddrepa, be-
cause with avacr. phre ayy. pate mv.
three things are mentioned (and thus we
have hee omnia as a var.): whereas, if
unde is read, the two last are coupled, and
form only one. But Ta Gud. is used of
both things, the one being the resurrection,
the other the doctrine of spiritual ex-
istences: the two specified classes of the
latter being combined generically. —7a
-dug., them both,—both of them,—the
two. 9.| The sentence is an apo-
siopesis, not requiring any filling up: an-
swering to our Engl. But what if a spirit
(genus) or an angel (species) have spoken
to him? Perhaps in this they referred to
the history of his conversion as told to the
people, ch. xxii. On the recent criticism
which sees in all this a purpose in the
ABCE
HLNab
efgh
kimo
13
P ovdev.. yaero Aéeyourec Odsty KaKkOov ” evpiokomer ev Te av0owm y
ABCE
HLNab
cefgh
klmo
pls un *Stacracby o 7) Havrog v or auro, ExéAguaev TO “oT pa-
d o ku-
Plog...
ABCE
HLNa b
edfgh®
kimo
pls
7—18.
oe
ToUTW"
10
* et emcee
NIPAZEIX ATIOSTOAQN.
éXa\noev
molAtiC oe yevonévne © orasewe, * obras o XAtapxos
255
= Luke
Xxili. 14.
MaL. ii. 6.
auTw = Rom. ix.
" ayyer eC 5 5 a=
a ver. 7.
b Mark v. 4
Pus Jer. ii,
d fi. 2 qaabees
Tevua eereen’ apracat ire EK Héoou aur@y ayew xxiii. 11.
, . g , b \ ) Satod P
hia se vy magenPoXnv. len of extovay yun Det =
6. 14,
‘emiarag aut O mpeg: elev one we yao * dtenap- 19s) only
] l acc. 1x
34.
Tipe ra TEol Eov ™ Lc [spovsadin, ovrwe oc " bet kal a en. xx. 10
ec ‘Popny aot vonoat. 12 Lnstaelen de ° nuéoac moun e= John vi.
i. us 15, ch. viii.
Gavrec suotpopyy ot lovdato “ aveOeuatisay tavrove, Bi AGHE.
rE ie Pt Te - oo 7? ' \_— fch. xvii. 33
EYOVTEC MNTE HuyeW PTE TLELY EWC OV aTOoKTElYwot TOV ‘tel.
~ < gch. xxi. 34,
TlavAorv. 38 joav & awAttouc TEgosoaKovra ol Tavrny THY ae ee
(xvi. 11 reff.). i= ch. iy. I reff.
XxViii. 23. Exod. xviii. 20.
n ch. iy. 12 reff. och. xii. 18 reff.
&e. 38ce. Mark xiv. 7lonly. Num. xxi. 2.
yevous 99. 105:
om ev &! 137.
ins ex bef 7. ypayu. C.
] ver. 15. ch. xxviii. 31.
k ch. viii. 25 ref. w.ace., ch. xviii. 5. xx. 21, 24.
Sir. xix. 30. m = ch. xix. 22 reff.
pch, xix. 4u reff. 4 Kings xy. 16, gq here,
rch. ix. ¥.
aft SieuaxovrTo ins mpos adAnAous XN.
rec aft ayyedos ins un Oeopaxwper (interpoln from ch vy. 39), with
C3HL rel 36 sah ; quid est in hoc ?, Syr: om ABC'EN 13. 40 vulg syr copt «th arm,
also (from their explanations) Ammon Euthal Chr Isid Thl Ge
10. oracews bef yevouervns AC vulg sah:
—vyevonevos (but 7 is written above 0) X!.
Thl-sif Be:
autwy CE.
36 Syr Chr.
deducere vulg syr :
om ek mecou avTwy XN!
poBnbas ABCEN ac p 13. 36. 40. 1387 arm Chr Thl-fin Lucif.
kataBnvat kat H rel 137 vulg syr sah Thl ic:
txt BCHLN p 13. 36 rel sah 'Thl (Ee.
txt BEHLN p 13. 36 rel Syr Chr Thl Ge.
* rec evrAaf3neic, with HL rel
ar
txt ABCEN a f p 13.
amayew (corra for particularity) AK,
om te B m copt.
11. rec aft 6apoe: ins mavde, with C?3HL p rel arm-zoh(18s05) Thl @e Cassiod Ambrst ;
aft exev ins Paulo Syr eth, avtw b o:
Chr Lucif. dieuaprupov C,
12. for Se, re Bc syrr wth.
om ABC'EN 13. 36. 40 vulg syr coptt arm
rec Tives Twy tovdaiwy cvatpodny (corrn to suit
ver 13), with HL rel vulg Syr sah Thl-sif @e Lucif: txt ABCEX (a) p 13. 36. 40. 137
syr copt wth arm Chr Thl-fin—(L k m have ovatpopny bef twes ; ¢ 137 syr Chr Thi-
fin, aft o: covd.: a omits oz.)
syr-marg.)
writer to compare Paul with Peter, see
Prolegg. to Acts, § iii. 4. 10.] The
fact of all our best MSS. reading poBnéels
here, and not the unusual word evAaBnbels,
must carry it into the text. It is one of
those cases where, notwithstanding our
strong suspicion that the later M SS. con-
tain the true reading, we are bound to fol-
low our existing authorities: no sufficient
subjective reason being assigned for the cor-
rection either way. StagracOy | to be
taken literally, not as merely = ‘ should
be killed” The Pharisees would strive to
lay hold of him to rescue him: the Sad-
ducees, to destroy him, or at all events to
secure him. Between them both, there
was danger of his being pulled asunder
by them. 11.) By these few words,
the Lord assured him (1) of a safe issue
Srom his present troubles ; (2) of an ae-
complishment of his intention of visiting
om Aeyovtes CR3 a b ch o 40 syrr arm Chr. (ins
for amoxrewwow, aveAwow Ah 14. 38. 113 Chr.
Rome; (8) of the certainty that however
he might be sent thither, he should preach
the gospel, and bear testimony there. So
that they upheld and comforted him (1)
in the uncertainty of his life from the
Jews : (2) in the uncertainty of his libera-
tion from prison at Cesarea: (3) in the
uncertainty of his surviving the storm in
the Mediterranean : (4) in the uncertainty
of his fate on arriving at Rome. So may
one crumb of divine grace and help be
multiplied to feed five thousand wants and
anxieties. eis, see reff. and ch. ii. 39,
—pregnant. 12.] ot *lovd. as opposed
to Paul, the subject of the former verse.
The copyists thought it unlikely that ail
the Jews were engaged in it, and so altered
it to Tes Tv lovd., and then transposed it
for euphony. Wetstein and Lightf. ad-
duce instances of similar conspiracies,—not
to eat or drink till some object be gained.
256 TIPAZEIS AMOSTOAQN. XXIII.
s ' , 14 t u 06 -
shere only.“ GUYW[LOGLAY TOINTAaLEVOL, olrivec mooceAovrec tote
-oTns, Gen. , \ a " w? ,
xiv. 13.
28a) apXtepevaty Kat ToIc mpeo[Surépoc elTav Avabiuare
nu meh, inv SF aveJewatioapey * EavTOUC pnbevos ° ‘yeboasBat {we ov aTro-
rei.
Rom. 15 z
v Rom. ix 8 Krelvomen Tov ee vuv * ouv vpeic * gupavioarte
rasa TW tAcapyw ” ody Tw ° guvedolw, Orwe “Katayayy avTov
15
x 2 Cor. iii. Xx! PX wee? pag ik
f , ?
reff. ec vuac “we nédovrac dia yiwwoke ® axotPéoreoov
=andconstr.
4 Luke xiv. 24. b S83 i ‘ -~ k»? ’ yes le
Ta TEOL auTov' NEC € TOO TOU al bl ago, apse éTot=
1 Kings xiv.
24, is - m? = a ee 16 n
xigh eet ree: {LOL EGQMEV TOU aveA sv auto. akovoac of 6 (0) vide ™¢
ch. xxiv. 1. P
’ 7]
° evédoav,
adeA pine IlavAou ry
eA\Oov ste THY
xxv. 2, 16. TapaysvopEvoc Kal elec
(Matt. xxvii.
63. John
xiv. 2], 22.)
Heb. (ix. 24.)
xi. 14 only.
: Esth. ii. 22. Ts ‘I
= 1 Cor. 1. 2
Chords epn OV " veaviay TOUTOV *amayaye mpoc tov xe iaoyov"
ee Exel yap amayyetdat TL AUTH. 18
d act., = Luke
v. ll. ch. 1x.
30. xxii. 30.
* agen od ny anny yeey TW TlatrAw.
7 mmpnigkalAxoaHevac 8: 0 TavAog ¢ eva Tov eKaTOVTaDX WY
0 wey ovp ‘ ware AaBov
auToyv nyayev moo0c TOY mia ov, Kal now O * désjuoe
Ae del Xtapxe
rs Havoc Tpockahesapevoc a " np@rnoev ToUTOY TOV
L.P. 3 Kings
3s. pass, VEAVIGKOY ayaysv mooc ot, ‘tyovra te AaAHoal oot.
eats te see ; :
XxXviii. 12. e = Luke xxiii. 14. ver. 20. ch. xxvii. 30. xxviii. 19.
xxxiii. 56. 2 Macc. ix.15. (-yvwous, ch. xxv. 21. -yvwpilerv, Luke ii. 17.)
fch. xxiv. 22 only. Nam.
g = ch. xviii. 26 reff.
h ver. Ll. i Luke xxii. 15. Gal. ii. J2al. Gen. xiii. 10. k ch. xxi. 33 reff. 1 constr.,
here only. (Luke xxii. 33.) 1 Kings xiii. 21. m = ch. v.33 rat n constr., Matt. xi. 2.
Luke xxi. Val. 3 Kings x. 1. och. xxv. 3 only. Josh. viii. 7. (-dpov, Josh. viii. 2. Wisd. xiv. 21
al. fr,in LXX. -dpevecv, ver. 21.) p absol.,, ch. xvii. 10 reff. q ch. xxi. 34, 37 reff.
rch. xx. 9 reff, s = Luke xiii. 15. [ch. xxiv.7.] 4 Kings xi. 4. t — Luke vii. 40, 42. ch. xxv.
26 al. uch, xvi. 33 rel. v ch. xvi. 25, 27 reff. w ch, xvi. 39 refi.
18. rec wemoinxotes (corrn appy to connect rer. noav as pluperf), with H rel Chr
Thl He: womoavres Le g 11. 27. 29.80.126: om o: txt ABCEN a 13. 36. 40 Thl-fin.
14. [e:mav, so ABCE p.] rec pndevos (corrn to more usual form), with
BCERR® rel 36: txt AL k. (13 def.)
15. syr-marg (and simly sah Lucif) has nune igitur rogamus vos ut hoc nobis faciatis,
ut quum congregaveritis consessum, indicetis tribune ut producat eum ad nos.
rec aft ows ins avpioy (interpoln from ver 20), with HL rel Thl Gc: om ABCEN a p
13. 36 vulg syrr copt «th arm Chr Lucif. ree avtov bef catayayn, with H rel
Chr: txt ABCELXN a g hk m p 13. 40 vulg arm Chr-e Lucif. rec (for ers) mpos
(corrn to more usual), with CHL rel 36 Chr: txt ABEX p sah. arxptBeorepor bef
diaywworery C cl m 40, 137 vulg Syr Lucif. (yweor. C.) om Ta 137. om
2nd rov EX! a g. at end ins eay den ka amodavew 137 syr-marg.
16. elz ro evdeporv, with HL rel Chr Thi-sif Gic: txt ABCEN ac k p 13. 36.—B?
has thy €vedpay(sic). maparyevamevos BI.
17. for edn, ermev Lp 36. 180. amaye BN p.
CHL rel 36 vulg Chr Thl @e: txt ABE k p 13.
18. rec vecriay (from preceding verse), with BHL rel 36: txt AEX ag p 13. 40.
cot is written over the line by B'.
rec Tt bef amayyeiAcu, with
as FE. V.
See 1 Sam. xiv. 24 ff. ; and Jos. Antt. xv. 8.
3, 4. 14.| It is understood from the nar-
rative that it was to the Sadducees, among
the chief priests and elders, that the mur-
derers went. That the high priest be-
longed to this sect, cannot be inferred with
any accuracy. 15.| obv rd ovvedp.
belongs to ters, or perhaps better to
udevtoare—do you give official intima-
tion (intimation conveyed by the whole
Sanhedrim). Srrws expresses the pur-
pose of éuav.,—Tod ay. avr., that of €ror-
pol eon. (Meyer). Staytv. &Kp.| not
‘enquire something more per-
Sectly ’ —but (see reff.) to determine with
greater accuracy, or perhaps, neglecting
the comparative sense, to determine ac-
curately. 16.| It is quite uncertain
whether Paul’s sister’s son lived in Jeru-
salem, or had accompanied him thither.
The jas of ch. xx. 5, will include more
than merely Luke. But from his know-
ledge of the plot, which presupposes other
acquaintances than he would have been
likely to make if he had come with Paul,
I should suppose him to have been domi-
14—24. TIPAZEIS AMOZTOAQN. 257
19 * ria Popuevoc oe
y avaywonsac - kat
~ x ‘ . oa, je ’ \ see
Tic * Xslp0C avroU oO Xi Ataoxo¢ Kat ® Mark vii. 23.
ech. Xiv.
ar a? , ro? a ty 13.
totavy *exuvOavero Ti eat O EXEC y Mate. ii. 12
> rd ’ 4 5 Nie oF € - al9. Mark
amayyetNat Mol; 20 cimev SE Ore ot “Lovdator ° cuvePevro -7; John
c le ae - , d@ ese ‘ = f ae .
tov “gowrnoal oe © OTWC avoLoY TOV TlavAov ¢ Kar- Tings 25.
oO.
hh J ak rea! U
we PEAAWY TL akoseoreoov z Matt. xiv. 13,
23. xvii. 1 al.
nepaame cic Fo Poured
yayus EtG TO Ovuve Olov
k , \ > - 9 ‘ 5 x] ~ > ~ Matec
ruvOavecOat TEOL AUTOV. - 1 Gd ovv By meoOyc avrotc’ icone”
a=ch. iv. 7.
x, 29:
™ Evedoevovaw do avurov && aurwy avo Net
& QuTWVY av é TAELOUC TEGOE=
Ph ? p ¢ ¢ boars xxii. 5.
ohn ix. 22
‘ec nD ed n? , e Q , ~
PaKovTa, — OlTLVEC aveDeuatioay EavTOUVE [ITE " PayElY nie. 1 Kings
, n - ey 2 8 ats Flag ‘= , a xxii 13. Dan.
fyTeE WTLELY EWC OV avitwow auTov’ Kal vuV éLaolV ETOLMOL, ii. 9 Theod.
o = 5 , N aie 4S - p? yi 92 \ ig ee hie
— . rei.
pre EK OMEHOL THY atrie cou ' emayyéAtay. O EV OUV a Like vi 3.
/ ' ' §, oerroZ-
XiAtapxoc 4 améAvoEv TOY veaviokoOY, | Tap yysthac pndevt ver. 18.
ret ~ Po a4 t? F - a 23 1 e1 Cor. xv. 32
EK ) e reff.
AaAnoat ote tTavTa eEvepavicag TEOC HE. QE ee 16 reff
iW 9 gch. iv. 15 reff.
, , v ‘ ~ ~ 7
moocKkaAcoamevog dvo TiLvacgc TWYV EKaTOVTaPX WY ELTTEV h = ver. 15
wt , - ' e - _ refi. are
Erotwmacate OTPAaTlWwWTAC takociouc, OTWC mooev0wouv Bie Go are
xv ' \ e - ¢& , \ é ae
éwe Katoapeiac, Kat Yimmetc eBdounkovra Kat * SeEroA a= * wi. rerh here
= ' aos ’ be - »b , 94 1=ch. v. 36,
Ouc OlakKOGLOUC, a7vvo TPLTNC woae TNG VUKTOC, 37 eae 5
d =e u Te , Nn = , m (trans. uke
TE TaopagTHoal, iva emt PiPacavrec TOV TlavAov E otagw- xi. 54 only:
n see v¥, 12—15. och. xxiv. 15 reff. peh.i. 4 reff.
s here only+. Judith xi. 9 only. ais 6 €kAaANGas ;
w and constr., Rev. viii. 6. (ix, 15.)
z here only t. a = Matt. xxvii. 45.
c 7
KTV
(-dpa, ver. 16. ch. xxv. 3.)
gq = ch. xiii. 3 reff. rch. xvi. 18 reff.
Demosth. Tepi 7- Tapamp., p. 354. 23.
u constr., ch. i. 4. xvii. 3 al. v = Lake vii. 19. L.
y ver. 32only. Gen. 1.9.
Dent. xix. 11.
t ver. 15 reff. w. pos, here only. Wisd. xvi. 21.
x ch. xvii. 15.
b ch, xvi. 33. ¢ 1 Cor. xv. 59 reff. dconstr., here only. see Col. i. 22. e Luke
x. 34. xix. 350nly. 2 Kings vi. 3. see Matt. xxi. 5. f —ch. xxvii. (43) 44. xxviii. 1,4
(Matt. xiv. 36. Luke vii.3. 1 Pet. iii. 20). w- ele, Gen. xix.19. Jos. Antt. xil. 4. 9, end.
19. emAaBomevov(sic) R'. emruvOavero bef kar diay A.
20. cuveovto H'. rec €1s To ouvedpioy Kata. Tov Tavdoy, with HL rel Thi-fin
Ce: karayayns bef tov ravdoy Li c 137 syrr coptt (perhaps transpositions to avoid
aupiov Tov TavAoy) : OM TOY TavAOY (homeotel) 40: txt ABER a m p 13 am(and demid
fuld tol) Chr. rec peAAovtes (corrn to suit ver 15), with b2 ¢ d1 Thi-fin Gc :
meddovta HL a m Thi-sif: meAdAovTwy 8? f¢hk 36. 137 Chr: txt ABE 0 p 40 copt
wth, wedAdov X! b! 13. ins 71 bef wep: H', ta H?.
21. rec eroimor bef cow, with HL rel 36 vulg Chr: txt ABEX am p 18. 40 Thl-fin.
29. rec veaviav, with HL p rel 36 Chr: txt ABER a 13. 40. mpos ene BN.
23. twas bef v0 BN p13: om tivas 73. for «Bdounkovta, ekaTov 137 syr-marg
sah eth-rom. SeEioBodovs A (ms mentd by Erasm) : jaculantes dextra Syr:
lancearios vulg sah wth: jaculatores syv copt.
24. aft mavdoy ins vuktos 137. Siacwot B! o: diacwoovow E m: diacwoovtat
yorinus, Beza, Kuin., al., explain it wapa-
ciled at Jerusalem, possibly under instruc-
tion, as was formerly Paul himself, and
thus likely, in the schools, to have heard
the scheme spoken of. 21. (thy)
émrayyeAtay] not, «a order’ (as Rosenm.,
al.), nor ‘ a@ message ? (as Grot., Beza, Wolf,
al.): but the promise (to that effect): as
}. V. and constantly in N. T. 22.
Stu... pe, a variation of person, as
in reff. 23. Svo tivas| some two:
see reff., and Winer, edn. 6, § 25. 2.
otpatiétas, the ordinary heavy-
armed legionary soldiers: distinguished
below from the imme?s and de~oAGBot.
SettoAdBous | This word has never
been satisfactorily explained. Suidas, Pha-
Vou. Il.
ptAakes :-—Meursius, in his Glossarium
Grecobarbarum,—a kind of military lic-
tors, mapa Td Aofeiv thy tod Seoulov
Seéidy ;—the Vulgate, lancearios (spear-
men, E. V.) :—Meyer,a sort of light-armed
troops, rorarit or velites,—either jacu-
latores or funditores. He quotes a pas-
sage from Constantine Porphyrogenitus
(oi 5& Aeydpevor Toupmapxat eis broupylay
Tay atpatnyav éTaxOnoary. onmatver Se
rowsTov aklwua Tov exovTa UP éauTov
otpatidtas Tokopdpous mevtakogious, Kal
meATarTas Tplakocious, Kal SetioAdBous
éxatdév) where they are distinguished from
bowmen and peltaste,—and derives the
»
258
g = here &c.,
3ce. ch xxiv
NADIE o 476
30. Matt.
xxvii. 2, Xe.
Luke xx. 20.
(Gen, xxxvi.
15 al.) Jos.
Antt. xviii.
3.1. ~
h ch. ix. 2 reff.
= 1 Pet dies
(Luke v. 9)
only.
2 Mace. xi.
16. 7) fev
émiatoAH
TOUTOV
TEPLELXE
TOV TpOTFOV,
Jos. Antt. xii
,
HEVOC
ar , ?
auTW, KaTHyayov aut
. Vi.
. 3 Mace. iii. 80.
16 reff. o ver. 15.
s = Lokei.4. ch. xxii. 24. 1 Cor. xiii. 12. Jer. v. 5.
V ch. iy. 16 reff. w ch. xv. 2 reff.
Rom. i. 32 only.
26 reli, xxvi. 24, 31 al.
b ch, xxv. 16 only ft.
*~
|
B
5
5
y = as above (n).
Ps. ii. 3.
40.
IIPAZEIS AIMOSTOAQN.
0? ~ Cue )
avaoetoBat UT AUTWV
Ov sic TO
] Lukei. 3. ch. xxiv. 3. xxvi. 25 only t.
p = ch. iy. 1 reff.
plu., ch. xviii. 15.
Luke xii. 48. ch. xiii. 46 al. ;
a=1Tim.v.12. Johnix, 41. xv. 22, 24. xix. Ll.
XXIII.
, h»
cwow wooc Didexa tov ® Hycnova, * yoaac * extoroAry
a , s i iy - - 96 Ki AN k A ’
[' weot|éyoucay tov * roumov rovroy avoiocg Avotac
= U ge ‘ , m Ul
TP Koatlotw *yyepove PnAce ™ yalpev.
~ ~ ’
touTov "ovAAnnPOevta UTO TaY ‘lovdalwy
7 0
27 Tov avepa
kat pédAXovra
Pp , ‘ ‘ nas q ,
ETLOTAC GOUV TW OTPaTEUMATL
wey, , 3, 48 ‘ tr e -? ? ,
* eSeXauny [ avrov | pale ore Pwmatoc éorw. 7 Bovdo-
6? ~ ‘ eg | 8 > ray t 32 aN
Te “emtyvwvat THY aitlay dc nv “ eveKadouy
, ‘ , ] le 2 a
* suvédptov autwv 79 ov
7 t? , ‘ow , 4) Biers
evpov © eyKa\ovmevoy rept Curnparwy Tov vomov autor,
- xy » Nop ~ 7 b 7
pnoev de *Y a&tov * Oavarouv 7 * Seopor * exovra eykAnna.
m ch. xv. 23 reff.
q ver. 10. r=ch. vii. 10 reff.
t ch. xix. 38 reff. u ver. 15 rei.
x Luke xxiii. 15. ch. xxv. 11, 25. xxvi. 3).
Deut, xxv. 2. zch. Xvi.
1 John i. 8.
neh. i.
aft nyeuova add ers kacaperay 95'. 137, so (aft diacwowowv) syr-w-ast.
at end ins epoBy@n yap unrote apracayTes avToy ot tovdaiol amoKTEvwot Kal avTOS weTatv
EYKANMGA EXN ws apyupiov EiAnpws 137 syr-w-ast Cassiod, so also vulg-ed(not am demid
fuld tol &e) and (aft d:acwoww) arm-use(rejected by Zohrab).
25. rec meprexovoay, with AHL rel 36 Chr Thl (ic, wepiexovoa f: om sah: exovoay
BEX ac p 13. 1387.
27. [eferAaunv, so ABEN p 13.]
om autoy (as superfluous in the constr)
ABEX ad p 18. 36 vulg Chr Gc: ins HL rel Thl.
28. rec (for re) Se, with HL rel E-lat syr copt Chr ec: ovy sah: txt ABEN 36
vulg Syr eth Thl.
137 Chr-ms.
avtwy B! p: ins B!-marg(see table).
137 Chr.
13. 40 vulg Thl-fin.
anny).
name from grasping the weapon with the
right hand, which the peltaste and bow-
men could not be said todo. The reading
of A, dekoBdAous (jaculantes dextra Syr.)
is apparently a correction. 24. S1a-
cdéowo.v]| escort safe the whole way.
@yAuka| Fenix was a freedman of
the Emperor Claudius : Suidas and Zonaras
gave him the prenomen of Claudius, but
Tacit. (Ann. xii. 54) calls him Antonius
Felix, perhaps from Antonia, the mother
of Claudius, as he was brother of Pallas,
who was a freedman of Antonia (Tacit. ib.
and Jos. Antt. xx. 7. 1). He was made
sole procurator of Judea after the depo-
sition of Cumanus (having before been three
years joint procurator with him, Tacit. ib.)
principally by the influence of the High
Priest Jonathan (Antt. xx. 8. 5), whom he
afterwards procured to be murdered (ibid.).
Of his character Tacitus says, ‘ Antonius
Felix per omnem sevitiam et libidinem
jus regium servili ingenio exercuit,’ Hist.
v. 9. His procuratorship was one series
ree yvwvar, with EHL rel Chr: txt A B(sic) Na ck p 13.36.
om (passing from avtw to avtwy) KaTnyayov avToy els TO TuUvEdpLoy
om autov AX k 13. 137.
29. aft avrwy ins uwvoews Kat moou Twos 137 syr-marg.
om de Lb ghop 40.
rec eykAnua bef exovra, with EHL rel Chr: txt ABN abhlmop
at end ins efqyayoyv avtoy mods TH Bia 137 syr-w-ast(but
of disturbances, false messiahs, sicarii and
robbers, and civil contests, see Jos. Antt.
xx. 8. 5, 6, and 7. He was eventually
(A.D. 60) recalled, and accused by the
Cesarean Jews, but acquitted at the in-
stance of his brother Pallas (Antt. xx. 8.
10). On his wife Drusilla, see note, ch.
xxiv. 24, 25.] [rept |éx., TUIT., see
reff. 26. kpatiote | See ref. Luke.
This letter seems to be given (translated
from the Latin) as written, not merely
according to its general import (see the
false statement in ver. 27): from what
source, isimpossible tosay, but it may be im-
agined that the contents transpired through
some officers at Jerusalem or at Cesarea
friendly to Paul. Such letters were
called elogia : so Modestin. Dig. lib. 49, tit.
16, leg. 3 (Facciolati) : ‘Desertorem auditum
ad suum ducem cum clogio preses mittet,’
‘with an abstract of the articles brought
against him.’ 27. obv TO oTp.| with
the troop; sce above ver. 10, and note,
ch. xxi. 32. eed. pabdov Stu “P.
ABEII
LNabe
dfgh
kimo
p 13
25—3d. TIPAZEIS AMOZTOAQN. 259
ce Luke xx. 37.
John xi. 57.
30 ¢ ’ , a? ~ ’ ‘ ” -
pnvuliane € pot emiovdne ° ec TOV avooa zocaOat,
ed > - A * , , \ ~ D
autne Ereuiba mooc as, © mapayyetAag Kat TOLC ie eal
G
EG
h U , Lait ‘ ae Nl yen ~ € 2 Mace. ili.
KaTnyopotc AEyew Ta ' 7pOc avTOV * ETL Gov. 31 Oi pev 7. vi
a xiv. 37 only.
d ch. ix. 24 rei.
e=ch. ix.)
? reff.
Avrte fch. x. 33 reff.
ech. i. 4 reff.
h [John viii. 10
rec.] ver. 35.
ch. [xxiv. &.]
xxv. 16,18
only.
Prov. xviii.
17. 2 Macc.
iv. 5 only.
(-yywp,
34 >? nN \ Saya y , Rev. xii. 10.)
avayvouc oe Kal ETEPWTN™ } ch. xxviii. 10
reff, see ver.
s at PN ST § r) searegt Baars
ovY GTPATIMTat KATA TO OiaTETayMEVOY aVTOLE avaXa-
dvrec tov LlatAov 7 "Sid vuKroc & ;
yayou “dia vuKTog ele THY
marpioa, *2° ry 8 °emavotoy ° éa ve Vimmete
oida, 7 eravowov ? gagavtTeg Tovg * ImTELC
ieee 2 if] ; plane BAL eS 7 ’ sie ct
amépyea0ar cuv auTy, UTéstpepay ELC THY — TAVEL-
, Ry thy ay : , ’ ‘ 7 \
BoAnv. 33." Girwse eiceADdvtec etc tHv Katoapeay Kat
‘ avasovree THY ™ é An o *nyenou, » é
c Ty mistoAny Tw * HyEuovl, ~ TapEeoTHoay
‘ QA ~ > ee
cat tov [IlavAov autw.
a? b , c? , d? , \ , e
oac EK TOtLaC eTaoVlac €oTlLVY, KAL mulopevoc OT y — Matt
a? N K x , 35 e , UJ a \ e XxXvili. 14.
a7 O tALKIac, Atakovoopat oou, eon, orayv Kat OU Be ia
xxv. Y.
xxvi. 2. L Luke xvii. 9,10. 1 Cor. vii. 17. L.P., exc. Matt. xi.1. Jadg. v. 9. m= ch.
xx. 13,14. 2 Tim. iy. 11 only. (ch.1. 2. vii. 43.)
p = here (ch. xvi. 7 al.) only. q ver. 23.
tch. xxi. 34, 37 reff. ; u=ch. x. 41 reff. v here only +. Sir. i. 22 only.
Epopas Tas emcatoXas, Diod. Sic. xi. 45. w ch. ix. 2 reff.
y = Matt. xxvi. 53. ch.ix.4l. (2 Cor. iv. 14.) Gen. xlvii. 2 Ald. z Matt. xii. 10 al. 1 Kings
xvii. 56 F. ach. ii. 5 reft. b =ch. iv. 7 reff. ech. xxv. 1 only ft.
(-os, Ezra v. 3.) d pres., ch. xvi. 38 reff. ehere only. Deut.i.16. Job ix. 33
vat. F. (not A.) only.
nch. v. 19 reff.
och. x. 9 reff.
r=ch. v. 26 reff. ;
sch. viil. 25 reff.
GvedwKkE TOLS
x vy. 24, 26.
80. rec ins weAAew bef exerOa (see ch xi. 28; xxiv. 15; xxvii. 10), with HL rel Chr
Thl (ic; om ABEX a p 13. 36. 40. 187 vulg eth. rec aft eveoOa ins v0 TwY
ovdsawy (explanatory gloss), with HL rel Syr sah Thl (Cc): om ABEN a ec p 13. 36.
40. 137 vulg syr copt arm.—for «& avtys, « avTwy AEN a c p 18. 40 syr arm: txt
BHL rel 36 Syr copt Thl @e.—emB. ever@Oar es Tov avSpa e& avTwy emeuipa K.T.A.
13: ef quum mihi perlatum esset de insidiis, quas paraverant illi, misi &e vulg : aft
ef avt7s ins ovy L. aft T. KaTnyopors ins avtov E Syr coptt. for Ta mpos
avtov, avtovs AN 13 vulg coptt: avrov 40: om Ta B E-lat Syr. om em gov p: for
emt, wept 67. 137. ree at end adds eppwao, with ELX p rel 36 demid tol syrr eth-pl
(Chr) Thl Ee ; eppwade (see ch xv. 29) H 26. 78. 100. 101 Chr(mss and edd): om AB
13 am fuld coptt eth-rom.
81. rec ins tys bef yueros, with HL rel Thl-sif ic : om (ef ch v. 19; Xvi. 9; XVil.
10) ABER p 13. 40. 187 Chr Thl-fin.
32. rec mopeverOa (corrn for less usual exprn), with HL rel 36 syr Cyr Thi (He, are
E-lat, wt irent vulg : passed over by Syr sah: txt ABEN e p 18, abire copt.
ereotpevay &.
33. Tw nycuovr bef tnv emiaToAny Lm 40. om Kat Tov mavdov E: om Toy 137.
34. rec aft avayvous Se ins o nyenov (supplementary), with HL rel sah Th] ic : om
ABER p 13. 36. 40 vulg syrr copt eth arm Chr. aft «Aukias ins ect A 1 (but
marked for erasure) 68. avaryvous d< THY ETLOTOANY ETNPWTNTE TOV mavAov €k ToLas
emapxias et Kal elmey KiALKLaS Kal muOomevos ElmEv AKOVTOMAL OTAY K.T.A. Syr-marg:
simly 137 ins tv emoroAny, has ec for ectiv, and continues epy KALE K. mud. ep] AKOUd.
gov oTay K.T.A.
éotw] This was an attempt to conceal
the fault that he had committed, see ch.
xxii 29. For this assertion cannot refer
to the second rescue, see next verse.
30. ] Two constructions are combined here :
(1) pnvvdelons emiBovdts THS eToMEerns,
and (2) mnvudévtos, émiBovahy eoecPat.
31.] ANTIPATRIS, forty-two Roman
miles from Jerusalem, and twenty-six
from Cesarea, was built by Herod the
Great, and called in honour of his father.
It was before called Kapharsaba (Jos,
Antt. xii. 15. 1; xvi. 5. 2). In Jerome’s
time (Epitaph, Paul, 8, vol. i, p. 696) it
was a ‘semirutum oppidum’ (Winer,
RWB.). They might have well made
so much way during the night and the
next day,—for the text will admit of that
interpretation,—Tf émavp. being not neces-
sarily the morrow after they left Jeru-
salem, but after they arrived at Antipatris.
32. rovs immeis| As they had now
the lesser half of their journey before
them, and that furthest removed from
Jerusalem. The defsoAdBor appear to have
gone back with the soldiers. 35.
Staxove.] ‘The expression is in conformity
with the Roman law ; the rule was, “ Qui
$2
Oo
260
f p H
aoe refs eT ORR cov §
xvii. 10 reff.
h John xviii.
28 | Mt. Mk.,
83. xix. 9.
Phil, i. 13
only t.
i= ch. xii.4
rett.
k absol., ch.
viii. 15 reff.
] here only.
m so ch. ix. 35.
n oh _Xxili. 15
Aov Twoe,
TlavAouv.
o and constr., ch, ae 2.
1 Mace. vii. 6.
™ olrivEc
or “19. ch. xxv. 16. xxviii. 19 t.
35. om «ka: 37. 101. 1387 vulg(not am demid) syrr copt «th Thl-sif.
IIPAZEIZ AIIOSTOAQN.
” evepavicay Tt!
p ch. xxiii. 24 &c. reff.
XXIV.
mapa yenenrat) Kedeboac ev tw " Toat-
twoiw tov Howoou * guracoeaba avrop.
XXIV. ! Mera && révre nuepac * caréBn o apy lepeve
‘Avaviac Ase mpesBurépwy TLV@Y Kat " phropos Teproa-
hanieneys ° Kata Tou
24 KkAnGevroc S& avTov nokato " KaTnyopew oO
q=ch.iy.18. 2 Kings ix. 9.
ree
exeAevoe Te (emendation of style), with HL 13. 36 rel Chr: keAevoavtos &': txt
A B(sie: see table) 88 ¢ k p 40. 187 syr Thl-fin.
137 Chr Euthal Thl dic: txt AEX ¢ g hm p13.
for tov, tw B: om HL rel
rec auvtov bef ev Tw mpaitwpiw,
with HL rel 36 Chr: txt ABEX ck p 18. 40. 137 vulg arm Thl-fin.
CHap. XXIV. 1. for wevte, tivas A.
with HL rel Syr copt «eth He
Thl-sif.
cum elogio mittuntur, ex intrego audiendi
sunt. ”? Hackett. év TO Wpatt. T.
“Hp. | The procurator resided in the former
palace of Herod the Great. Here Paul
was ‘militi traditus’ (Digest. cited by
De W.), not in a prison, but in the build-
ings attached to the palace.
‘Cuap. XXIV. 1—XXVI. 32. ai PavL’ 8
IMPRISONMENT AT C@SAREA. if peta
aeévte Hp.] After five days—or on the fifth
day—from Paul’s departure for Cesarea.
This would be the natural terminus a quo
from which to date the proceedings of the
High Priest, &c., who were /ef¢ in Jerusalem.
That it is so, appears from ver.11. See
note there. «peop. twav | The more
ancient MSS. reading this, all we can say is
that we have not sufficient authority to re-
tain the reading of the rec. ray mpecBuré-
pwy, though it appears more likely to be
original, and to have given offence as seem-
ing to import that the whole Sanhedrim
went down. This is one of the cases where,
in the present state of our evidence, we are
obliged to adopt readings which are not
according to subjective canons of criticism.
pytopos | An orator forensis or causi-
dicus, persons who abounded in Rome and
the provinces ; sometimes called cuvf-yopot,
or dikoAdyo. Kuin. says: ‘ Multi adoles-
centes Romani qui se foro dederant, cum
magistratibus in provincias se conferebant,
ut caussis provincialium agendis se exerce-
rent, et majoribus in urbe actionibus pre-
pararent.’ So Czelius (see Cie. pro Celio, ec.
30), in Africa ‘TeptvAXov | A diminu-
tive from Tertius, as Lucullus from Lucius,
—Catullus from Catius. The name occurs
Plin. Ep. v. 15; and Tertulla, Suet. Aug.
69 (Wetst.). évedavicay | (not, ‘ ap-
peared, éavrots, sub.;—see reff.) laid
rec (for mpecB. Tivwv) Twy mpecBuTepwr,
: txt ABEN c k m 13. 36. 40. 137 vulg syr sah arm Syr
2. om avrov B.
information; and, as it seems, not by
writing, but by word of mouth, since they
appeared in person, and Paul was called to
confront them. 2.| < Inter precepta
rhetorica est, judicem Jaudando sibi bene-
volum reddere.’ (Grot.) Certainly Ter-
tullus fulfils and overacts the precept, for
his exordium is full of the basest flattery.
Contrast with woAAjjs «ip. tTvyx., Tac.
Ann. xii. 54: ‘Interim Felix intempestivis
remediis delicta accendebat, eemulo ad de-
terrima Ventid. Cumano, cui pars provincie
habebatur : ita divisis, ut huic Galileorum
natio, Felici Samarite parerent, discordes
olim, et tum, contemptu regentium, minus
coercitis odiis. Igitur raptare inter se, im-
mittere latronum globos, componere in-
sidias, et aliquando preliis congredi, spo-
liaque et predas ad Procuratores referre;’
—Hist. v. 9, quoted above, on ch. xxiii.
24;—and Jos. Antt. xx. 8. 9, of Tpo-
TEVOYTES TOV THY Kardperay KaToLkovyTwy
*Iovdalwy eis Thy “Péuny avaBaivovat,
@hAtkos Katynyopovvtes’ Kal mavtTws by
ededaKet Tyuwplay Tay cis “lovdalous adicn-
Matwv, ef wh ToAAa adtdy 6 Népwy Ta
adeAp@G MdAAavTt Tapakadéoavtt ovy-
exépnoe.... There was just enough
foundation for the flattery, to make the
falsehood of its general application to Felix
more glaring. He had put down some
rebels (see ch. xxi. 38, note) and assassins
(Antt. xx. 8. 4), ‘ipse tamen his omnibus
erat nocentior’ (Wetst.). It has
been remarked (by Dean Milman, Bampton
Lectures, p. 185) that the character of this
address is peculiarly Latin (but qu. P); and
it has been inferred from a passage in Va-
lerius Maximus (cited at length in C. and
H., vol. i. p. 3), that all ple: udings, even in
Greek provinces, were conducted before
1—6. TIPAZEIS AMOSTOAQN. 261
s = Luke xx,
oud 35. ch, xxvi.
eee AEywv 3 iodide sonvnc
: ruyxavovres '
cov Kal ‘StopAwparev * Yvopevey TH Over ToUTW oa 2 Tim. ii 10.
Tne once “ woovolac, *mavrn Te Kat ) ravrayon * amro- xi. LPs
dex ouela, * kedrtors OnrA&, ? wera © raone “ evyagtoriac. me
4 iva 8 my * em wAEov GE | fyxénte, * tapakaXw akou- Like xh
5k
v. 12, &€c
7 e ,
cal GE npey ” cuvTouwe ™ ov * emuetKela. EVPOVTEC y here nig.
5 1) m ~ n , v constr., ch. ii.
yo Tov av pa TOUTOV ouLoy Kal KtvouvTa OTQAOLV 43al. fr.
w Rom, xiii. 14
maou TOIC ‘Tovdatore Toic ° Kata Thy? oucoupévny, " Ons Fee he a
(not A.)
oratny TE Tne TwV NaZwoaiwy * aipécewe, oc Kal TO Wisd. xiv. 3.
e ‘ s » U t ~ a PE a
2 Macc. iv. 6
ltEOOV ET ELPAGEV BeBnrXaoat, Ov Kal " expatyncapey [at only.
(-voeta@at, Rom. xii. 17.) x here onlyt. Sir. L 22 only. y ch. xvii. 30 reff.
z ch. ii. 41 reff. ach. xxiii. 26 reff. bch. xvii. 11 reff. ce =ch. xx.
19 reff. d=1 Cor. xiv. 16. 2 Cor. iv, 15, ix.11,12al. Paul only, exc. Rev.iy. 9. vii. 12t.
Wisd. xvi. 28. Sir. xxxvii. 11. 2 Mace. ii. 27 only. ech. iv. 17 reff. f Rom.
xv. 22. Gal.v.7. 1 Thess.ii.18. 1 Pet. iii.7 onlyt. Dan. ix. 26 Theod. (Ald.) g = Matt.
Xviii. 29. ch. xiii. 42. constr., ch. viii. 31 reff. h here only. Prov. xxiii. 28 only. (-os, 2 Macc,
ii. 31.) Wisd. ii. 19.
ase gace) (-Kys, Phil. iv. 5.
atthi
-K@S, 1 Kings xii. 22.) constr. dat.,
1 = here (Luke xxiv. 1)) only. 1 Kings xxx.
PDAS) fh a m = ch. xxi. 30 (xvii, 28 reff.), n = ch. xix, 40 reff. o here
only. p =ch. xvii. 6. q here only. Job xv, 24 only. rch, v. 17 reff.
s = and constr., ch. xvi. 7 only t. t Matt. xii. 5 only. Neh. xiii.17,18. Ezek. xxii, 26. (-Aos,
1 Tim. i. ¥,) ao =ace., Matt. xviii. 28 al. Ps, lv. tit,
i2Cor. x.lonlyt.
k = Rom. vii. 10 al.
3. rec KaTop0wuaTwy, with HL rel Chr Thl Ge: txt ABEN p 18. 36. 137 Chr-ms.
yevouevay Lc 137 Thl-fin: yiyvemevwy m.
4. exxomrw L rel Thi-fin: comtw Al(appy) m 13. (eveortm AB'EN.)
akovoat EK: om oe Le m 36 Chr.
5. cracets (corrn as suiting better mact T. tovd. «.7.A.) ABEN p 13. 36. 40 vulg copt
Chr Thli-fin Ge: txt HL rel syrr sah eth Thil-sif.
oe bef
6—8. om from ka: kata to mpos ce ABHLN dg! h1 p am‘(and fuld tol) coptt :
Roman magistrates in Latin. But Mr.
Lewin has well observed (ii. 684), “‘ under
theemperors trials were permitted in Greek,
even in Rome itself, as well in the senate as
in the forum [ Dio Cassius, lvii. 15, says of
Tiberius, roAAds wey Sikas ev TH SiadexTw
Tavrn (viz. Greek) ra) exe? (in the senate)
Aeyouevas akovwy, moAAas SE Kal avTds
erepwta@y |; and it is unlikely that greater
strictness should have been observed in a
distant province. The name Tertullus
proves little, as the Greeks, and even the
Jews, very commonly adopted Roman
names.” On this latter point, see note,
ch. xiii. 9. bidpPwpa is ‘an ameliora-
tion or reform :’ KaTdpOwua, ‘res praeclare
facta,’ generally, whether military or civil
(G quae nos aut recta aut recte facta dica-
mus, si placet, illi autem appellant ratop0d-
fara.’ Cic. de Fin. iii. 7). Phrynichus re-
marks, p- 250, auaprdvovow oi pntopes
ove e€iddTes OTL TH KaTopIecal, Sbeaiay:
7) 8 amd TovTov bvoua addKipmov, Td KaTdp-
@wua,—where see Lobeck’s note. I have,
as always where reason to the contrary is
not very clear, followed the authority of
ue most ancient MSS. mpovotas |
‘ providentiz.’ ‘Hoe vocabulum szpe diis
tribuer unt’ (Beng.). ‘ Providentia Ca-
saris’ is a common phrase on the coins of
ins
the emperors (Mr. Humphry). — 3.
TavTy K. Tavtaxov| belongs to azodex.,
not to yivouevwy, in which case they
would naturally precede the participle,—
We receive, &c., not only here in thy
presence, but also at all times and in
all places. A refinement of flattery.
4. éwi mAetov]| viz. than the matter
demands: too long. éykdért.| See
reff. ouvtdp.ws | As Meyer observes,
we need not supply AetdvTwy, but take
ovyt. as the measure of the time implied
in dkovoat. 5. Aowdv}| See reff.
and Demosth. p. 794. 5, obtos oby avtoy
etaitnoeTat 6 papuands, 6 Aomods... The
construction here is an anacoluthon, there
being nothing to follow up the part. edpdv-
tes. The part. cannot be taken for the
finite verb. See Winer, edn. 6, § 45. 6.b.
# otkoupévn | would here mean the
Roman ‘orbis terrarum.’ Nalwop. |
This is the only place in the N. T. where
the Christians are so called. The Jews
could not call them by any name answer-
ing to Christians, as the hope of a Messiah
was professed by themselves. [6. ]
Considerable difficulty rests on the omis-
sion of the words kal kard to mpds cé.
Their absence from the principal MSS.,
their many variations in those which con-
262
vy = Luke xii.
37. xvii. 7.
Exod. iii. 3.
wch.v. 26
(reft.) only.
= ch. xii. 11 y
x = c -
reff. TWV KElLOwY TUWv
y ch. xxiii. 17
reff.
z ch. xxiii. 30
reff,
a ch. iv. 9 reff.
bch. xxiii. 28
a2
d ~ > ai
reff. KATH YOOOUMEV auTOv.
cattr., ch. i. 1
IIPAZ EIS AIMOZTOAQN.
‘ ‘ Cae: , 70 Xn Paves
kaTa TOV NMETEOOV VOMOV VE YoaLev Koval.
> ,
amTNyayev,
’ ,
avakolvac TEOL TAVTWY TOUTWYV
XXIV.
te Tap-
eAOav 6: Ausiac 0 X'Alapyoc “uera woAAne ~ Biac EK
, ‘ Zz
KeAgvoac ToUC * KaT-
, > ~ of g ‘ 5 a ’ 3 N 7, 3 UN
nyoeoue GUTOU EOK EO at TpOc oé | Tao OU uve) auToc
\ ’
, ~ c @ c =
eTLyvwvat “av TNpEetC
\ \ e >
9° GuvereMevto OG: Kat ot lov-
reff Sator, ‘ ddoKxovtec ravta ® outwe & Eye 10 Gaexol§n TE
dconstr., ch. ’ p ¢ ps u C .%
xxv. ll. Mark xy.3,4. 1 Mace. vii. 25. see Luke xsiii. 14. e here only. Deut. xxxii. 27. Ps. ili.
7F. fch. xxv. 19, Rom. i.22 only. Gen. xxvi.20. 2 Macc. xiv. 27, 32 only. gch.
vii. 1 reff,
(with consid varr, see below) E13 rel 36. 40 syrr xth Chr Th] Gc Cassiod. (See notes.)
for nOeA., nBovAndnuey (or €8.) m 40. 667.
txt Ea b g? k m o 138. 36 Chr Thi-sif.
auToy ex Tay XElpwy nuwy Teuas mpos oe f. (cf m below.)
for amnyayev, apetdeto g* 32. 42. 46. 57.
46. 57. 66).
rec kpiveiv, with rel Thl-fin Gc :
7. for wera moAAns to mpos ce, npTacey
Bia moAAn g? 32. 42.
for KeAcvoas to oe,
Kat mpos oe ameoTeirey 32. 42. 46. 57. 661: eAcvoacOa emt oe TaparyyeltAas TOLS KaT-
nyopots epxecOat emt cor 180.
with rel: pos E a 46. 133.
aft amnyayev ins avTov ek TwY KElPwY NuUwY M.
8. aft ceAevoas ins kat a g? 32. 42. 57. 69. 133 arm.
om avtov 69. rec em,
8. for of, w E36: wy bm! o 8. 15. 27. 29. 661. 106. 180: txt ABHLN vulg copt
Chr Thi Gc.
Ttavta 137 syr-w-ast.
om autos A vss: avtovus 40.
at end ins e:tovTos de avtov
9. rec cuvebevro, with b o (ec: amexpwavro sah eth: adjecerunt vulg H-lat: liti-
garunt Syr: txt ABEHLN p rel 36. 40. 1387 Chr Thl: cuvemeidovro 13. 180.
10. rec de (alteration of characteristic Te), with HL 18. 36 rel E-lat Chr: om copt :
tain them, are strongly against their genu-
ineness; as also is the consideration that
no probable reason for their omission can
be suggested. On the other hand, as De
Wette observes, it is hardly imaginable that
so little should have been assigned to the
speaker as would be if these words were
omitted. Besides this, the historic aorist
éxpathoamey seems to require some sequel,
some reason, after his seizure, why he was
there present and freed from Jewish dur-
ance. The phenomena are common enough
in the Acts, of unaccountable insertions,
and almost always in D (here deficient).
See a list of such in Prolegg. to Acts,
§ v. 3. But in this place it is the omisszon
which is unaccountable, for no similarity
of ending, no doctrinal consideration can
have led to it. The two reasons cited from
Matthzxi by Bloomfield, ed, 9,—1) “that
the critics believed the Jews hardly likely
to have accused Lysias himself,”—2) “ be-
cause the words tap’ of, at ver. 8, must be
referred to Paul: though by its (ste) posi-
tion, it seems to refer to Lysias,” are futile
and childish enough (on the latter of them,
see below); and I only refer to them, to
shew by what sort of considerations English
readers are still supposed to be influenced.
I still retain the words, in dark
brackets, being as much at a loss as ever
to decide respecting them, and being
moved principally by the aorist expa-
Thoamev, inexplicable without any sequel.
It may of course be said that this very cir-
cumstance may have given rise to their in-
sertion. But of the two it seems to me
less likely that Tertullus should have ended
with exparjoapmev, than that an abridg-
ment of his speech should have been at-
tempted. It may be a question how far
we can detect traces of deliberate abridg-
ment, in our early MSS., of the text of the
Acts.] 8.] wap’ ov, if the disputed
words be daserfed, refers naturally enough
to Lysias; but if they be omitted, to
Paul, which would be very unlikely,—
that the judge should be referred to the
prisoner (for examination by forture [ Grot.
and al.] on one who had already claimed
his rights as a Roman citizen can hardly
be intended) for the particulars laid to his
charge. Certainly it might, on the other
hand, be said that Tertullus would hardly
refer the governor to Lysias, whose inter-
ference he had just characterized in such
terms of blame; but (which is a strong
argument for the genuineness of the
doubtful words) remarkably enough, we
find Felix, ver. 22, putting off the trial ¢77
the arrival of Lysias. 9. cuverrd. |
joined in setting upon him, bore out Ter-
tullus in his charges. 10. é« wokd@v
érav| Felix was now in the seventh year
7—12.
O IavAoc,
!
TwoAAwy € ETWY ovra GE aan TW Over ToUTW ET LOT [LEVOC take xxiii, 24
&
TIPAZEIS AMOSTOAQN.
h
veboavtoc aurw TOU ‘ nyepdvoc Aeyewv,
268
lee h John xiii. 24
ote oe Prov.
25 only.
c. reff.
™ evObpwe © Ta " EOL EmauToU © Gada aneat I Suvapévou * =". ue Sh
xv. 21 al.
cov P emvyviovat ore ov mAéslouc etaly ? pot TEoat *basexa Peon Fe
ap aie aveBny * mpockuvnowy ATs ‘TepovcaAnu 12 Kal a6, ch. vit
id 12. xix. 35.
oUrE Ev TH teow evoov pe ‘mpoc twa “ diadeyousvoy H 3 Tmiii.s.
* erloract TotouyTa oxAou, oure éy Talc ouvaywyaic OUreE "ols 3
ch. xxvii. 36. -etv, ch. xxvii. 22.) nch. xxiii. 15. xxviii. 15. Luke xxii. 37. Phil. fio
20, 23.
q constr.,
27 reff.
v 2 Cor. xi. 28 only t. 2 Mace. vi. 3 only.
och. xix. 33 reff.
1 Cor. vii. 1. see ch. xx. 18.
txt ABEN alc p 40. 137 Syr eth Thl-sif.
r=-ch. xi. 2reff. Ezra vii.6, 7.
t Mark ix. 34. ch. xvii. 17 only.
Hom. Il. x. 155. @. 765.
s =ch.v ii.
n = ch. xvii. 2 reti
p constr., Matthiz, § 388.
Exod. vi. 27.
for eTwy, eviauvTwv E. aft xpitny ins
dicatov EK ce hh k 386. 40. 137 syr Chr(ov« got TavtTa KoAakelas Ta Phuata, TO mapTu-
pica TE Sixacth Sixaoovynv) Thi Avit.
rec evOuuotepov, with HL rel Chr Thl-
sif Ee: txt ABEN cd p 18. 36. 40. 137 vss Ath Thl-fin.
ll. om cov A.
36. 1387 Thi.
ree yvwvat, with HL 13 rel Chr He:
rec aft nucpar ins 7:
txt ABEX be ko p
om A B(Bch Verc) EHL® rel.
*rec O&KaOUO (see_ch xix. 7 reff), with HL rel 36 Chr We: dwd5exa ABEN cm p 13.
40. 137 Thl.
mposkuynoat KH 137 sah, adorare vulg.
rec (for eis) ev, with L
rel Chr He: om 13: txt ABEHN a? d p 13. 36. 40 coptt Thl.
12. twas E-gr.
rec emiovotacw, with HL rel:
emootaciay p!: amootaciay p?:
txt ABEN 13. 40 vulg. (There is the like varn in the MSS in the only other place
where the word occurs.)
of his procuratorship, which began in the
twelfth year of Claudius, A.D. 52. The
contrast between Tertullus’s and Paul’s
‘captatio benevolenti’ is remarkable. The
former I have characterized above. But
the Apostle, using no flattery, yet alleges
the one point which could really win atten-
tion to him from Felix, viz. his confidence
arising from speaking before one well
skilled by experience in the manners and
customs of the Jews. 11. 7pépar
SaSexa] The point of this seems to be,
that Felix having been so long time a
judge among the Jews, must be well able
to search into and adjudicate on an offence
whose whole course was comprised within
so short a period. The twelve days may
be thus made out: 1. his arrival in Jeru-
salem, ch. xxi. 15—17; 2. his interview
with James, ib. 18 ff.; 3. his taking on
him the vow, ib. 26; 3—7. the time of
the vow, interrupted by—7. his apprehen-
sion, ch. xxi. 27; 8. his appearance before
the Sanhedrim, ch. xxii. 30 ff. ; 9. his de-
parture from Jerusalem (at night) ; and so
to the 13th, the day now current, which was
the 5th inclusive from his leaving Jeru-
salem. This, which is also De Wette and
Meyer’s arrangement, is far more natural
than that of Kuin., Olsh., Heinr., &c., who
suppose that the days which he had already
spent at Ceesarea are not to be counted, he-
cause his raising disturbances while in cus-
for 3rd ovre, ovde p.
tody was out of the question. The view
advocated by Wieseler (Chron. der Apost.-
gesch. pp. 103 ff.), that Paul was appre-
hended on the very day of his appearance
with the men in the temple, I cannot but
regard, notwithstanding his arguments in
its favour, as inconsistent with the text of
ch. xxi. 26, 27; as also his idea that the
Apostle did not take the vow on himself:
the expression abv avtots ayvioGels clearly
negativing the latter supposition ; and Tay
hmepav Tov ayviopod, ver. 26, being mani-
festly, unless to one warped bya hypothesis,
identical with ai émra juépar of ver. 27.
See note there. I mention this here,
because these suppositions materially affect
his arrangement of the twelve days,
which he gives thus: 2nd, from Caesarea
to Jerusalem ; 3rd, interview with James ;
4th, (Pentecost) visit to the temple with
the Nazarites, and apprehension; 5th,
before the Sanhedrim; 6th, departure
from Jerusalem; 7th, arrival in Cesa--
rea; then, five days from that (but see
note on ver. 1), Ananias, &e., leave Jeru-
salem (but how does this appear from
ver. 1? xaré8n must surely denote their
arrival at Casarea, where the narrator, or,
at all events, the locus of the history is) ;
13th, arrival of Ananias, &c., at Caesarea,
and hearing (improbable) of Paul. So that
the above hypotheses are not the only rea-
sons for rejecting Wieseler’s arrangement.
264 TIPAZEIS AIOSTOAQN. SOIL.
13
wlLuke viii. ae f :
aan Kata edi ToAw
x = here only. yz
Taparrnoa
Ott TavTNY
Exer taxvv,
” x ~ ou / ‘
OUTE a is vvayTal Got apap i
14
- +
wy vuvi Peehilnue fou. opodoy w Oe TOUTO ool,
Ore kata my * ooov nv Aeyouowy B alpeow obrws * Aarpebw
Jos. Antt. ~ f
vill. 25. Tt ‘ TaTpww Bey, * TLOTEUWY TAGLY TOC Kara Ke, voOmov
en
pani John Kal [rote av] ToICc * moopnratc yeypanpévore, | ' eAmida
xvii 9. Heb. o k
OUTOL
k 1
a 2h 2 Pet. aa ate TOV Oeov 7 nv Kal avrot sscsdigioa
12. gH
zand constr, ™ Gyagracw © peddety ™oeoOat OikKaiwy TE Kal AdIKWY.
aseech.ix.2 ]§ 0»? P2 ~ 12 , is
Stel év TOUT Kal autoc ack aT OOCKOTOV " ouvel nHOLV
ver. 5.
c Acts vii. 7 reff. dch. xxii. 3 reff. e = dat., Lukei. 20 al. fr. 2 Chron. ix. 6. f ch, xxii.
12 reff. gch. =i 15 reff. h constr. (if dat. of agency), Matt. vi. 1. Luke xxiii. 15. xxiv. 35.
Gen. xxxi, 15. 1 Pet. i, 21. (John v. 45. 2 Cor. i. 10.) see 1 John iii. 3. (ch. xxvi, 18.) k ver.
20. ch, xxv. 25. Rom. xiii, 6. 2 Cor. ii. 3. vii. 11, &e. 1=ch. xxiii. 21. Tit. ii.13. Jude2l. 2 Macc.
viii. 11.
John xvi. 30 al.
Soph. Electr. 1024.
i. 12 reff.
13. ovde BX p. Steph aft rapaornoa (Tischdf is wrong) ins we, with e fg 1m
66'. 69. 78. 80. 96. 97. 100. 104. 106. 142 Chr-ms ic; por 2. 18. 161; cor 15. 133.
180; we vuy H 27. 28. 98. 99 Thl-sif; wor yyy 177: om ABELN p 18(sic) rel vss Chr
(Ke. rec aft duvavra: om coi, with HL rel Syr sah wth Chr Thl ic: ins ABEN
adghmp 13. 40 vulg Syr copt arm. rec (for yuri) yyy, with EHL 13. 36 rel:
om k 3. 30: txt ABX d m p 137 Thl-fin.
14. ins pou bef ew 1387: patri deo meo vulg. om taow B. om tov B 56
Chr. Steph om tors ev, with AHL &#(ev Tos) 13 rel vulg coptt eth Thi-sif Hc :
elz om rots, with syrr Epiph Chr: txt BEX' bck mo p 36. 40. 137 Thl-fin.
15. for ets, rpos CX a 68. 69 Thl-fin. om tov C 180. om ovto XN.
rec aft ecea@a: ins vexpwy (supplementary addition), with EHL rel 36 syrr eth Thl-
sif: om ABCN ck p 18. 40 vulg coptt arm Chr Thl-fin.
16. rec de (kat not being understood), with H 13 rel copt Hic: Se kar c g 25. 80. 100.
177 arm Chr Thl-sif: re «a: m: txt ABCELN b dk 0 p 40. 187 vulg syrr sah Thl-fin.
exov HL rel 36. 1387 Chr: txt ABCEX d p 13 vulg syrr coptt Thl ec.
n ch. xi. 28 reff. o = Matt. vi. 7.
Gokee To.ravtTn vouv de ai@vos pévecr,
r 2 Cor.
m ch. xvii. 18 reff. see DAN. xit. 2.
phere onlyt. 2 Macc, xv. 4 only.
q1 Cor. x. 32, Phil.i. 10 only. P.t Sir. xxxv. (xxxii.) 21 only.
12. kata thy wod.| throughout
the city, ‘any where in the city ; as we
say, ‘up and down the streets’ 14. |
The 8€ here has its peculiar force, of
taking off the attention from what has im-
mediately preceded, and raising a new point
as more worthy of notice. But (‘if thou
wouldst truly know the reason why they
accuse me’), ‘hine ille lacryme.’
atpeouy, in allusion to aipéoews used by
Tertullus, ver. 5. The word is capable of an
indifferent or of a bad sense. Tertullus had
used it in the latter. Paul explains what
it really was. ovTws = Kata TabTHY.
Notice in the words matpoéo bed the skill
of Paul. The term was one well known to
the Greeks and Romans, and which would
carry with it its own justification. “ In-
visum quippe erat gentibus, nominatim
etiam Romanis, si quis se peregrinis aut
diis aut deorum cultibus addiceret ; pra-
terea Judais per multa imperatorum et
magistratuum decreta et senatus consulta
sancita erat potestas, Deum patriuin co-
lendi, patriis ritibus i sacris utendi. Jos.
Antt. xiv. 17; xvi. 4” (Xuinoel). In his
address to the Jews ch, xxii. 14) the similar
expression 6 0, Tay maTépwy huey, brings
out more clearly those marépes, in whom
Felix had no interest further than the
identification of Paul’s religion with that
of his ancestors required. KaTa T. v. |
See on kat. T. wéAw, above. Then (if the
words in brackets be omitted : and it is not
easy to imagine that St. Luke wrote them)
the dat. is used of the personal agents, the
prophets. He avoids saying ‘by Moses,’
because the mention of the law would carry
more weight. 15. avtot ottor| It
would appear from this, that the High
Priest and the deputation were not of the
Sadducees. But perhaps this inference is
too hasty; Paul might regard them as
representing the whole Jewish people, and
speak generally, as he does of the same
hope ch. xxvi. 7, where he assigns it to 7d
Swdexapuaov Huey. vekpov, inserted
here in some MSS. to fill up the meaning,
is not likely to have been spoken by the
Apostle. The juxtaposition of those words,
which excited mockery even when the Gos-
pel was being directly preached, would
hardly have been hazarded in this defence,
where every expression is so carefully
weighed. 16. év to’Tm| Accord-
ingly, i.e. ‘having and cherishing this
13—20. NPAZEIS AMOSTOAQN. 265
” 8 N nN 0 \ \ N ? , + OS ?
eye Too TOV VEOV Kal TOUC avOpwroug ova TaVToOC. panomews |
sites ye , w 2 , , ’ Seueele ae |e
17" 8 erwv O& * TAROvwY ™ éXennocbvac * rommown Y ste ro GA art
ot Z , \a , b? i? a2 61. Gal. ii.
eOvoc prov TaoEyEVOUNY Kal “TOOCPopac, 18 Poy * ic EVOOV Lal. “Deut.
ce t > ~e ~ > d Sew X oP d Q a *
ME NYVioMEVvOY EV TW teOq, OV “ pETa “OXXAOV OVOE © pETa Y= MH it
w ch. ix. 36
\ > - ’ ’ ~ f
pis -~h ~ ‘a vA a4. oi kl» m ay ee ee
€7Tl GOV TWaoEetvat at KaTnyopen CL ae EX OLEV T POC viechaiae
Oar? S0) Neens 2 Sone 3 eee ' S ? , ‘ Luke ix. 13
epe. 17] auTol OUTOL ELTATWOAVY TL evoov [ ev epot | al.
z absol., ch.
Xvii. 10 reff. a ch, xxi. 26 reff. b = Mark vi. 48. Luke xvi. 10 al. ech.
Xxi. 24 reff. d=ch. vy. 26 al. e Luke xxii. 6. Ezek. xxiii. 24. f ch. xxi.
34 retl. Ezek vii. 11. g ch. xxiii. 30 reff. h see ch, x, 33. iver, 2.
k Matt. v.23. Mark xi. 25 al.
1 opt. (subjective possibility), = ch. xvii. 27. Lake xxii. 23 al.
Winer, edn. 6, § 41. 4. c. 13 5
m=ch, xxv. 19. 1 Cor. vi. 1. Col. iii. 13. n ver. 15,
aft mpos ins re L b c dh 1 o 187 syr Chr Thl-fin.
dia maytos 32, 42. 57). 137. :
17. mapeyevouny bef edenuoouvas x.7.A. (transposn for perspicuity), with HL rel
vss Chr; kat mposp. bef mapey. EX’ ¢ 137: om mapey. A: txt BCN' m p 13. 40 vulg
Thl-fin.
18. *rec vic, with HL rel Chr Thi-sif: ais (corrn to suit mpospopas ?) ABCEN b!
b o 18. 36. 40. 137 Thl-fin. aft @opuBov ins et apprehenderunt me clamantes et
dicentes tolle inimicum virum demid. elz om de, with HL Thl-fin: ins ABCEX p
13 rel 36. 40. 137 vulg syr coptt Thl-sif Ge. ins twy bef aro CE bc f 0 36. 40.
137 syr Thl. tovdaiwv E b co 36 syr Thi.
19. Steph de, with HL b fg k1mo 137 sah wth Chr, Ec: txt ABCEN p 13. 36
dia mavtos bef mpos Ec: om
rel vulg syrr copt Chr, Thl.
20. for n, ec (ttacism ?) AC.
rec we, with HL rel 36 Chr: txt ABCEN p 13.
rec ins et bef rt: (corrn from ver 19), with ac
vulg syr ic: om ABCEHLNX p 13. 36 rel Syr copt arm Chr Thl.
om ey emor
ABN p 18. 40: ins CEHL rel 36 vss Chr Thl Ge.
hope ;’ see reff. Kat] also, ‘as well as
they.” . 17.] 8€ refers back to the former
dé, ver. 14, ‘ But the matter of which they
complain is this, that after an absence of
many years,’ &e. See 1 Cor. xvi. 3, 4;
2 Cor. viii. ix. notes, ch. xx. 4. 18. |
De W. observes, that jyviou. can only
refer to mposd., not to éAenu.: thus ais
may have been altered to ois, to give a
general neuter sense, amidst which occupa-
tions: and the sense will be among, or
engaged in which offerings: it being in
the temple. But this seems far-fetched
and unlikely, and Meyer’s supposition, that
ois has been altered to ais to suit mpos-
gopds, certainly has an air of probability.
The use of a verb referring to two sub-
stantives, to only one of which it is appli-
cable, is too common to require illustration.
But, as so often in this book, we must follow
the best MSS., our only fixed evidence, as
against any questionable subjective con-
siderations. The construction is irre-
gular. A subject to edpoy has to be supplied
by a reference to some nominative case im-
plied in od wera dx. ovd. uw. Oop., thus:
amidst which they found me purified in
the temple, none who detected me in the
act of raising a tumult... . but certain
Asiatic Jews .... This would leave it to
be inferred that no legal officers had appre-
hended him, but certain private individuals,
illegally ; who besides had not come for-
ward to substantiate any charge against
him. Bornemann would supply obx obra
bev before tives 5€; but the objection to
this is, that the negative ob meta dx.....
stands already as the proper opponent
clause to tives dé, and weshould thus have
two negative clauses together. On this
sense of d€, see Viger, ed. Hermann, p- 16,
note 24; and Hermann’s note, p. 702. 19.
The latter remarks, “intelligitur in hae
formula, quam malum, stultun est, vel
simile quid.” 19. ] €xouev, not Zxovcw,
implying the subjective possibility merely,
and disclaiming all knowledge of what the
charge might be. The sentence is an ana-
coluthon : 87 is absolutely asserted in the
present : then €yovey in the opt. follows,
as if the hypothetical @e: had been used :
and hence the correction to ée. [So I
wrote in former editions, and so I still
believe: but the text must follow the
evidence of the great MSS.] On the
opt. after the hypothetical indicative, see
Bernhardy, Syntax, p. 386 ff. This also
is a skilful argument on the part of the
Apostle :—it being the custom of the Ro-
mans not to judge a prisoner without the
accusers face to face, he deposes that his
real accusers were the Asiatic Jews who
266
o?O/ ,
bi aa de wen OTaVTOC pou
na ‘iv. 15 reff.
q lag Xiii. 27 rabrne a r ne *
i t
F te, chil © Gyagracewe
s aor. redupl.,
here only.
Nam. xi. 2.
LXX almost
aiways.
t 1 Gor. xv. 12
reff.
ach. xxiii. 6
reff.
vy here only.
(Ps. 1x xvii.
21. See
Schlensn.
Pu, ° ova Eyvmeopat “ra
EXATOVTAPXY)
noeva © kwAvELY TOV
p
TIPAZEIS AIOSTOAQN.
~ ’ \ ~ U
® emi tou? suvedpiov,
* yexpov eyo
3 ¢€
22 5 aveBadero oe avrove o OnALE, *
\ - x 09 -~ 7 "O A , € Oe
TEOL THE ~ OOOv, sia tav Avotag 0 ytAtapyoeg
>
* kal uaas,
rupeintae avroy, uy TE
idlwy auTou
bo. 44'8
21 7 Tept plac
c
exéxgata ev avroic canes ore Teo
* Kpbvouat onpsoov Ep bao.
axpuBéoreoor ctdwe Ta
Y kaTa-
ac, 3° Sarakauevocg Tw
“aves, Kal
~ > =
* umnoetely auTW °
Lex. V.T. in voc.) 10 mAOvotwtépay Tiy TOL OLE GvaCadoupeGa, Xen. Mem. iii. 6. 6. (-Bod2, ch. xxv.
w ch, xviii. 26 reff.
ach. xxv. 14. Eph. vi. 21.
c=ch. xii. 5, 6 reff.
e Chron. xxiii. 15. e'= ch, xvi. 6 reff.
g =ch. xiii. 36 (reff ). xx. 34 only.
17.)
15 ay (reff.).
21. dwvns bef ravtns Ec k 187 syr Thl-fin.
txt ABCX a b d mo p 13. 40 Chr, Thl-sif (He.
fin :
x = ch. ix. 2 reff.
Phil.i 12. Col. iv. 7.
d = here (2 Cor. ii. 13. vii. 5. viii. 13.
_y absol., ver. 1. z ch. xxii.
b Luke viii. 55. ch. xviii.
2 Thess. i. 7) only. L.P.
f=chb. iv. 23. 1 Tim. v.8. see Johni.11. Titus i. 12.
rec expata, with EHL rel 36 Thl-
rec cotws bef ev avtois (corrn
to avoid ambig of reference of ev avr. ?), with HL rel syrr Chr ic: txt ABCEN c km
p 138. 40. 137 vulg syrr copt 'Thl.
om eyw C.
rec up. (corrn, the force of
ep not being per ceived), with EHLX rel 36 vulg Chr: txt ABC m p 13. 40 syr (eth).
22. rec at beg ins axovoas Se Tavta (omitting the de following), with L rel 36 Thl
(ic: om ABCEHN ¢ p 18. 40. 187 vulg syrr copt eth arm Chr.—o @nAré aveBadeTo
autovs L &e as above:
o mnadté bef avrovs ¢ Chr:
more usual form), with EHL rel 36: txt ABCX p.
QUTOLS Pp. rec emwy (corrn to
for xa, katece(but corrd) X!.
23. aft Suatagauevos ins re, with H rel vulg Chr; de L: om ABCEN b'¢ op 13. 36.
40. 137 syrr copt arm Thl-fin.
40. 137 vulg syr copt arm Thl-fin.
for exatovt., xtAtapxn &}, but corrd by &! or corr?.
rec (for avtov) Toy mavauv, with HL rel Syz eth Chr :
txt ABCEN ck p 13. 36.
rec aft umnpeteiy adds n mposepxeoOa, with
HL rel 36 Chr: om ABCEN p 18 vulg syrr copt arm.
first raised the ery against him in the
temple,—xot the Sanhedrim, who merely
received him at the hands of others,—and
that these were not present. 20.| Or
let these persons themselves say, what
fault they found in me while I stood
before the Sanhedrim, other than in the
matter of this one saying...... 7tserves
for tf %AAo. Soin English: What fault
but this: i.e. ‘What other fault but this.’
21.] ed’ dp., before you: less usual
than o¢ bu., which is probably a correc-
tion. 22. aveBaheto avr. | ‘ampliavit
eos :’ viz. both parties. dp. €idas
7a mw. T. 68.| These words will bear only
one philologically correct interpretation,
having more accurate knowledge about
the way: not, ‘ till he should obtain more
accurate knowledge’ (ungrammiatical): nor,
‘ since he had now obtained’ (viz. by Paul’s
speech : but ei5és cannot be rendered ‘ cer-
tior factus’). But this, the only right ren-
dering, is variously understood. Chrys.
says: éxirndes brepébero (he adjourned
the case purposely), od dcduevos paleiy,
GAAG Siaxpoioacbar BovAduevos Tovs *lov-
daiovs. adeivar ovk HOcAc Be exelvous.
Luther and Wolf: “distulit, ... non quod
sectee ignarus esset, aut pleniorem sibi no-
titiam ejus comparare vellet, sed quia, cum
satis-illam jam cognitam haberet, Judeos
amplius sibi molestos esse nolebat.” But
these interpretations, as De W. observes,
overlook the circumstance, that such a
reason for adjournment would be as un-
favourable to Paul, as to the Jews. Meyer
explains it, that he adjourned the case,
‘ because, &c. But this (De W.) would
imply that he was favourably disposed to
Paul. The simplest explanation is that
given by De W.: He put them off to an-
other time, not as requiring any more in-
formation about ‘the way,’ for that matter
heknew before,—but waiting for the arrival
of Lysias. | Whether Lysias was expected,
or summoned, or ever came to be heard, is
very doubtful. The real motive of the
‘ampliatio’ appears in ver. 26. The com-
parative implies, “more accurate than to
need additional information.” Stayv.
7a Kad’ tp. | I will adjudge your matters.
So in reff. also. 23. | Siatakdpevos is
in apposition with etwas, and both belong to
aveBadeTo. aveow | De W.and Mey er
explain this of ‘ eustodia libera,’ dvdakh
&eouos (Arrian, Exp. ii. 15). But this
can hardly be. Lipsius (Exeurs. II. on
Tacit. Ann. iii. 22; vi.3, cited by Wieseler,
Chron. d. Apost.-g. p. 380) says, ‘ Preeter
custodiam militarem alia duplex, apud ma-
gistratus, etapudvades. Apud magistratus,
quum reus Consuli, Pratori, Aidili, inter-
21—26. IPAZEIS AINOSTOAQN. 267
24 Mera de " neépac " rvdc ' mapa yevouevoc Oo Wyle Seer
ii 10 reff.
ouv ApovaidXdy Ty ovat, oven ‘lovdaia, * iferemenipar® k ch. x. 5 ret.
lch. xx. 21.
zov [avAov Kat nKOvGEV avrou rept TC ' Ete Xplor ov ae
25 mo 5 d 8 00 § Panl, or of
TIOTEWC, ta eyouevou é avTou TEpt LKALOGUYNC _ Pauly only.
\ m ch. xvii. 2
Kal ° eyKparetac Kat tov “Kpimatog Tov pS KONEGES et oe
* Enpooc yevonevoc 6 O7AE amexoidn ‘To ‘ viv ‘eyov
o absol., ch. —
xvii. 51 ref
p Gal. v. 23.
Y 2 Pet. i. 6
mopevov, " Katpov Oe perahaBov * peraxadésopat as (bis) aay
°6 =r ' er x Sir. xviii. 30
apa Kal é Tidwy OTL Xonuara SoPhoerat aut vTo (title) only.
(-1Hs, Tit.i.8.
q = Heb. vi. 2. 1 Pet. iv.17. Rev. xx.4. (Prov. xxi. 15 al.)
sch. x. 4 reff. thereonly. Tobit vii 11. u = Gal.
v = (and constr.) here (ch. ii. 46 reff.) only. petad. Kap. Gpudtrovta,
w ch, vii. 14 refi. x ch, iv. 37 reff.
24. twas bef nuepas AE ¢ 137 vulg Syr: txt BCHLN 13. 36 rel vss Chr.
aft yuvaice ins avrov, with EN*S rel vule Thl-sif He: pref 1dca BC? X-corr! 36 syr-marg
Ammon-e Thl-fin: ins both A p: om both C'HLabkm o Chr. (Both 81a and avrov
are additions to fix the sense of yuvatkt.) aft sovdata ins mapakadovon omws 107
Toy TavAov Kal akovon TOY Aoyoy ws ovv eBovdAETO LKavOY ToIndat ETOLnoEV TOUTO SyY-
mare. ins kat bef wetemeuaro N'(N> disapproving). om autou C.
aft xpicrov ins moouy ELN!' dfghlmp 36 vulg syr copt eth arm Chr Thl-fin ;
incov(sic) B: pref, am(and fuld tol) eth: om A Cl *(appy) H&-corr!3 13 rel Syr
-revec@ar, 1 Cor. vii. 9. ix. 25.)
r = Matt. sii.32. Rom. v. 14 al.
vi. 10. Hagg. i. 2, 4.
Polyb. ii. 16. 15.
rec
Thi-sif dic.
25. eyxpateas kar Sixatocuvyys N.
40 arm Chr-comm,.
exoy L 13: exouy H.
Thl-sif.
eAAovTos bef xpimwatos (omg tov) C m
rec aft weAAovTos ins eveoOa (appy a corrn aft ver 15),
with HL rel Chr, "Thl Ge: om ABCEN p 18. 36. 40. 137.
aft eupoBos ins de A.
maparaBwy A: Aakov abd kop 13. 40 Chr
26. rec ins Se bef xa, with (none of our mss) copt Thl-fin dic: om ABCEHLX® p
dum et Senatori, etiam non e magistratu,
committebatur: quod nonnisi in ves tdlus-
trioribus usurpatum, eaque custodia libera
dicta: vid. Tacit. Ann. vi. 3; Sall. Cat.
xlvii.; Liv. vi. 836; Cic. Brut. xevi.; Dio
lviii. 83. Custodia apud vades, quum eorum
periculo fidejussoribus reus tradebatur :
vid. Tacit. Ann. v..8; Suet. Vitell. 2.’
Now, Wieseler argues, as Paul was not
bailed,—and was not <e reis illustrioribus,’
and besides was delivered to a centurion
to keep, his cannot have been ‘custodia
libera,’ but ‘ militaris ? relaxed however as
much as was consistent with safe custody.
He cites Josephus, who says (Antt. xviii.
6. 10) of the custody of Agrippa, pudany
wey yap Kab THNTLS Hv, meTa jmeévTot
avéeoews Tis cis Thy Siaitav. Remission,
or relaxation, would be a better rendering
than ‘ liberty.’ 24. tapayev.| Into
the hall or chamber where Paul was to
speak. ApovotdAy | She was daughter
of Herod Agrippa I. (see ch. xii.) and of
Cypros,—and sister of Agrippa II. She
was betrothed at six years old (Jos. Antt.
xix. 9. 1) to Epiphanes, son of Antiochus,
king of Commagene ; but (Antt. xx. 7. L)
he declining the marriage, not wishing to
be circumcised and become a Je ew, she was
married to the more obsequious Azizus,
king of Emesa. Not long after, Felix,
being enamoured of her beauty, persuaded
her, by means ofa certain Simon, a Cyprian
magician (see note on ch. viii. 9), to leave
her husband and live with him (Antt. xx.
7.2). She bore him a son, Agrippa: and
both mother and son perished in an erup-
tion of Vesuvius, in the reign of Titus
(ibid.). The Drusilla mentioned by
Tacitus (Hist. v. 9), a granddaughter or
Antony and Cleopatra, must have been
another wife of Felix, who was thrice
married, and each time to persons of royal
birth ; ‘trium reginarum maritus,’ Suet.
Claud. 28. 25.] It is remarkable
that Tacitus uses of Felix (Ann. xii. 54)
the expression ‘cuncta malefacta sibi
impune ratus.’ The fear of Felix appears
to have operated merely in his sending
away Paul: no impression for good was
made on him. 26.| ‘Lex Julia de
repetundis precipit, ne quis ob hominem
in vincula publica conjiciendum, vincien-
dum, vincirive jubendum, exve vinculis
dimittendum ; neve quis ob hominem con-
demnandum absolvendumve .... aliquid
acceperit.’ Digest. xl. 11. 3. Cited by
Mr. Humphry, who observes: Albinus,
who succeeded Festus, so much encouraged
this kind of bribery, that no m: alefactors
remained in prison, except those who did
not offer money for their liberation (Jos.
268
y here only t.
2 Mace. viii.
8 only.
(-vos, Luke
v. 33. 1 Tim.
v. 23 only.
Ezek. xxxi,
3 F. only.) ef
z Luke xxiv,
14, 15. ch.
xx. lL only.
w. dat., here
only. Prov.
XKUHI. 30.
ach. xxviii.
30 only ft.
(-t7s, Matt. o
1i.16. 2 Mace. —
x. 3.) see ch.
xx. 31.
b = ch. vii. 23
~
ze ' >
wmlret auto.
c
TlavAov *
OcOEMEVOV.
Tpstc mmeoac |
mn
~
‘Tovdatwy °
1 Chron. xviii. 17.
ech. xxv. Y.
evepyeciav Katatéabat, Demosth. 193. 22.
reff.
c here only.
4 reft.
TIPAZEIS ATOSTOAQN.
katabéc0at rtoic ‘lovdatoie 6 PAE
xxv! Ss oy
avéBn el ‘TepoodAuja amo Katoapetac,
evepavicay TE aury ol apy tepeic Kal o.°
so suecessorem accepit, Plin. Epist. ix. 13, end.
f = as above [e].
XXTV. 27.
~ I yr 8 ‘ \y , i. SE ,
tov IlavAou, do Kat) tuKvorepov avrov © petaTEenTOmEevoc
27 * Ateriac 88
i ~ 6 ~
* Stadoyov 0 PALE TlooKrov Pnorov, HéAwy Te de
P 7X nowBsionc éAapev
Xaora
/ ‘A
© & kare\urev tov
i?’ Q Cod ) ee ’ ‘
emiPac ™ seep a Mita
Tpwrot TWD
\
Kata TOU Maa Nowk Kal "4 taoekaXouy avurov
d = 2 Oor. viii.
1 Mace. x. 23. vat. F. (not A.)
h = Mark xv.7. Isa.
Mark xv. 46 only.
g = ch. xviii. 19 reff.
xlii. 7. i = here only. see ch. xx. 18. xxi. 4. k ch. xxiii. 34only+. (-xos, Ezra v.3.)
l=ch.xv.2. Matt.xx.18. Ezra vii. 6, 7. m ch. xxiii. 15 reff. n ch. xxiv. |. och. xiii.
60 reff. p = Matt. xviii. 2. q Matt. viii. 34 only. Plur. vit. Demetr. § 38.
13. 36 rel 137 vulg Chr Thl-sif. om avtw B: avtw bef do8qcera c. rec aft
mavAou ins orws Avon avtov (a gloss from the marg), with HL rel 36 copt eth-pl Chr
Th] Ge: om ABCEX p 40 vulg syrr arm.
for wuiret, SteAeyeTo C 15. 18. 36. 180.
27. aft pnotoy ins Tov Se mavaoy eracev ev THpnoEt Sia SpovoiAAay 137: wavdAw be
emeTpewev ev puAakn AaAey Syr-mMarg.
137 vulg Syr copt Chr Thi.
for te, 56 NB bcdeghk lo p? 13. 40.
rec xapitas, with H rel 36 Ammon-e Thl-sif He:
xapwy (see ch xxv. 9) ELX’ c k 40. 137 vulg (Syr copt) Chr Thl-fin: txt ABCN! p 138.
Crap. XXV.1. 77 emapxemw A &'(-xI@) :
2. evepaynoay H 25. 26. 68. 105 Thl-fin Cie (so also ch xxiii. 22 ;
THY EeTapxXlay Pp.
soo ILE eS\7 Ils)
rec de (alteration of characteristic re), with EHL rel syr copt Thl-sif: txt
ABCX k p 18. 40 vulg Syr eth Chr Thl-fin de.
txt ABCELN ec d p 36. 40. 137 vulg Syr copt «eth arm.
sif (Hc :
B. J. ii. 14.1). St. Paul did not resort to
this mode of shortening his tedious and
unjust imprisonment, and Tertullian (‘de
Fuga in Persecutione,’ 12, p. 116) quotes
his conduct in this respect against those
who were disposed to purchase ¢ escape from
persecution: a practice which prevailed
and became a great evil in the time of
Cyprian. See his Epistles, lii. and Ixviii.,
denouncing the Libellatici. 27.
Stetias | viz. of Paul’s imprisonment.
IIépx.ov Ratov| Festus appears to have
succeeded Felix in the summer or autumn
of the year 60 A.D.: but the question is
one of much chronological difficulty. It
is fully discussed in Wieseler, Chron. d.
Apost.-g. pp. 91—99. He found the pro-
vince (Jos. Antt. xx. 8. 10) wasted and
harassed by bands of robbers and sicarii,
and the old plague of false prophets.
He died, after being procurator a very
short time,—from one to two years.
Josephus (B. J. ii. 14. 1) contrasts him,
as a putter down of robbers, favourably
with his successor Albinus. On the
deposition, &c., of Felix, see note, ch. xxiii.
24. Xapita KarabécGar| See reff.
‘Est locutio bene Greca, Demostheni
quoque usitata et Xenophonti: quales locu-
tiones non paucas habet Lucas, ubi non
alios inducit loquentes, sed ipse loquitur,
rec o apxtepevs, with H rel Thl-
et quidem de rebus ad religionem non per-
tinentibus’ Grot. The reading ydpita,
brought into the text by the evidence of
the best MSS., has apparently been a cor-
rection to suit the context, only one such
act being spoken of. The plural would
describe the wish of Felix to confer obliga-
tions on the Jews, who were sending to
complain of him at Rome,—and so win
their favour. SeSepevov | There was
no change in the method of custody, see
note on ver. 23. Heleft him in the ‘ eus-
todia militaris’ in which he was.
XXV. 1.] The term érapxfa is properly
used of a province, whether imperial or
senatorial (see note on ch. xiii. 7),—but is
here loosely applied to Judza, which was
only a procuratorship, attached to the pro-
vince of Syria. So also Josephus calls
Festus érapxos, Antt. xx. 8. 11; as also
Albinus, ib. 9. 1. 2. ot apx.| It has
been imagined, that 6 a&px. of the rec. has
been a correction to suit the former part
of the narrative. But it may be that of
apxzepets has been substituted for it, to suit
the assertion of Festus, ver. 15. So Meyer
and De Wette. The High Priest now was
Ishmael the son of Phabi, Jos. Antt. xx. 8.
11. mp@Tou is more general than
mpeoBvrepor, though most of the first men
must have been members of the Sanhedrim.
XXYV. 1—8.
D ’ ’
3 ¥ atroupevou
> ‘ Ede AS 7, u
aUTOV &C Ispovoahnu,
A Q ¢ Le
‘kata thy ooov, 4
eas rov TlavAov ¥ etc Rarouapietans eaurov oé pentane * ev
* rayet Y *“exmopevecOar’ >
IIPAZ EIS ATMOXSTOAQN.
so? ? ee ele Ghet
Xaow Kat avtov, “oTwe
> ~
evédpav TOLOUYTEC
O piv ov Dioroc amex piOn *
Ou ovy Ev ULLY, pnety,
269
d ; A
r=ch. xii. 20.
peranémpnrat Matt. vii. 9 |.
“ - > 3 Kings xix.
aveXglv autov 4.0
s A 2 eo viii.
= reff.
TNPEL t ch. x. 5 reff.
uch. xxii. 16
only (reff.).
, v=ch. v.33
> Svuvarol refi.
w ch. viii. 36
Cc 4 7 ? \ ’ iS rs aed e
ovyKataBavrec, €lL TL EOTLY EV TW avopt aTOoTOV KQAT= x _ ch. xii.5,
ff.
nyopsttwoay avrov. ies Starpiipac. oe 2 Ev aurolc mnenae y = ch. xix, 22
ou mAeloug ¢ OKT® 7] béka,
: karaBac
reff.
ELC Kacapeay, * TH mee xvi. 20
a absol., Luke
' Emavowov * cabicac emt tov ' Bitaroc eee Nevoty tov [lav- He eS
m 2 os
Aov ay Onvat. co aoa yEevopevov 6& auTou * mepteoTnoay ea
7) ‘ © p >
auToOvV Ol
ToAAa Kal 2 Bapéa
ty rh] te 8 =e
toxXvov aTOostcal,
6 reff. eand as ch. xxiv. 8 reff.
heh, xviii. 22 reff.
Viii. 20.
ch. x. 9 reff.
ch. xii. 2 reff.
r here only t.
uch. ii. 22 reff. v ch. xix. 33 reff,
3. for kat, rap C e 18. 36. 105. 180 tol Syr Chr-txt.
at end ins a: Tnv evxny memolnKoTes KaTa TO SuvaToy wa ev
evedpoyv ¢ 137 Chr.
TALS XKEPOL QAUTWY YEVNTAL syr-marg.
4. rec ev koatcapera, with HL rel 36 Chr:
extopeveoOa bef ev Taxer XR’.
0 ‘| Av P ) dat
ato leooco\vpwr ? KataeBynxorec ‘Lovdator,
2 ee
* aliTiwuata
- ,
8 tov THabAou
m = ch. viii. 32 reff.
Bee cut xi. 42 (2 Tim, ii, 16. Tit. iii. 9) only. 2 Kings xiii. 31.
q Matt. xxiii. 4, 23. ch. xx. 29. 2 Cor. x. 10.
s=ch. xxvi. lv. (xx. 9 bis) only. Gen. xxxvii. 2.
txt ABCEN p 13. 40.
26. 2 Chron.
viii.
c here only.
Ps. xlvili. 17.
Cant. tr. pu.
25. Wisd.
x. 13 only.
dch. xxviii.
f ch. xii. 19 reff. g=ch. xxiv. 21 al. fr.
k = ch. xii. 21. ver.17. Matt. xxiii. 2. 3 Kings
n = absol., ch. xvii. 10 reff.
p Mark iii. 22. Luke x.
1 John v.3 only. Exod. xviii. 18.
t = ch. vi. 10 reff.
Ss , a 3
KaTapepovTéec, A OVK
v2 , o
ato\oyoupévou OTL
tepoooAupa Ek 96.
om pedAew KE.
5. rec duvaro: bef ev vay (transposition for perspicuity), with HL rel syr wth Thl
(Ee: txt ABCE X(but qu for vay) m 13. 40 vulg arm Chr-comm.
X. rec (for atorov) Tout», with HL rel syrr copt Chr Thl He:
KkaTaBavTes
TOUTW ATOTOV aC
g?m 137: aromoy bef ev Tw avipt bc o: om 105, 133: txt ABCEX d p 13. 40 vulg
arm Lucif.
6. rec om ov, with EHL alec fhkI1 Thl-sif He: om ov mAeovs 137 syrr sah:
ins
ABCX p 13. 36 rel vulg E-lat copt arm Thl-fin.—ov mAciovs bef nuepas &.
tAciovas B: mActoves 38.
m p 13 vulg Syr coptt arm Thl-fin.
above) 180 vulg Lucif.
N'GR3 disapproving).
rec om oxtw, with HL rel Thl-sif He :
ins kat bef rn emaupiov A c, so (but kateBn
axOnvat bef roy mavdAoy L syrr copt Lucif.
txt ABCEN a2
TpoaxOnvat
7. rec om avtoy, with H rel copt Chr Thl-sif @e: ins ABCLN b o 36. 40 Lucif:
avt@ Ep 13 Thi-fin.
d fm p Chr Thl-fin.
rec aitiauata, with rel 36 Thl-sif He: txt ABCEHLN® a?
rec gepovtes, with HL rel 36 syrr coptt eth Chr Thl He:
emipepovtes BH: txt ABCN p 13. 40 vulg Lucif.
Tov Tavadovu neat ver), with rel 36 syr Chr Thi Cc:
68 Syr coptt wth: om ABCHN p vulg arm Lucif.
rec adds kata tov mavAovu (omg
Tw maviw EH: kat avrov L 17. 18.
ioxvoay XN).
8. rec aft amoAoy. ins avtov (corrn following on the insertion of kata Tov mavAou
Festus, relating this application, ver. 15,
calls them mpeoBvtepa. 3.| Xap
= Katadikny, ver. 15. qrovovvTes,
not for mojoovtes: they were making,
contriving, the ambush already. The
country was at this time, as may be seen
abundantly in Jos. Antt. xx., full of sicarii ;
who were hired by the various parties to
take off their adversaries. 5. ot
Suvarot] not, as in E. V., those among
you that are able [to go down? |: but, the
powerful among you: those who from
their position and influence are best cal-
culated to represent the public interests.
See Meyer and Wordsworth. 6.] The
number of days is variously read: which
has probably arisen from the later MSS.,
which have 7 for the 6x7é of the more
ancient ones: thus 7 has been omitted on
account of the 7 following. It is possible,
as Meyer also observes, that a perverted
notion of the necessity of an absolute pre-
cision in details in the inspired text, may
have occasioned the erasure of one of the
numbers. 7. wepréotnoay | without
the airdy, as inrec., this might mean round
the Baya, or round lestus: and perhaps
the insertion has been made to clear this up.
Katadépovtes, bringing against
him: see var. readd. and ref.
270
w 1 Cor. vi. 18
reff
x ch. xxiv. 27
(reil.).
y ch. xi. 2 reff.
Zz = ver. 20.
Rom. iii. 4,
from Ps. 1. 4
(6).
a ch. xxiii. 30
ref.
b constr., Matt.
x. 26. Luke
xii. 6. John
iii. 21. ch.
xxvi. 26.
1 Cor. i. 10.
v.2al.
¢ compar. =
ch. xxvii. 13.
2 Cor. vii. 7. viii. 17. 2 Tim. i.17, 18 al.
xxiii. 29 reff.
tie ee 5 > ~ \
EL bev OUV AOKk® Kal
IIPAZEIS AMOSTOAQN.
, ’ , we
ELC Kaicaoa Tl yuMaoTOV,
paroc Kaiosapoc éorwc ” eit, ov pe Set ” kowweo@at.
XXV.
” file ded ‘ , ~ > ' ” ? OG ‘ ”
OUTE ELC TOV VOMOV TWYV lovdaiwy OUTE Etc TO lepov OUTE
96 @Mioroe Se CéXwy rote
"[ovdatotre * Xapw *«atabéoat, atoxpileic tH TlatAw
SF / y u e , y > ‘ ? ~ \ ,
eimevy OzXzuc % cic LeposoAupa * avaf3ac Exel TEOL TOUTWY
* Ko Onvat * em’ gnov; | eixev 0: o HavAoc *’Emt roo | Bn-
‘Tou-
Salove ovdev HoiuKNoa, WE Kal ov © KaAALoY * ETLYIVOTKELC.
&
e» e , / , ’
aclov Qavarov TETpPAYa Tl, OU
Winer, edn. 6, § 34. 4.
dch. xxiii. 28 reff. ech.
above), with H rel 36 Chr Thl-sif Ee: tov mavAou arodoyoupevov avrov L: txt ABCEN
emp 13. 40. 137 vulg syrr copt eth Thl-fin Lucif.—add de (aft the first word) E 36
am(and demid fuld) Thl-sif Lucif, te Syr.
9. for de, ovv A k 40.
om Tt 57. 80. 105: twa 137.
rec Tois wovdatots bef OeAwy, with HL rel Chr Thl-sif
(Ee: txt ABCEN c k m p 13. 40. 137 vulg arm Thl-fin.
xapita A. rec
kpweoda, with HL rel 36 Chr: txt ABCEN dk p 18. 40 Thl-fin.
19. om o Af.
places. ndicnka BR (p).
eotws bef em: tov Bnuatus kaicapos NX! m: B has it in both
ywaokes Ce d! 2. 30. 137.
11. ree (for ovy) yap (corrn, as Meyer, because et wev ovy seemed contradictory to ovdev
ndicnoa), with HL rel vss Thi-sif (ic: om 40 E-lat: txt ABCEX dk p 86 copt Chr-
8.] These were the three principal charges
to which the 7oaA. x. Bap. ait. of the Jews
referred (Meyer). 9.] kpvO7vor, the
aor., refers to the one act, of deciding
Jinally concerning these charges. This not
having been seen, the later MSS. have sub-
stituted kpivec@at, which is more ‘ going to
law,’ ‘ being involved in a trial.’ The
question is asked of Paul as a Roman
citizen, having a right to be tried by Ro-
man law: and more is contained in it,
than at first meets the eye. It seems to
propose only a change of place; but
doubtless in the éxet KpiOjvar was con-
tained by implication a sentence pro-
nounced by the Sanhedrim. én épod
may mean no more than én gov, ch.
xxvi. 2, viz., that the procurator would
be present and sanction the trial: so
Grot., “visne a synedrio judicari me
presente?” Otherwise, a journey to Je-
rusalem would be superfiuous. Festus
may very probably have anticipated the
rejection of this proposal by Paul, and
have wished to make it appear that the
obstacle in the way of Paul being tried by
the Sanhedrim arose not from him, but
from the prisoner himself. 10.] Paul’s
refusal has a positive and a negative ground
—1. ‘ Cesar’s tribunal is my proper place
of judgment: 2. To the Jews I have done
no harm, and they have therefore no claim
to judge me’ (De W.). ér. rt. B.
Kato. | Meyer quotes from Ulpian, “ Que
acta gestaque sunt a procuratore Czsaris,
sic ab eo comprobantur, atque si a Cesare
ipso gesta sint.” In ob pe Set kpiver@ar,
Dr. Wordsworth has again fallen into the
mistake of supposing pe (and again in
ver. 11) to be emphatic (see note, Matt.
xvi. 18), which it cannot possibly be under
any circumstances. The form of the sen-
tence which would express the sense built
by him on this error, would be, od de? eye
KpiOjvat, or ov eue Set xpiOFvar. But the
sense, when thus given, surely is wholly
alien from the person speaking and from
the situation : as is also the understanding
det as alluding to divine intimation made
to him. The 6c? is simply of his right as a
Roman citizen : the we simply enclitic, and
of no rhetorical force at all. Ka)Atov |
Not ‘for the superlative,’ here or any
where else :—the comparative is elliptical,
requiring ‘than.... to be supplied by
the hearer: so also in reff. Here, the
ellipsis would be readily supplied from
Festus’s own speech, which appeared to
assume that there was some ground of trial
before the Sanhedrim. «déAAuoy will there-
fore mean, better than thou choosest to
confess. We have an ellipsis of the same
kind in our phrase ‘to know betler’ Or
it may be in this case as in 2 Tim. i. 18,
‘better, than that I need say more on it :?
but I prefer the other interpretation.
11.| Both readings, ei pév yap, and et pév
ovv, will suit the sense. In the former
case, it is, ‘For if I am an offender, ....:
in the latter, If, now, I am an offender
...,—taking up the supposition generally,
after having denied the particular case of
his having offended the Jews. Meyer and
De Wette are at issue about the internal
probability of these readings: I am dis-
posed to agree with Meyer that a difficulty
ABCE —
HLNab-
edfgh-
klmo
p 13
9—13.
’
f ~ Q > ~.
TaoatToupat TO atoQavetv El
‘i h Old > , , , - .
OUTOL KaTnyOpovolyv Lov, ovoeic pte Ovvarat auTotc "ya-
ptoaofat.
‘gudAaAnoac peta TOV ™ouuPovriov amexolOn Katoapa
ee) OY ,
emikékAnoat, " emt Katoapa ”
13 0
ch. xxvi. 32. xxviii. 19 only. see ch. ii. 21.
Luke ix. 30|| Mk. xxii. @only. Exod. xxxiv. 35,
nch. ix. ll. xvii. 14.
xv. 22 Theod.
XXVii. 9 onlyt. 2 Mace. xi. 26 only.
comm Thl-fin. (13 def.)
flmo Thi.
rel Chr Thl (ec.
for pov, wor L 78}.
TIPAGZEIX AIMOSTOAQN.
Kaicapa “ emuxaXoupat.
TOOEUGY.
c ~ ~ €
Hycowy O& P duayevopevn i TLUWV "Aypirmac O Ba- k
for kat, yn E 29 vulg Syr Chr-comm.
271
7. f Luke xiv. 18
WV 9. 1 Tim.’
iv.7. Heb.
xii. 25 (bis).
L.P.H. Esth.
9 , ¢ - -
12 Tore 6 Dicroc igs
ds ®ovdev eotw *
ch, xxi. 24.
h and constr.,
ch, xxiv. 8
i= ver. 16 only.
see ch. iii. 14
reff.
= here, Ne.
4 times.
1 w. peTd, Matt. xvii. 3. mpos, Lake iv. 36. dat.,
m =here only ¢. (Matt. xii. 14 al.) Prov.
och. x. 48 reff. p Mark xvi. 1. ch.
for ro, Tov H
for avtots, Touros CL 36: txt ABEHN p
12. cvpBovaov L18: avvedpiov C: cuved. x. cup B. 68.
was felt in the ody (no expression is more
frequently misunderstood and altered than
wey ody) and it was corrected into ydp.
This ei assumes the conviction after proof ;
as the following et does the acquittal.
ov. pe Suv. | Said of Jegal possibility : ‘non
fas est aliquem.....”’ The dilemma here
put by Paul is, “Jf I am guilty, it is not
by them, but by Caesar, that I must be
(and am willing to be) tried, sentenced,
and punished. If Tam innocent, and Cesar
acquits me, then clearly none will be em-
powered to give me up to them: therefore,
at all events, guilty or innocent, I am not
to be made their victim.” Kato.
émuxad.| I call upon, i.e. appeal to (pro-
voco ad) Cesar. This power (of ‘ provo-
catio ad populum’) having existed in very
early times (e. g. the case of Horatius, Livy
i. 26), was ensured to Roman citizens by
the Lex Valeria (see Livy ii. 8, U.c. 245),
suspended by the Decemviri, but solemnly
re-established after their deposition (Liv.
lil. 55, U.c. 305), when it was decreed that
it should be unlawful to make any magis-
trate from whom there did not lie an ap-
peal. When the emperors absorbed the
power of the populus and the tribunitial
veto in themselves, the ‘ provocatio ad po-
pulum?’ and ‘ appellatio ad tribunos’ were
both made to the princeps. See Smith’s
Dict. of Antt. art. Appellatio. In Pliny’s
celebrated Epistle respecting the Bithynian
Christians (x. 97), we read, “ Fuerunt alii
similis amentize: quos, quia cives Romani
erant, adnotavi in urbem remittendos.”
12. cupBovdiov| The ‘conventus,’ or
cvvodos of citizens in the provinces, assem-
bled to try causes on the ayopator (jjuepar),
see ch. xix. 88. A certain number of these
were chosen as judices, for the particular
causes, by the proconsul, and these were
called his ‘ consiliarii’ (Suet. Tib. 33), or
‘assessores’ (mdpedpa, Suet. Galb. 19).
So in Jos. (B. J. ii. 16. 1), Cestius, on re-
ceiving an application from Jerusalem re-
specting the conduct of Florus, pera 7ye-
pedvay éBovdrcvero, i. e. with his assessors,
or cupBotvAwov. He consulted them to
decide whether the appeal was to be con-
ceded, or if conceded, to be at once acted
on. (Mr. Lewin cites from the Digests,
xlix. 5. 7: ‘Si res dilationem non recipiat,
non permittitur appellare.’) The sense
is stronger and better without a question at
EMWLKEKAN OAL. Thus were the two—the
design of Paul (ch. xix. 21), and the promise
of our Lord to him (ch. xxiii. 11)—brought
to their fulfilment, by a combination of
providential circumstances. We can hardly
say, with De W. and Meyer, that these
must have influenced Paul in making his
appeal; that step is naturally accounted
for, and was rendered necessary by the
difficulties which now beset him; but we
may be sure that the prospect at length,
after his long and tedious imprisonment, of
seeing Rome, must at this time have cheered
him, and caused him to hear the ém) Kai-
capa mopevon of Festus with no small
emotion. 13.) Herop Acrippa II.,
son of the Herod of ch. xii. (see note on
ver. 1 there), was at Rome, and seventeen
only, when his father died (Jos. Antt. xix.
9. 1). Claudius (ib. 9. 2) was about to
send him to succeed to the kingdom, but
was dissuaded by his freedmen and fa-
vourites, and sent Cuspius Fadus as procu-
rator instead. Soon after, Claudius gave
him the principality of Chalcis, which had
been held by his uncle Herod (Antt. xx.
5. 2),—the presidency of the temple at Je-
rusalem and its treasures (Antt. xx. 1. 3),
—and the appointment of the High Priest.
Some years after the same emperor added
to his jurisdiction the former tetrarchy of
Philip, and Batanza, Trachonitis, and Abi-
lene (Antt. xx. 7.1), with the title of King
(B. J.ii. 12. 8). Nero afterwards annexed
Tiberias, Tarichea, Julias, and fourteen
272
q ch. xvi. 1 reff.
rch. xviii. 22.
XXi. 7. , ‘ ~
OOMEVOL TOV Pyorov.
TIPASZ EIS AMOSTOAQN.
XXYV.
otAkeve Kal Bepvikn Txatnvtnsay etc Katcaoeay " Goma-
4 c As , e / CS ,
we 6: * wAsioug nuéoag * dérerBov
Exod. xviii.
ise , ~~ ~ ~ - > ‘ ‘ A ~
echt are Exeto Dyatog tw BactrE " avéeOero ‘ra ‘ Kara tov MavAov,
u Gal. ii. 2 t ’ , , \ w , t.8 fy
only. 2Mace. lag Aynp tic early karaXeAsippevoc u7o DnAtkoe
ni. Yt. \ ’ c ,
ee a * SEoptoc, 15 " wept ov * yevouévov pov * sc Iepoaod una
w ch, xxiv. 27. b
x eh. xi. 35, * Evepavioay ol ap XtepEic Kal ot T peo [UT Epot TOV ‘lov-
re
eet ae Salwy, airoomevor Kat avurov “ karadicny’ 18 ™poc ovc
z=ch. 16
2 a oe derexpiOny 6 ort ovK eorw *Z0oc Pwmatore * Xapizesbat Tia
ach. xxiii. 15 h h
ren.
pen. te.§ avOowzov mow nO Regi opouperon) ward mpocwnoy
¢ ch. xii. 20 reff, ex ou rouc ' Katnyopoue, toTov te ‘amoXoyiac AaBor
ver. 3.
d here only t. Us xii. 27 only. €®lian, Var. Hist. v.18. Herodian, vii. 4. e = John xix. 40. Heb. x.
25. (ch. vi. 14 reff.) f= ver. 11. g absol., ch. xxiv. 2 reff. pass., ch. xxii. 30 reff. h 2 Cor,
x. 1 reff. ich. xxiii. 30 reff. k = Rom. xv. 23. Heb. viii. 7. xii. 17. Wisd. xii. 10.
1 ch. xxii. 1. 1 Cor. ix. 8, 2 Cor. vii.l1. Phil. i.7,16. 2Tim.iv. 16. 1 Pet. iii.15 only t. Wisd. vi. 10 only.
18. om twwy ce k 1. 36. 137 syrr Chr:
tpiwy 3. 95. 108.
Bepevixn C? arm:
Bepnvixn (appy) C!, but ver 28, C has Bepovixns, and so here E-lat demid tol Cassiod.
arTacamevor AEHLN copt eth Thl-sif: txt B p rel 36 vulg E-latt syrr Chr Thl-
fin Ge. (C is uncertain.)
14. dverp:Pey HAf gk] weth-rom Thl-sif Hec-ed.
15. evepario@yoay B'(Mai).
aft evepavioay ins wot B-gr vule arm.
rec
diknu (see note), with EHL p rel 36 Chr Thl He: txt ABCN 13.40 Bas, damnationem
vulg.
16. ru C 0 27. 29. 105 Bas.
Syr svr-w-ast Chr Thl (Kc :
rec aft av@pwroy ins ers atwAeay, with HL rel 36
om ABCEX ¢ p 13. 40 am fuld coptt arm Ath Thdrt Bas
Acta-chaleed ; damnare [= xapiC... es amwdeiay | vulg-ed: donare am fuld.
exot bef kata mposwmov &.
neighbouring villages to his kingdom (Antt.
xx. 8.4). He built a large palace at Jeru-
salem (ib. 8. 11); but offended the Jews
by constructing it so as to overlook the
temple (ib.), and by his capricious changes
in the high priesthood,—and was not much
esteemed by them (B.J.ii. 17.1). When
the last war broke out, he attached himself
throughout to the Romans. He died in
the third year of Trajan, and fifty-first
of his reign, aged about seventy (Winer,
RWB.). Bepvixy | The Macedonian
form (Bepevixn or Bepovlen) for Pepevixn.
She was the eldest daughter of Herod
Agrippa I., and first married to her uncle
Herod, prince of Chalcis (Antt. xix. 5. 1).
After his death she lived with Agrippa her
brother, but not without suspicion (puns
emaxvobons, ( 671 7G GdEAPS ovv7er, Antt.
xx. 7.3; see also Juv. Sat. vi. 156 ff.) ; in
consequence of which (o§tws yap éAéykew
@eTo Wevders Tas SiaBoAds, Antt. ib.) she
married Polemo, king of Cilicia. The mar-
riage was, however, soon dissolved (ib.),
and she returned to her brother. She was
afterwards the mistress of Vespasian (Tac.
Hist. ii. 81), and of Titus (Suet. Tit. 7;
Winer, RWB.). agotagdépevor| on
his accession to the procuratorship, to gain
for te, 5¢ B E-gr.
his favour. 14. avéBero| laid be-
fore, so reff. He did this, not only because
Agrippa was a Jew, but because he was
(see above) governor of the temple.
15.| It seems more probable that the un-
usual word karadixn should have been
changed to dfkny, especially as katd pre-
cedes, than the converse. Luke never uses
din, except as personified, ch. xxviii. 4;
andin the only two places besides where it
occurs in the N. T. (2 Thess.i.9; Jude 7),
it has the sense of condemnation or punish-
ment ; and in neither place is there any
various reading. 16. xapifec8ar| The
words inserted i in the ree., eis améAciav,
are a correct supplement of the sense ;
to give up, i.e. to his enemies, and for
destruction. DeW. remarks, that the con-
struction of rpfy with an opt. without &y,
is only found here in the N. T. (not that
it occurs with &v). Hermann, on Viger,
p- 442, restricts the opt. with zplyv 4 to
cases where ‘res narratur ut cogitatio ali-
cujus : > so Paus., wh ™ por Epov gavat (n-
TOUTE envooew “mply fof kal ev >Axkpo-
KoplvOw yévoiro bSwp. On the practice
of the Romans, here nobly and truly al-
leged, see citations in Grot. and Wetst.
in loc. totov| This use of rdos
ABCE
HLN ab
cdfg
klmo
p 13
14—21.
\ CIP aL Ld
Twept TOU eyKAnparoc.
TIPAZEIS AMOZTOAQN.
, F > ~
17 ® GyveAO6vtwy ovv [avr
273
m ch. xxiii. 29
only t.
n=ch. i. 6 reff.
Oo? , > ‘ ’ , - (vn
evade P avaf3oAnv pnoemtav TOLMOaMEVOC, q TY) q e&ne och. xvi. 28
S cabioa eT TOU : Bn ato ; EX T On y Su 8 . = here only t.
S t np c EKeAgvoa ay UHVal TOY avooa (Neh. v. 13)
+ \ cd c , »
18 EOL OU Soraévrec ot “KaTnyooou ovoEguiay “ aitlav “Epepov
-
€
Fe ty, , , 19
wy eyw “ umevoouv [ rovnoav],
ee Lou ¥3 8 ' A Z ‘ Il ee \ ,
Tne Lolac ’ detatOatmoviac ELyov “TPO aUTOV, Kal TEPL TLVOE
, ~ , a a’ e - oS
Incov teOvnkoroc, ov “ Epackev O TlavAoe Cav.
avaBoXiy
tov deivou
érowjoatoy,
Thucyd. ii.
42, (-Bad-
Aeobar, ch.
> XXiv. 22.
20 b aTO- ach. pon OS
r ver. 6 (reff.).
sch, xi. 13 reff.
* (nrnuata o& Tiva TEL
, Were S ’ \ dy? a
OPOUMEVOC Oe Eyw hi etc | THY TEOL rourwy *Cntno, © eA eyo ae ary
’ Sue =
°t BovAotro Topevecbat etc Ieooco\ uma kaket ' KplveoOat
21 tov dé TavAov © extkaAecapévov
\ ,
TWEept TOUTWY.
(ae SN i a ‘ ~ k | , Bish
nvat auTOv é&l¢ THY TOU o<acrou duayvwow, EkéAEvoa
u = Matt.
XXVii. 37 al.
ini Gente 13.
~ v=John xviii.
TNON- 29, 2 Pet. ii.
11 only. see
ver. 7.
w ch. xiii. 25
x ioO One ae : 170 ne Kat reff.
TnoEtoVat auToV Ewe OV avaTtéupw avrov To0g Katoapa. . ch xy. 2 reff.
y here only +. = Jos. Antt. xix. 5. 3. (-ner, ch, xvii. 22.)
Luke xxiv.4. John xiii. 22. 2Cor.iv. 8. Gal. iv. 20 only.
xxiv. 9 reff. b Mark vi. 20 v. r.
Gen. xxxii. 7. w. €/8, here only. see Matthiz, § 578.
d=1Tim. vi. 4. 2 Tim. ii. 23. Tit. iii. 9 (John iii. 25. ch. xv. 2.
g ver. il.
1 here only t.
15 (Philem. 11) onlyt. Polyb.i. 7.12.
here only. f ver. 9.
k = ver. 25 onlyt. seech. xxvii. 1.
XXiv. 22.) m = Luke xxiii. 7 (11),
z= ch. xxiv. 19 reff. ach,
c = Rom. iv. 20.
1 Tim. i. 4) only t. e constr.,
heh. xii. 5, 6 reff. i 2 Pet. ii. 4.
Wisd. iii. 18 only. (-yevwonecv, ch. xxiii. 15.
(-pia, Luke xxi. 25.)
17. ree ins avtwy, with AEHLX p 13(sic) rel Chr Thl Ec: om B 40. 42. 57. 81. 951.
97: evOade bef avtwy C c (187).
18. rec emepepoy, with H rel Chr Thl (ec:
ree vrevoovv bef eyw, with EHL rel 36 Chr Thl-sif (Ec: txt ABC
rec om 7rovnpay, with HL rel Chr Thl-sif ic: ins wovepwv
movnpa C2X!; moynpias arm ; movnpay AC! eckm 18(sic) 36.
36. 40. 137.
m p 13 vulg Thl-fin.
BEN? p; malum vulg ;
40. 137 am(malam) syrr copt «th Thl-fin.
19. for avroy, avtous A.
undeutav bef avaBodny KE k.
momoamevorN!,
umepepov 80 lect-5: txt ABCELN ¢ p 13.
for epackev, edeyev © 137.
90. rec ins es, with CE rel: om ABHN bdfhklop Thl-sif (ie.—om rept ¢ m
137: aft wep: ins thy h k.
mopeverOa, Kpivet Oar R!.
36. 137 Thl-fin. KpOnvar I.
Q1. for rnpnOnvar, TnpertOa C.
meupw (neglect of force of compound), with HL rel Chr:
40. 137 Thl-fin.
as the Lat. ‘locus,’ is not found in good
Greek. 18. wept ov ora. | See ver. 7:
BE. V., ‘against whom,’ supposing mept oo
to refer to [é ]épepov, iswrong. The word
movnpdvy or movnpav, added in the best
MSS. at the end of this verse, looks very
like a gloss to explain dy or aitlay, and
this suspicion is strengthened by the varia-
tions in its form and place. ‘ Hine iterum
conjicere licet, imo aperte cognoscere, adeo
futiles fuisse calumnias ut in judicii ra-
tionem venire non debuerint, perinde ac si
quis convicium temere jactet.’ Calv.
19.] SerotSaip.. is used by Festus ina middle
sense, certainly not as = ‘ superstition,
BE. V., speaking as he was to Agrippa, a
Jew. 20.| See the real reason why
he proposed this, ver. 9. This he now
conceals, and alleges his modesty in re-
ferring such matters to the judgment of
the Jews themselves. ‘This would be pleas-
Vou. IL.
avrov bef rnpeoOa ¢ 13. 68. 137.
rec toutov (corrn to suit mavdos, OY ingou ?), with H
rel Chr, : txt ABCELX chk mp 13. 36. 40 Syr copt «th Chr, Thl-fin.
ree tepovoaAnm, With L 13 rel: txt ABCEHX ck m p
for
rec
txt ABCEN ck m p 18. 36.
ing to his guest Agrippa. atrop. eis |
so oy 8 eis TA wnTpds ph poBod vuuev-
nara, Soph. (Ed. Tyr. 980; and aupivo@
és tépas, Antig. 372. éXeyov| There
is a mixed construction between ‘ J said,
wilt thou? as in ver. 9, and ‘I asked him
whether he would ...2 21.] typn-
OAvat is not for eis 7d Typ. (as Grot. and
De W.), but follows directly on émixadeoa-
pévov. The construction is again a mixed
one between ‘ appealing so as to be kept,’
and ‘ demanding to be kept. ocBac-
rov | ‘This title, = Augustus, was first con-
ferred by the senate on Octavianus (airds
vyevdmevos apxn ceBac mov kal Tots €meiTa,
Philo de Legat. ad Caium, 21, vol. ii. p.
566), and borne by all succeeding emperors.
Dio Cassius (liii. 16) says: AtyouvoTos, ws
kal wAciéy TL KaTa avOparous wy, érexA7On.
ndvra yap Ta evtmdtata Kal Ta iepotara
avyovota mposaryopeverat, ef oumep Kab
al
ut
274
nimperf., =
Rom. ix. 3.
(ch. xxii. 22.)
Gal. iv. 20.
see Winer,
Eee: 6, § 41.
TOU avOowmou akoveat.
a.
ol Gor. xv. 32
pee Bepvixne *
poh. x. 9 reff.
= ch. v. 26,
xxvii 10 al.
fr. 1 Mace.
ix, 37.
r here only t.
Hab. ii. 18,
19. Zech. x.
1. Wisd.
Xviii. 17 only.
= Polyb.i
37.5 al.
s here only t.
(-77°, Rom. OL ty TE
ii. 12.) ut
t here only tf.
w Rom. viii. 26, 34. xi. 2.
EC TO
"2 xOn 0 MavAoc.
Job xxxix. 28 only, u ver. 6.
22. ree aft @noroy ins epy, with CEHL p rel 36:
ree ins o de bef avpiov, with CEHL p 138 rel (36) :
written and rubbed out by N?3.)
TIPAZ EIS AIOSTOAQN.
22° ‘Aypiniac 6: TOC tov Diarov
pera moAXng
ToUroV mEpl ov amav TO mAnBoe TwY ‘Loveatwy ~
Heb. vii. 25 only t. 2 Macc. iv. 36 al.
only t. Wisd. xiv. lonly. Weovs emeBowpevor, Thucyd. iii. 59. Polyb. xviii 8.1.
XXV. 22—27.
A A
“EBoudopny Kal avto¢c
° Avotoy gnaw axoucy avrov.
23 PT, ouv P emabptoy ehBovroc TOU “Ayotrma Kal THe
* havtaciac Kal aice\Dovrwy
* aKooaTnowov coy TE XArapxore Kal avdpaow Toc
Kar oxy Tne ToAEwe, Kal KEAEVGaYTOG Tov Pyotou
9 € ~ 2 ’
4 Kal pnow Oo Pnoroc Ayotrma
aad kat mayrec ol " oupmapavres ny avdoee, Oewpetre
everuy ov
‘TepoooAdpore Kal’ * evbabe [2 éwt|Bowvrec un ) Set
Prov. viii. 27.
Xvi. 28 reff.
Bog, ch. viii. 7 reff.
Wisd. ix. 10 only.
v here only.
y here
x ch.
emev a: om ABN 13 am. (er was
om ABR vulg copt. (Zhe account of both these insertions I take to have been, that as
the words stood, aypimmas appeared to be the subj of pnow,—and edn and o be were
inserted to distinguish the speakers.)
23. evseA@ovTos BK. akpwTnpiov X'.
of omg art aft a preposition not being recognized), with HL rel 36 Chr :
ree aft kat’ efoxny ins ovat (supplementary interpoln), with
p 13. 49 Chr-comm.
24. [aray, so ABCELN ck p 18. 36. 40. 187 Thl-fin. |
syr-marg has wt traderem eum tis ad tormentum sine defensione.
tradere eum propter mandala que habemus ab Augusto.
turus esset, dicebam ut sequeretur me in Casaream, ubi custodiebatur.
ck p 13. 40. 137.
EHL rel 86: om ABCN
venissent, clamaverunt ut tolleretur e vita.
vissem, comperi quod in nullo reus esset mortis.
Cesarem appellavit.
cum iis Hierosolyme ?
ocBaoroy avtoy Kal EAAnviCovTés THs,
step twa oentdév, amd Tod oc BalerOat,
mposeitrov. On dvaréuvw, Bornemann
cites Lucian, Tox. § 17: 6 5€ BaowWe? 7G
peydAw dvaméure: avTdv. 22. | éBou-
Adpyv does not (as Calv.) imply any former
wish of Agrippa to hear Paul. It is, as
Meyer explains it, a modest way of express-
ing a wish, formed in this case while the
procurator was speaking, but spoken of by
Agrippa as if now past by, and therefore
not pressed. We say somewhat similarly,
‘Iwas wishing’ See ref. Rom. and note
there. Cf. Aristoph. Av. 1027: éxxAn-
cidoa 8 oby ededuny otkot wévwy : and see
other examples in Bernhardy, Syntax,
p- 373 ff. Agrippa, as a Jew, is anxious
to hear Paul’s defence, as a matter of na-
tional interest. The procurator’s ready
consent is explained, ver. 26. 23. |
davtagia is of frequent use in this sense
in Polybius and later Greek writers. He-
rodotus uses the verb gavrd(ec@a for
‘superbire, vii. 201: dpds ws Ta dmep-
éxovta (aa Kkepavvot 6 beds, 008 CG pav-
Ta(ec0a. See Wetst., who finely remarks
on the words, ‘In eadem urbe, in qua
rec ins Tous bef xiAtapxors (the usage
om ABCEN
evetuvxev B 25. 40.
Non potui autem
Si autem quis ewm accusa-
Qui quum
Quum autem hanc et alteram partem audi-
Quum autem dicerem: Vis judicari
De quo nihil certum scribere domino meo
pater ipsorum a vermibus corrosus ob su-
perbiam perierat.’ a&kpoatyptov | after
the Latin ‘ auditorium :’ perhaps no fixed
hall of audience, but the chamber or saloon
set apart for this occasion. XUAudp-
xous| Jos. (B. J. iii. 4.
Titus’s army, says, mposeyévovto Se Kal
amd eciaapeies mevte (ometpa). These,
then, were the tribunes of the cohorts sta-
tioned at ECurone Stier remarks (Red.
der Apostel. i1. 397), “ Yet more and more
complete must the giving of the testimony
in these parts be, before the witness departs
for Rome. In Jerusalem, the long-suffering
of the Lord towards the rejectors of the
Gospel was now exhausted. In Antioch,
the residence of the Preses of Syria, the
new mother church of Jewish and Gentile
Christians was flourishing ; here, in Ceesa-
rea, the residence of the procurator, the
testimony which had begun in the house
‘of Cornelius the centurion, had now risen
upward, till it comes before this brilliant
assembly of all the local authorities, in the
presence of the last king of the Jews.”
24. Gwav To wX.] At “Jerusalem (ver. 1)
literally, by the popular voice (probably) of
2), speaking of
ABCE
HLN ab
edfgh
klmo
pls
AX VEE 1.
NPAZEIS AMOZSTOAQN.
> ~ ’ N
autoyv Cyv pcre 25 eyw os * careAaBouny ander 4 akiov 2 =e. v.13
, ‘\ a rg /
auTOv Qavarou TETOAY Eval,
X , s d , ev ,
KQGAEOGREVOU TOV ceBacrov, expwa TEMTEW.,
ef? , , ras , ? if
OU aopadée Tt yeaa TW KUOLwW OUK ne
Draw ~ Vv , 5
avrov os °rovrov © emt-
reff.
a =ch. xxiii.
29 reff.
25 me \ pees a
t etl.
f 3 ‘ i 2. 2k
W, io TPO e pe 19
r
re
& cy PO Sr, OA lied \ , ieee an ~ ~ elf.
yyayov si dear Ep UUwWDY Kal uadtora é77l GOV, Bactrev {eae
“Aypirma » OTwWe THC
ts ! , ~ fee ae
AVAKOLOEWC YEVOMEVNC m sXe rt & FL Or. viii
al.
, eo Fon 2 , ~ h ch. xxiii. 17
yoatw aXoyov yao pot Sox méumovra © OEo{ULOY . Ke. rel.
x ‘ A A 4 #, Lae a i=ch. xii
: P q ft.
fn Kat Tag KaT UuUTOU ~ aLTLag © onuaval. k ch, xxiii. 80
= é ir
XXVI..? “Ayoimmac oe 700¢ rov [lavAov épn T? Bree 1here onlyt.
/ / \ ~
TOETETAL ool TEPL OEAUTOVU Néyeuv.
(-vecv, ch, xxiv. § al.)
(Exod. vi. 12. Numb. vi. 12.
q ch. xi. 28 reff.
w. aor., ch. xxi. 39, 40 reff.
Onunyopycwv, Polyxa. iv. p. 3i7. (Wahl.)
habeo.
m see ch, iy. 14 reff.
Wisd. xi. 15 only.)
rand constr., ch. xxviii. 16.
s Matt. viii. 3 al.
ree ewiBowyTes, with CEHL rel: Bowyvtes ABN p.
5 ec iS 55 ae Hl
ae . Polyb.
tore o IlavAog © ek= 55, 8058.
n = here (2 Pet. ii. 12. Jude 10) onlyt.
och. xvi. 25, 27 reff. p ver. 18.
1 Cor. xiv. 34. 1 Tim.ii. 12. Xen. Cyr. viil. 4. 29.
Gen. xiv. 22. cvétecwe tH debicav ws
rec (ny bef avrov,
with HL rel Chr, Thi-sif @e: txt ABCEX a! bk mo p 18. 40 vulg Syr arm Chr-
comm, Thl-fin.
25. rec karadaBouevos and ins ka aft rempaxevai, with HL &'(but om kau) rel 36 syr
Th! (13 Thl-fin retain xav): txt ABCER® p 40 vulg syr copt.
ree Oavatou bef
avrov (transp of characteristic order), with HLN rel 36 Chr: om avroy p 73 Chr:
avrov bef afiov g 68 arm Thl-fin: 6. mempaxevar bef avroy c 105. 137: txt ABCE 13.
40 am(and demid fuld tol) Thl Cc.
for tovtov, Tov mavdov B'(but mavAov has
dots placed over it by the original scribe, see table).
rec aft meumeiv ins avtov,
with EHL rel vss Chr Thl ic: om ABCEN p 13. 36. 40-vulg arm.
26. acparws C.
-corr!:5, kpicews Hi,
27. meurov7t L 37. 43. 133.
Cuap. XXVI. 1. emretperra: Li: emitetpartat beop 137 Thi-fin.
mposnyayov E-gr 116.17: ewnyay. A.
for oxw, exw AE p 137 Thi-fin.
with EHL rel 36 Chr: txt ABCX p 13 syr.
E vulg place uy aft arias.
om gov &!: ins
rec ypavat,
rec (for
mept) umep, With BL rel Chr: txt ACEHN ¢ p 13. 36.—Aadcw mept o. € 137. aft
some tumultuous outcry :—here, by their
deputation. 25. abtod Se rovTov | he
himself moreover. These reasons did really
coexist as influencing his determination.
Mr. Lewin cites, on ver. 12, Dig. xlix. 1.
16: ‘Constitutiones que de recipiendis,
necnon, appellationibus loquuntur, ut nihil
novi fiat, docum non habent in eorwm per-
sona quos damnatos statim puniri publici
interest, ut sunt insignes latrones, vel sedi-
tionwm concitatores, vel duces factionum,
26. dodadés | fixed, definite. The
whole matter had been hitherto obscured
by the exaggerations and fictions of the
Jews. 7@ Kupi | viz. Nero, Augustus
and Tiberius refused this title ; Caligula
and (apparently) all following bore it.
“Thus Tertullian, Apol. xxxiv. vol. i. p.
450: ‘ Augustus imperii formator ne domi-
num quidem dici se volebat ;? and Suet.
Aug. 53: ‘Dominum se appellari ne a
liberis quidem aut nepotibus vel serio vel
joco passus est ;? and Tib. 27: ‘Dominus
appellatus a quodam denuntiavit ne se
amplius contumelize causa nominaret.’
Caligula accepted the title, according to
Victor, ap. Eckhel, viii. 364. Herod
Agrippa had applied it to Claudius (Philo
ap. Spanheim. Numism. ii. 482); but it
was not a recognized title of any emperor
before Domitian. Suet. Dom. 13: ‘ Mar-
tial,—Edictum Domini Deique nostri’ ”
Mr. Humphry. ypayw has appa-
rently been altered to ypdyat to suit the
Tt ypdwor above. Olsh. remarks,
that now first was our Lord’s prophecy
Matt. x. 18, Mark xiii. 9 fulfilled. But
Meyer answers well, that we do not know
enough of the history of the other Apostles
to be able to say this with any certainty.
James the greater,and Peter, had in all pro-
bability stood before Agrippa I. See ch.
xii. 2, 3. XXVI. 1.] The stretching
out of the hand by a speaker was not, as
Hammond supposes, the same as the kara-
cele TH xeupt of ch. xii. 175 xiii. 16.
The latter was to ensure silence ; but this,
a formal attitude usual with orators. Apu-
leius, Met. ii. p. 54 (Meyer), describes it
very precisely: ‘Porrigit dextram et ad
2 .
276 TIPAZEIS AMOSTOAQN. XXVI.
< ’ ‘ ~ ,’ - ‘ , La
“joa TELVaC THY Xéloa ‘ aweAoyeiro 2 ITepi TUVTWY WY
h. xix. 38 - CF ae, ' ~? ’ ve
“rei €yKaAovpat vTO Tovdaiwy, Backed Aypinma, * nynpat
V=w2 Cor ix. , K , we _\ - , , C2
aa enavTOU fakaoloy ~ ETL GOV pnéd\wy onpEpOV a7roXo-
Job xiii. 6.
os 3 , x , y , ~ Zz ‘
w ch. xxiii. 30 yetsBat, padtora yvwoTnv OVTA OETAVTWY TWV KaTa
reff. ’ ' OF aed \b , ‘ U c
ee Tovdatove * eBay re Kat Cutnpatwv. 10 Sfopat flakpo-
iii. 3. , > ~ ! . \ % ecQ , .
=*hus42 OOpwE akovoal pov. 4 hy ey ouv © Biwaty juov [rnv]
ibecd: b d»? de , x ff 2 ,? -~ , > ~ 20
constr., ch. ; U J
yoonstrch, €K VEOTHTOC, TV amt apynNg yEvonevnyv ev TH EVVEL LOU
see Eph. iv. 5
2. iil. 17, 18.
Col. fii. 16 al.
Paul chiefly.
see Winer,
edn. 6, § 63. 2.
ot lee
15 reft. m » m ~- \ ~ pb? % 2 ’ ~ ’ ‘
a ch. Ni. 14 ref. eCynoa “ Papioatoc. 6 kat vuv “én éATioe THE ELE TOUC
ch, &V. en.
chereonly t. (-j1os, Exod. xxxiv. 6. -uia, Rom. ii.4. -pety, 1 Cor. xiii. 4.)
o e , g , “| 8 - h ,
év TE Ieooa0\ vote, lOadGlt TAaAVTEC OUOaLOL TOOYUWW-=
, i” rs , il ~ @ b ‘
GKOVTEC ME aAVWUSV, EaV 0éAwow MQPTUOELV, OTt KaTa
‘ j > 7 Neue ef = € , l ) et,
TIV akptPeorarny ALOEOLY TYC NMETEOAC OnokKElac
cc here only ¢. Prol. Sir.
only. Ps, xxxviii. 6 Symm. (-vvdv, 1 Pet. iv. 2.) d Mark x. 2u/|}L. Jer. xxii. 21. eas
above (d). 1 Tim. iv. 12 only. f Matt. xix. 4,8. Lukei.2al. Isa. xiii. 19. g Eph. v. 5.
Heb. xii. 17. James i. 19 only t. h = 2 Pet. iii. 17 only. (Kom. viii. 2y refi.) : _, 1= Lukei.
St. (Wisd. xix. 6.) ii —ch. xxii. 5. John iii. 28. jhere only. Sir. xviii. 29. xix. 25.
XXXIV. (KxXi.) 24. xxxv. (xxxii.) 30nly. (-Pé@s, ch. xviii. 25.) k ch. v. 17 reff. 1 James i.
26, 27. Col. ii. 18 only t.
m constr., here only.
ch. Xxili. 6, xxiv. 21.)
Wisd. xiv. 18, 27 only. (-kos, James i. 26. ~KEVeLy, Wisd. xi. 15. xiv. 16.)
n=ch.iv.9only. &ykAn@etoay émi pappuakeia, Diod. Sic. iv.55. (so wep,
mavAos ins memoOws Kat ev mVEevMaTL aryiw TapakAnders Syr-marg. rec amedoyetTo
bef ext. thy xeipa, with HL rel syr Chr Thl-sif He: txt ABCEN k m p 13. 40 vulg
Syr copt arm Thl-fin.—ras xe:pas ¢ 137.
2. for wept mavtwy to (ytnuatwy, 137 has wept mavrwy Tay Kata tovdaiovs €Ovn TE
Kat (nTNMaTwy emioTapevos. rec meAAwy aoAoyetoOat emt cov onuepoy (simplifn
of order), with (none of our mss) Zc: txt ABCEHLX p 18 rel Chr Thl, but of these
EHLabedfghklo vulg syr Chr Thl-sif have aroAoy. bef onwepov.—for wedAwy,
BeAA@ p.
3. ce bef ovra CN! m? 73 Chr,: om ce 180. om tavtwy A 17. 25 copt eth.
tovéaiwy AE d f. nowy Huadfgm Thi-fin: eévay A 15. 27. 105.
aft (yTnuaTev ins emiorapevos ACN’ 13 (Be: aft wadsora (above), 15. 18. 36 Syr: aft
oe, 7: aft ce ins cldws 6. 29. rec aft Seoua: ins cov, with CHL rel Syr copt Chr:
om ABEX k p 13. 36. 40 vulg syrr eth arm.
4. rec ins tyv, with AC2ELN p 13 Chr: om BC!H m c.—rnv am apxns bef rv ex
veorntos HK. rec om Te (misapprehension), with CHL p 13. 36(sic) rel vulg Chr :
ins AB E-gr & 40 Syr. toaow CE: txt ABX rel. rec ins a bef 10vd. (more
usual exprn), with AC?HLX rel 36: txt BC'E dk m p 13 Chr-comm,.
5. mposyiwworortes OC}. om we ¢ 137.
6. rec (for es) mpos (corrn, see note), with CHL rel 36 Chr: txt ABE d p 13. 40.
instar oratorum conformat articulum, duo-
busque infimis conclusis digitis ceteros emi-
nentes porrigit.? The hand was chained—
ToiTwy T. decu., ver. 29. 2.| There
is no force in Meyer’s observation, that by
the omission of the art. before *lovdalwy,
Paul wishes to express that the charges
were made by some, not by all of the Jews.
That omission is the one so often overlooked
by the German critics (e. g. Stier also here),
after a preposition. See Middl. ch. vi. § 1,
and compare xat& *Iovdalous in the next
verse, of which the above cannot be said.
pé\Awv contains the ground of
fiynuat, im that I am to defend myself.
3. yv. dvta oe} Hor the construc-
tion see reff. ; and ef. Viger (ed. Hermann),
p. 337, where many examples are given—
e. g. Herod. vi. 109: év ool viv éorw }
KkatadovAdoa ~AOjvas, 7) éAcvOépas trot-
NoavTa pynudcuvoy AiwéoOat K.T.A.
4.) The pey ody takes up amrodoyeio@a :
q- d. ‘well, then, to begin my apology.’
5. axptBeotatyny | See ch. xxii. 3:
Kata akplBevay Tod maTpwov vduov. Jos.
(B. J. i. 5. 2) calls the Pharisees cdytayyd
Tt lovdalwy Soxotv ebacBéorepoy civ TOY
&AAwy, Kal Tovs véuous axpiBéaTepoy ap-
nyetoGat. The use of the term finds another
example in Eph. vy. 15, BAémere més
axpiB@s mepimatetre, which command it
illustrates. Opyokeia] 7 Aatpela SOev
kal ErepdOpnokos, Erepddokos. Suidas.
We have an instance here of afpeots used
in an indifferent sense. 6.] The rec.
text has apparently been corrected after
ABCE
HLN ab
edfgh
kimo
p 13
T xxvi.
ABCE
HILNa
bedfg
hkIlm
opls3
2—8.
o / Of a bd , / ee be *
Tareoac 1) UWY emayysAtac YEvVoMEVNC UuTO TOU Ocou
a P , if
EoTHKa KOWoOUEVOC,
be , s , exe , t me > ,
EKTEvEla VUKTAa Kat Hugoay §AaToEvov EATIZEL
A ? / U ~ ~
sat, TEpt No EATIOOC © EyKaAOUMAL VTO ‘Tovdatwy, Bactrkv.
8 y
tw x ,
TL aTLOTOV KOLVETQL
t Acts vii. 7 reff.
v ch. xix. 38 reff. see above (n).
Av obdév Gmoatov icws.
vi. 9.
TIPASEIS AMOSTOAQN.
200
och. v. 30 reff.
p ch. xxiii. 6
> «A ‘ , c ~ ’ reff.
ét¢ NV TO 4 dwoexadurov YU@V EV qikeretontett
r here only t.
Judith iv. 9
~
“ KaTavry-
bis. 2 Macc.
xiv. 38 only.
(-vijs, 1 Pet.
a) oe 2 td Eas a” dyeliaiae:
Tap vuw “eo Oeoc VEKOOUC 1 Pei. i, 22)
sch. xx. 3! reff.
u = Paul (1 Cor. x. ll. xiv. 36. Eph.iv.13. Phil. iii. 11) only. (ch. xvi. 1 reff.)
w = here only (1 Cor. vi. 6 al.) t. Ds
x = ch. xiii. 46 reff.
z Rom. viii. 13, 17. Col. iii. 1.
Demosth., p. 15, ult., Kat wae
y = Matt. vi.1. Rom. ii.13. Eph.
rec om nuwy, with HL 13 Thi-sif ce: ins ABCEX bc d mo p 36. 40. 137 vulg
syrr copt eth arm Chr Thl-fin.
7. Aatpevwy H 73.
our mss): om ABCEHILX® rel.
katravtnoew B.
rec aft BaciAev ins aypirma, with HL rel 40 syrr:
om tov Ll. 142.
rec ins twy bef tovdaiwy (with none of
om BCEIRX p 13 vulg Chron Thl-sif.—ree Bac. ayp. bef vo [rwy] tovdawv, with HL
rel syr Chr: om BaotAev [aypimma] A 18. 36; BaciAev (with or without ayp.) aft uo
tovd. BCEIN a? dk m p 13. 40 vulg Syr eth Chron Thl-fin.
ch. xiii. 32; for there we have mpdés, and
no juav. The eis has its propriety here,
combining the ideas of address towards,
and of ethical relation to, its object: so
és & buds epo wvdov, Asch. Pers. 159:
Wdoyos és “EAAnvas péyas, Eur. Bacch. 778
(735): dnuokpatias Katiora cis Tas WéALAS,
Herod. vi. 43. See Bernhardy, Syntax, p.
217, where many more examples are given.
The promise spoken of is not that
of the resurrection merely, but that of a
Messiah and His kingdom, 2nvolving (ver.8)
the resurrection. This is evident from the
way in which he brings in the mention of
Jesus of Nazareth, and connects His exalta-
tion (ver. 18) with the universal preaching
of repentance and remission of sins. But
he hints merely at this hope, and does not
explain it fully; for Agrippa knew well
what was intended, and the mention of any
king but Cesar would have misled and pre-
judiced the Roman procurator. There is
great skill in binding on his former Phari-
saic life of orthodoxy (in externals), to his
now real and living defence of the hope of
Israel. But though he thus far identifies
them, he makes no concealment of the dif-
ference between them, ver. 9 ff. 7.
75 SwdexadvA.| The Jews in Judwa and
those of the dispersion also. See James i.
1. There was a difference between Paul
and the Jews, which lies beneath the sur-
face of this verse, but is yet not brought
out: he had already arrived at the accom-
plishment of this hope, to which they, with
all their sacrifices and zeal, were as yet only
earnestly tending, having it yet in the
future only (so Rom. x. 2: (ijAov Oeod
Zxovow, adArX od Kar’ émlyvwow). It
was concerning this hope (in what sense
appears not yet) that he was accused by the
Jews, The adverb éxtev@s and subst.
éxtévera are disapproved by the philolo-
gists, as belonging to later Greek, See
Lobeck on Phrynichus, p. 311. We have
the adj., isch. Suppl. 990: éxtevips
piros. 8.| Having impressed on his
hearers the injustice of this charge from
the Jews, with reference to his holding that
hope which they themselves held, he now
leaves much to be filled up, not giving a
confession of his own faith, but proceeding
as if it were well understood, ‘ You as-
sume rightly, that I mean by this hope, in
my own case, my believing it accomplished
in the crucified and risen Jesus of Naza-
reth” Then, this being acknowledged, he
goes on to shew how his own view became
so changed with regard to Jesus ; drawing,
by the wey ody (ver. 9), a contrast in some
respects between himself, who was super-
naturally brought to the faith, and them,
who yet could not refuse to believe that
God could and might raise the dead. All
this he mainly addresses to Agrippa (ver.
26), as being the best acquainted with the
circumstances, and, from his position, best
qualified to judge of them. It may be, as
Stier suggests, that if not open, yet prac-
tical Sadduceism had tainted the Herodian
family. Paul knew, at all events, how
generally the highly cultivated, and those
in power and wealth, despised and thought
&matov the doctrine of the resurrection.
ei... . éyeiper| not, as commonly
rendered, ‘ that God should raise the dead’
E. V.): but the question is far stronger
than this, if the conjunction be taken in its
literal meaning: why is it judged by you
a thing past belief, if God raises the
dead? i. e. ‘if God, in His exercise of
power, sees fit to raise the dead (the word
implying that such a fact has veritably
taken place), is it for you to refuse to be-
lieve it?” Compare the declaration of our
Lord, Luke xvi. 31: 008 édv tis ek vexpov
dvaoth meiOhoovra. We have many
instances of this use of ef: —Xen. Mem. i. 1.
278
ach. x. 40
reff.
b w. dat.,
«= here only.
® ENELOEL §
ag ig as
Avk® ot, 10 a
Xen. Hier. i. Oo Kal
6. see 1 Cor.
iii. 18 reff.
Herod. ii. 935
and exx. in
, t
8 eCousiay
Wetst. oy soewy
c= ch, xaiv- PX ? 11
19 reff. “
a2 Gi lax karhveyKa ‘agor,
XXVIII. .
| Thess.ii-19. TOAAaKIC ™ aaa avrove
Tit. ii. 8.
(Ezek. xviii. 4
ee TEpiaswe TE
e=ch. ix. J3 , od
retf. fic TAC "Ew mode.
f Luke iii, 20 ie So aavh 8
onty. cr.
ea anaokov LET
Gx) toy apytepéwy, |2¥
c 1X
8 hel & Dr. 26. Olas J
h ch. ii. 33 reff. ich. v. 33 reff.
(Rey. ii. 17 bis) onlyt. (Exod. iv. 25.)
v.17. (-pia, Heb, x. 29.)
p = Luke xxii. 65. 4 Kings xix. 4, 6, 22.
(Rom. iii. 1, 2 Cor. i. 12 ref.) r here only a
1 Mace, y. 22. t w. prep., ch. xxi. 5 reff.
12 reff. v ch. xxiv. 18 (v.r.).
x here only +. 2 Mace. xiii. 14 only. (-7os, Matt. xx. 8.)
vii. 36 al. Ezek. xtui. 2.
9. om pey B.
10. for o, 5:0 B.
ins de 36. 180: txt ACEIX p 13.
Chr :
E-lat syr copt Thl-fin. om autwy E.
11. om re B: Se E-gr copt.
TIPAZEIS AMOSTOAQN.
9 eyo piv ovv ° e0éa guauTw “
Incov rov Natwpaiou dciv woAXa
emoinaa ev TepoooAtpore, Kal moAhove TE TOV
* ayiew eyo év pudakate
tues
\m
Kal
* euparvopevoe avrois
12 v
, \
SCAUSERE Kal
o = ch. xxviii. 19.
ins tov bef ino. N1(N3 disapproving).
eroingay X'(but corrd).
XXXVI.
mpc TO Ovopma
KatékAtioa, THY Tapa TwV
avarpounévey TE auT@Dv
Kata Taoac Tag auVaywyac
viva yeaLov * Prac gnpe,
sediwKov ‘ ewe Kal
ev ote T ODEVOMEVOC ele THY
" emirpomne THe Tapa
neEoaC Y wéone * «ata THY odor ELOOV;
k —ch. xxv. 7 (xx. bis) only.
Gen. xxxvii. 2. 1 — here
m = ch. xzii. 19 refi. n ch, xxii. 5 only (Paul). Ezek.
Gal. ii. 3, 14t. (Prov. vi. 7 only.) 2 Mace. vi. 1 al.
q Matt. xxvii. 23. Mark x. 26. xv. 14 only. Ps. xxx. 23.
(-paviys, Wisd. xiv. 23.) s = Matt. xxiii. 34.
u=hereonly. 4 Kings xvi. 18. see 1 Cor. v.
w = Loke xxi. 27. Isa. xxxiii.17. Dan. vii. 13 Theod.
y here only. see Matt. xxv. 6. zch,
vaCopaou &.
ree om Ist te, with BHL rel:
rec om 2nd ev (as unnecessary), with H rel
ins ABCEILN bk mo p 13. 36. 40. 1387 vulg.
for 2nd re, d¢ H a? c 137
kaTnveykav &.
12. rec ins kat bef wopevomevos, with HI p(e sil Seriv) rel Syr Chr Thl-sif Gc: om
ABCEIR® ¢ p(Tischdf) 18. 36. 40 vulg copt «th arm Thl-fin.
o 187.
om tys 80 Thl-fin :
13. om jmepas X!.
13, COavpale de ef wh pavepdy adtots eotly:
ib. 18, dca 5& waves decay, Oavpacrdy
ei ph ToUTwY evebuunOnoay: ib. i. 2. 13,
eyo 8 ci pev Tt Kandy exelyw Thy wéAW
émonocatny ovK amoAoyioouat: on which
examples Hermann remarks, ad Viger.
p- 504, “in his locis omnibus rem non
dubiam et incertam indicat e?, sed plane
certam et perspicuam.” 9.| Hence-
forward he passes to dis own history,—how
he once refused, like them, to believe in
Jesus: and shews them both the process
of his conversion, and the ministry with
which he was entrusted to others.
pev ovv, well then, resuming the character
described vy. 4, 5. 10, 11.] This is
the diwwyuds wéyas of ch. viii. 1. We are
surprised here by the unexpected word
aylwy, which it might have been thought
he would have rather in this presence
avoided. But, as Stier remarks, it belongs
to the more confident tone of this speech,
which he delivers, not as a prisoner defend-
ing himself, but as one being heard before
those who were his audience, nol his judges.
Katyveyka Whdov can hardly be taken
JSiguratively, as many Commentators,
trying to escape from the inference that
om tyy Eabchk
om Ts mapa (as unnecessary) AKI 40 vulg syrr: om apa BN c p 137:
txt CHL 13 rel Chr Thl-sif dic.
for kata THy, KaTnu(sic) &.
the veavias Saul was a member of the
Sanhedrim; but must be understood as
testifying to this very fact, however
strange it may seem. He can _ hardly
have been Jess than thirty when sent on
his errand of persecution to Damascus.
The genitive is supposed by Elsner and
Kypke to be dependent on karhveyra;
but this is harsh, and it is better to take
(as most Commentators, and Meyer, and
De W.) it as absolute, and kathveyxa
as local, ‘ detuli sententiam ? when their
deaths were being compassed, I gave
in my vote (scil. against them, as in
ref.). On the fact, ef. cuvevdoxav 7H
avapéoe. avrod, ch. viii. 1. 11.
Tinwpa@v| viz. by scourging; compare
Matt. x. 17. qvayxafov does not imply
that any did blaspheme (Christ: so Pliny,
Ep. n. 97, speaks of ordering the Bithy-
nian Christians ‘maledicere Christo? and
adds, ‘quorum nihil cogi posse dicun-
tur qui sunt revera Christiani ’ *): the im-
perf. only relates the attempt. The per-
secuting the Christians even to foreign
cities, forms the transition to the narrative
following. 12. év ols} In which
things (being engaged). 18.] See
ABCE
d HILN a
évayTia moagat, coe fg
ae
9—16. TIPAZEIZ AMOZTOAQN. 279
~ a. 3 , 3 “ , = C8 .
Baorrev, ovoavolev 5 uTeo THY f Aapreotyta TOU HAtou a 17
‘ Aa a ; % aie eee, / bmn Cor. 1.8
TEOL apbav fe Pwo Kal TOVE GUV ELOL TOOEVOMEVOUE, al.
14 c here only.
Ps. IXXXix.
‘ 1 , ~ gt “AD h , Ss x pt ea xii.
porn Aéyousav ToUc Me TY EBoator deadékr@ Daovr atareii9
= ‘ ! i , - k , ‘ ] , onlyt.
Laovd, TUS ME OiwwKEtc 3 okAnoov got 7o0C KEyrpa ¢ Lake vil. 6.
ch. xxviii. 6
7 , € ~ ’ ‘ ~ w
Tavtwy Te © KaTaTEGOVTWY Nuwy etc THY ynv f Kova
m Ul ’ ‘ \ 3) ! cy , € \ , ‘i
ANaxriZev. 1 Kyw oe elma Tic cl, KUOLES O 8 KUPLOC exw, Pa
= ? on eo ? ~ a Seg , ? 16 > Nn te f constr, ch. ix.
eurev Eye expe Incovc ov ov * dtwxetc. adAa ” ava- oe
- Xi. .
ornOe Kat °arnfe ° etl Tove mOdac cov" ” Etg TOUTO yao Mar en
q és A) — Ty r i i. 9 , Ske , et s i ae
pun t, MPOXEIPloaoVal GE UVTNOETHY KAt MAOTVOT | ref a
xxv. 24. John vi. 60. James iii. 4. Jude 15)only. Gen, xxi. 12. 11 Cor. xv. 55
(fecm Hos. xiii. 14), 56. Rev. ix. 10 only. m here only+. (aaoXak., Deut. xxxii. 15.)
n ch. ix. 6 reff. o Rev. xi. JJ. Ezek. ii. 1. p Mark i. 3S. ch. ix. 21 al.
ii. 3 reli, rch. iii. 20. xxii. 14 (ref.) only. s = ch. iii. 5 refi.
14. ree de (altern of characteristic tT), with HL rel copt Chr: txt ABEIN c p 13.
36. 40. 137 vulg syrr Thl-fin. om juwy Bd. aft ynyv ins dia Tov poBov eyw
povos 137, simly syr-marg. rec (for Aeyoucay mpos me) AaAovogay mpos me Kat
Aeyoucar, with L rel wth Chr Thl-sif Hc: om 13: so also, omg kat Aeyovcav, H bo:
pevns heyovons mpos we Em: txt ABCEIN p 36. 40 syrr arm, vocem loquentem ad me
E-lat, simly vulg. (The shorter reading rey. mp. me may perhaps have been adopted
Srom ch ix. 4, xxii. 7, or, as also Aad. mp. we, to avoid what seemed, but is not, a
tautology; Aad. and rey. not being equivalent.)
15. om de L. Lema, so ABCEHRN k 1 p Thi-fin. ] rec om kupios, with H
rel eth-pl Chr Thl-sif @e: ins ABCEILN k m p 36 vulg syrr copt arm Thl-fin. (13
def.) aft exev ins mpos we E Syr copt exth-pl. aft ino. ins o va¢wpaos 40.
qe
t ch. x. 39 rei.
137, 0 va€apnvos Syr syr-w-ast.
notes on ch. ix. 3—8, where I have treated
of the discrepancies, real or only apparent,
between the three accounts of Saul’s con-
version, See also ch. xxii. 6—10.
14. rq ‘EBp. S:aA.] These words are ex-
pressed here only. In ch. ix. (see note)
we have the fact remarkably preserved
by the Hebrew form Zaova ; in ch. xxii.
he was speaking in Hebrew (Syro-Chald.),
and the notice was not required. {Beware
again of the supposed emphatic ue of Dr.
Wordsworth. j oK\np. go. mp. «. A. |
This is found here only; in ch. ix. the
words are spurious, having been inserted
from this place. The metaphor is derived
from oxen at plough or drawing a burden,
who, on being pricked with the goad, kick
against it, and so cause it to pierce deeper.
(See Schol. on Pind. 1. ec. below.) It
is a Greek, and not (apparently) a Hebrew
proverb; but this is no reason why it
should not be used in Hebrew, just as
it is in Latin. Instances of its use are
Pind. Pyth. ii. 173: xph 5& apds Oedy
ovx épiley. . . . pepe F eAappas emav-
xeviov AaBdvta Cuydy aphyet. moTl Keév-
tpov d€ Tor AaKTiCemevy TEACEL GALTONpds
oluos. Aaschyl. Agam. 1633: apbs Kév-
Tpa my AdKTiCe, uh mHoas woyhis. Eurip.
Bacch. 791 : @uuodmevos mpds Kevtpa AakTi-
Cot, Ovntds dv Oeg. See also Asch.
Prom. 323, and other examples in Wetst. ;
Plautus (Truc. iv. 2. 59); and Terence,
Phorm. i. 2. 27: ‘Nam que inscitia est,
advorsum stimulum calces ?” 15—
18.] There can be no question that Paul
here condenses into one, various sayings
of our Lord to him at different times, in
visions, see ch. xxii. 18—21; and by
Ananias, ch. ix. 15; see also ch. xxii. 15,
16. Nor can this, on the strictest view,
be considered any deviation from truth.
It is what all must more or less do who
are abridging a narrative, or giving the
general sense of things said at various
times. There were reasons for its being
minute and particular in the details of
his conversion; that once related, the
commission which he thereupon received is
not followed into ifs details, but swmmed
up as committed to him by the Lord him-
self. It would be not only irreverent, but
false, to imagine that he put his own
thoughts into the mouth of our Lord ; but
I do not see, with Stier, the necessity of
maintaining that all these words were ac-
tually spoken to him at some time by the
Lord. The message delivered by Ananias
certainly furnished some of them ; and the
unmistakeable utterings of God’s Spirit
(rd mvedpa “Inood, ch. xvi. 7) which su-
pernaturally led him, may have furnished
more, all within the limits of truth.
16.] eis todro refers to what follows,
mpoxeip. &c.,—yap gives the reason for
avaorrne:, &e. (Meyer.) ™poxetp. |
280 TIPAZEIS AIOSTOAQN. AVI:
7 5 7 , , , v? , ,
Sa eae EE elocc “wy te % opOnoopat ool, uf eEatpoupevoc Page
y = ch. vii. 10 , - ~ \ , - , _ , a ’ ‘ a a
‘le. Ge «€K TOV Aaov Kal EK TWY EYwWY, ELC OVE eYW * aro- bed fa
> ~ , A ,’ ~ ~ bd /
18 GvotEat opParpode avrar, * tov %’ emtatpepar oP 1
reff.
w constr., Mark
iii. 14. 1 Cor. 4
i 17. 4Kings oté\ Aw GE
ix: 16; > ‘ 7, ’ ~ \ ~ b? , a ~
chv.21. 2 aro *okotouvc tc “pwo Kat THC eSovciac Tov catrava
x 1 Cor. x. 18 eR . ? = = s 9 aes ye = \
ref. ext tov Ocov, * rov Aafsew avrove * apeaty © auapriwy Kat
y ae 15 4 : ;
3 ~ ’ ~ e s
aver 2oret. °° KANOOY EV TOLC “ NYytacpEVOLC ae
fou faa? Bs Ad
WioTee «TY ELC EME. 5
al Pet. ii. 9. i ae , > ’ , h? ‘ -
Eph. v. 8. 19 ¢ 2% + OT
pete ober, Paordev Ene OUK eyevouny ‘arr eOnc oe
iis.” ‘oupaviw — omtacia, “ adda rote ev Aapackw mpwrov te Gap
ech, y. 31 reff.
dch. i. 17 reff. esee ch, xx. 32. Eph.i. 18.
Heb. ii. 17. iii. 1. vii. 25. viii.3. ix. 18. xi. 19. Jadith viii. 20.
Loke ii. 13. (Matt. v. 48. vi. 14, 26, 32. xv. 13. xxiii. ¥ only.
Dan. iy. 28 (26) Theod. k 2 Cor. xii. 1 reff.
f ch. xxiv. £4 reff. g — Matt. xiv.7, LXab
h Rom. i. 13 reff. ifem. cdfgh
Esdr. vi. 15. 2 Mace. vii. 34 F. ix. 10 only.) kl mo
p 1s
16. om ka arbi BI. mpoxepacbat A. aft e:des ins we BC(appy) 137 syr
Ambr Aug. for cot, ce R?.
17. rec om 2nd ex, with CHL rel 36 vulg E-lat Chr Thl-sif ec: ins ABEIN k 1 p
13. 40 fuld Thl-fin. rec for eyw, vuy (marginal gloss, which has overborne the
ey), with (none of our mss) Ee: omceSyr: vulg Thl-fin have both: txt ABCEHILN
relsyr copt «th-pl arm Chr Thl-sif Aug. rec oe bef amooreAAw, with HL rel copt
Chr ec: txt ABCEIN ¢ df k m p 18 vulg syrr eth-pl Thl.—amocreAw Hlacdgk
demid copt Thl-sif: efarocreAAw C m p 138. 36 Thi-fin.
18. for avtwy, tupAwy EI tol Aug.
(see ch xx. 32) E.
See reff. paptupa ov Te eldes | Stier
remarks, that Paul was the witness of the
glory of Christ : whereas Peter, the first of
the former twelve, describes himself (1 Pet.
v. 1) as ‘a witness of the sufferings of
Christ, and a partaker of the glory that
shall be revealed. So true it was that this
éxtpwua among the Apostles, became, by
divine grace, more than they all (1 Cor. xv.
8—10). The expression tanperny av
eides may be compared with brnpéra tod
Adyov, which Luke calls the airérrat,
Luke i. 2. dv te dpOyoopal cor |
(1) 6p8. must be passive, not (as Borne-
mann, Winer [not in edn. 6, § 39. 3,
note 1], Wahl, al.) causative (‘videre
faciam ’),—but as E. V., I will appear
unto thee. (2) the gen. is exactly paral-
leled (Mever) by Soph. (d. Tyr. 788,
dv wey ikouny = tottwy (rather éxelvwr)
b0 & ikdunv. So here dv = tottwy
(€xelvwv) dC & 606., the things in (or on
account of) which I will appear to thee.
That such visions did take place, we know,
from ch. xviii. 9; xxii. 18; xxiii. 11; 2 Cor.
xii. 1; Gal. i. 12. 17. éEatpovpevds ce |
delivering thee from, as E. V.: not, as
Kuin., al., and Conyb., ‘choosing thee
out of: see reff. Tov aod] as
elsewhere, the Jewish people. ‘Hic ar-
matur contra omnes metus qui eum ma-
nebant, et simul preeparatur ad crucis to-
lerantiam.’ Calvin. els ots | to both,
atootpeya: AH bc mo p Chr Thi-sif Aug:
urootp. 27. '78 Chr-ms: txt BCEILN 138. 36 vulg.
a c 86. 137(vulg) Thl-fin: om ABHN p 13 Chr Thi-sif He.
ins ato bef tns efovoras CEL
aft ny:acm. ins maw
the people, and the Gentiles; not the
Gentiles only. 18. tov émor. |
not, as Beza, and E. V., ‘ to turn them :’
but, that they may turn; see émotpe-
pew, ver. 20. The general reference
of o%s becomes tacitly modified (not ex-
pressly, speaking as he was to the Jew
Agrippa) by the expression oxétos and
efovola Tov saTrava, both, in the common
language of the Jews, applicable only to
the Gentiles. But in reality, and in Paul’s
mind, they had their sense as applied to
Jews,—who were in spiritual darkness and
under Satan’s power, however little they
thought it. See Col. i. 13. Tov
AaB.| A third step : first the opening of
the eyes—next, the turning to God—next,
the receiving remission of sins and a place
among the sanctified ; sce ch. xx. 32.
This last reference determines rlore: tH
eis éué to belong not to 7y:acuevais but to
AaBeiv. Thus the great object of Paul’s
preaching was to awaken and shew the
necessity and efficacy of mlatis H eis enue.
And fully, long ere this, had he recognized
and acted on this his great mission. The
epistles to the Galatians and Romans are
two noble monuments of the APOSTLE OF
Farru. 19. ameOys | See Isa. 1. 5 in
LXX. 20. tots év Aap. mp.) See ch.
ix. 20. eis belongs to amjyyedA. (De
W.), not to rots (€v Aau.) as Meyer ; see
Luke viii. 34; and on this sense of eis,
17—23.
MPAZEIS ATOSTOAQN.
281
ve , |e aN: ‘ , re ee ,
kal Iepocodvporc, [ etc | TAGAV TE THY xwpayv TNC Tovdatac land constr,
\ =—) Wf | ice , m = RI aged ,
Kat TOL eOveciv avr) cAAov LETAVOELY Kal ETTLOTOEDELVY
¢ 9 a 4 h ?
here only.
(ch. xii. 14.)
w. ers, Luke
viii. 34.
meat iS ‘ ff) 4 op ” ~ oO ’ oo ,
ext tov Oeov, Paka tHE ° METAVOLaG EPYA TOATIOVTAC, mabsol., ch.
xvii. 30 reff.
v , e, 2 is , bd = o
21 Yveka TOUTWY ME OL Tovdator * ovA\\aPouevor Ev TW LEpty B Tunkel 16
22 t
(act.j. ch. ix.
25. xi. 2).
xiv. 15. xv.
19. ver. 18.
} Pet. ii. 25.
Deut. xxx. 2.
7? N ‘ ae
peyady, ovoev Y extoe essay
, , Ky u ‘
ETLKOVOLAC OUV TUXWY
, ~ , , a , Ares
rE Wv @Wv me ol ToOOPHTat e\aAnoav peAXAovT@Y oi
’ ‘ ~ 2b’ c ‘ c , ees h.i.16
yiveoBat kal Mwvone, 23 ét 3 maQnroc oO KploToC, EL a reff a
rch. ix. 26
only. Prov. xxvi. 18 F.(not A.) only. s ch. v. 30 only ft. t here onlyt. Wisd.
xiil. 18 only. u = ch. xxiv. 2 reff. v = here only. w ch. xx. 26 reff.
x ch. viji. 10. Heb. viii. 11. Rev. xi. 18. xiii. 16 al. Isa. ix. 14.
ach. xiii, 34 reff. Isa. xlviii. 6.
zconstr., ver. 16 a.
c here only t.
20. rec om Ist re, with EHL 13. 36 rel Chr: ins ABN p.
36. 40 Syr 'Thl; ros ev c 137 lect-12: om BHLX p rel Chr Ce.
om tnv H! 96. 142.
76. 95. 97. 99. 104. 113. 183.177 Chr: amnyedAdw 13:
acct of -o.s preceding ?).
m (Ee: amayyeAAw 14. 38. 65.
mapnyeddov 96: txt ABEN p rel 36 vulg.
aft afta ins Te E.
21. o: tovd. cvAAaB. bef we & a? c 137 syr:
pe 180.
om o: BLN! m p 13 Chron Thl-fin.
bef ev tw EX? m p 13. 36. 40. 137 vulg Chron:
y = 1 Cor. xv. 27. Isa. xxvi. 13.
b —ver.8. 3 Kingsi. 51 al.
ins ev bef cep. AE k
om es ABN (07
steph amayyeAAwv, with HL ¢
ins (wvta bef deov m 36.40 arm.
ot wovd. bef we EL m p Chr Thi-fin: om
ovAAaBovpevot &. ims ovTa
ovTa we RI. diaxepwoadba R!.
22. ree for aro, tapa (more usual), with HL rel Chr: txt ABEX p 13. 36. 40 Chron
Thl-fin.
rec paptupovuevos (see notes), with Eafg Thl-fin Hc: uaprupwpevos
13: txt ABHLN p rel 36. 40 vulg Chr Chron Thi-sif.
note on ver. 6 above. 22.] The otv
refers to the whole course of deliverances
which he had had from God, not merely to
the last. It serves to close the narrative, by
shewing how it was that he was there that
day,—after such repeated persecutions,
crowned by this last attempt to destroy
him. paptupdpevos] The mere love
of paradox and difficulty, as it seems to me,
has led De Wette and Meyer to prefer the
ordinary reading -povmevos, although very
weakly supported by MSS., and yielding
hardly any appropriate sense. bapTupov-
pevos must be passive, and signify (see
reff. below) ‘testified to,’ ‘borne witness
of the datives mips and peydA@ must
be the agents, ‘dy small and great’ (to
which there is no objection grammatically,
but every objection analogically, see ch. x.
22; xvi. 2; xxii. 12, in all which paptv-
pouuat is followed by 7d), and A€yov
must be predicative, ‘ as saying: i.e., ‘ that
I say? But this would be contrary to the
fact: Paul was not thus borne witness
of by all, but on the contrary accused of
being a despiser of the law by a great
majority of his own countrymen. There
can, I think, be no question either critically
or exegetically of the correctness of the
other reading waprupduepos, bearing wit-
ness, as directly appropriate to the office
to which Paul was appointed,—that of a
witness (ver. 16); and then puxp@ Te Kal
peydAw, to small and great, so flat and
meaningless on the other interpretation,
admirably suits the occasion,—standing as
he was before an assembly of the greatest
of the land. 23. et | not for 6rz—but
just as in ver. 8,—if,—if at least: mean-
ing, that the things following were patent
facts to those who knew the prophets.
See Heb. vii. 15, where «i has the same
sense. malytés| not, as Beza,
‘ Christum fuisse passurum’ (so E. V.,
‘ should suffer’): but as Vulg., ‘si passibilis
Christus” Paul does not refer to the pro-
phetic announcement, or the historical
reality, of the fact of Christ’s suffering, but
to the idea of the Messiah as passible and
suffering being in accordance with the tes-
timony of the prophets. That the fact of
His having suffered on the cross was in the
Apostle’s mind, ean hardly be doubted :
but that the words do not assert it, is evi-
dent from the change of construction in the
next clause, where the fact of the bringing
life and immortality to light by the resur-
rection is spoken of,—ei ma@nrds 6 xp..—
ei. ... pédder KatayyéAAew. In Justin
Martyr, Tryph. c. 89, p. 187, the follow-
282
d = Col. i. 18.
e1Cor. xv. 12
reff.
f ch. ee 5 reff.
and constr.,
e Luke xii. 11. &
ch. xxiv. 10.
(xix. 33 reff.)
heh. xiv. 10
only. Prov.
X¥ Xvi. 25.
ich, xii. 15
reff.
k = John vii.
16. Enr.
Hippol. 951.
1 here only.
Ps. xxxix. 4,
Hos. ix. 7
vat. F. (not
A.), 3. Wisd. v.4 only.
Jos. Antt. ii. 14. 1.
2 Mace. iv. 37 only.
27 reft. r and constr., 2 Pet. iii.
“eb
TPWTOC
"Maivy, Tava
i TEOLTOETEL.
adda adnYeiae Kai °
p ch. ii. 4, Lone
23. weddeww HN! m! p 40.
TIPAZEIS AMOZTOAQN.
“avasracewe *
éXAew Tw TE Naw Kal ois Ovecuv.
amoNo-younevav 0 Dinoroc "
‘ ,
Ta woAXa oe
25 6 be Ov! palvopat gnaw,
q Tappyotalomevoc AaXw.
m here only ft.
n = Lukei. 3. ch. xxiii. 26. xxiv. 3 onlyt.
1 Chron. xxv. l. (-
, 8 (Mark vii. 24. Luke viii. 47.
XXVI.
veKpwy pwc *peddee saris i
9.
24 oe Oe autou
: *gey precy
, 2
yoappata eg paviay
UN h
HEyaay 77
swppoabunc pnuata P aropley youat.
6 imisrarat yao TEOL ToUTWY O Baorrebe, mpoc 0 ov Kat
NavOave yao auroy Tt TOU-
70 Petov—eis Ooyyy TWEpitpaner,
o 1 Tim. ii. 9, 15 only t.
-yMa, Deut. xxxii. 2.) q ch. ix,
Heb. xiii. 2) only. Lev. v. 3.
Wisd. v. 24 only.
rec om te (as unnecessary), with L rel 36 Chron
Thl-sif ec: ins AB E-er HX bh k1o p13. 40 Chr Thl-fin.
24. AadovvTos aut. x. aod. E vulg eth-pl.
ere c 64. 1387: txt ABEN k p 13. 40 Chr-comm
with HL rel vulg ec:
Thi.
epavnge 30:
25. aft o Se ins mavAos ABEN d p 13 (36) 40 vulg Thl-fin:
[addAa, so AELX rel(not h) Chr Thl Gic. ]
(Ec.
ing words are put into the mouth of
Trypho the Jew: mabntoy Toy Xplorov, ore
ai ypapal knpvocovo:, pavepdy eort. See
also the same, Tryph. c. 36, p- 183, and
c. 76, p. 173. 1 P@TOS a BVATTATEDS
= mpaTos avaoctds, OY TpwTdToKOS ek TOY
verpav, Col. i. 18, but implying that this
light, to be preached to the Jews (6 Aads)
and Gentiles, must arise from the resurrec-
tion of the dead, and that Christ, the first
ef avactdcews, was to announce it. See
Isa. xlii. 6; xlix. 6; lx. 1, 2,3; Luke ii.
32; ch. xiii. 47. 24.| The words
TavTa amoAoyoumevov must refer, on ac-
count of the present part., to the last
words spoken by Paul: but it is not
necessary to suppose that these only pro-
duced the effect described on Festus.
Mr. Humphry remarks, “ Festus was pro-
bably not so well acquainted as his pre-
decessor (ch. xxiv. 10) with the character
of the nation over which he had recently
been called to preside. Hence he avails
himself of Agrippa’s assistance (xxv. 26).
Hence also he is unable to comprehend the
earnestness of St. Paul, so unlike the indif-
ference with which religious and moral sub-
jects were regarded by the upper classes at
Rome. His self-love suggests to him, that
one who presents such a contrast to his own
apathy, must be mad: the convenient hy-
pothesis that much learning had produced
this result, may have occurred to him on
hearing Paul quote prophecies in proof of
his assertions.” patvy |] Thou art
mad, not merely, ‘¢how ravest,’ nor * thou
at an enthusiast? nor are the words
spoken in jest (Olsh.),—but in earnest
rec edn (corrn to historical tense),
om HL rel syr Thl-sif
(Ovnod Hv x. dpyiis 7 dwvh, Chrys.). Fes-
tus finds himself by this speech of Paul yet
more bewildered than before (De W.).
7% TWoNKG ypayp.| Meyer under-
stands Festus to allude to the many rolls
which Paul had with him in his imprison-
ment (we might compare ra BiBAla, wa-
AtoTa Tas peuBpdvas of 2 Tim. iv. 13)
and studied (so also Heinrichs and Kui-
noel),—but the ordinary interpretation,
thy much learning, seems more natural,
and so De W. eis p. TepiTpérret |
Is turning thy brain. 25.| adyOera
may be spoken warmly and enthusiastically,
but cannot be predicated of « madman’s
words : swppoatvy is directly opposed to
pavia. So Xen. Mem. i. 16, recounting
the subjects of Socrates’ discourses, ti
Sixaov, Th &dicovy Th owhpoctyn, Ti
pavia’ Ti avdpia, tl BetAla. The expres-
sion GAnéeias Ke. phuata, though of
course in sense = phuata GAnby, Ke.,
yet has a distinctive force of its own, and
is never to be confounded with, or sup-
posed to be put bya Hebraism for the other.
Such forms oceur in classic as well as
Hellenistic writers, and indeed in all lan-
guages: the idea expressed by them being,
the derivation of the quality predicated,
Srom its source:—so here, words (not
merely true and sober, but) of truth and
soberness, — springing from, and indicative
of, subjective truth and soberness.
26.| Agrippa is doubly his witness, (1)
as cognizant of the facts respecting Jesus,
(2) as believing the prophets. This latter
he does not ony assert, but appeals to the
faith of the king as a Jew for its establish-
" kpatiote Pyare,
24—28.
TIPAZEIS ANOZTOAQN.
288
» $s af) HOE F > , Eee et ’
TWV OV TELUOMAL OuvEv OU yao EOTLY EV ywvia TET Oa- fae coh a
, ~
YyMEVov TOUTO.
S - 13 > \7
rov [lavAoy ‘Ev oAtyw pe wetOy “ yotottavoy womoat.
cxvii. 22. Rev. vii. 1. xx. 8 only.
xi. 26. 1 Pet. iv. 16 only.
26. om ca B 25.
om 7: B a 386. 137.
xxv. 10 reff.
2 2 2 :
27 wioreveic, PactArEv "Ayolrra, roe eee
, > ud ¢
Toopyrate 5 oida Ort mearevec. ~ 0 d& Ayoiwrac me0C
‘ ~
<u Matt. vi. 5,
xxi. 42 |. ch.
iv. 11, and
1 Pet. ii. 7,
from Pa.
vy here bis. Eph. iii.3 only. see | Pet. v. 12. weh.
rec ovdev, with HL rel Chr: om
A E(but see below) 13. 40: txt B N1(N5 disapproving) p: om Ist ov a bcop.
for 2nd ov, ovde E? m 36. 40:
vulg.
ovdev E}(and lat).
28. rec aft mpos Tov mavAoy ins epn, with EHL rel 36 Chr:
om eoty Hf ghl.
om ABN p 13. 40. 137
rec meideis xp. yeveoOuu, with EHL rel 36 vss(introire weth-pl) Cyr-jer Chr
Thl Ge: meders xp. Tornoa BN p 13. 40 syr-marg copt: txt A. (The reading of BX
has apparently been the result of some confusion.
A: see note.)—xpnortiavor(but corrd) X’.
ment. év yovia.....Todto} This,
the act done to Jesus by the Jews, and its
sequel, was not done in an obscure corner
of Judea, but in the metropolis, at a time
of more than common publicity.
28. év ddtywe] These words of Agrippa
have been very variously explained. (1)
The rendering ‘propemodum, ‘parum
abest, quin, (‘almost,’ E. V.,) adopted by
Chrys., Beza, Grot., Valla, Luther, Pis-
cator, Calov., &e. is inadmissible, for want
of any example of éy oAtye haying this
meaning, which would require oAtyou
(6Alyou amwAéoas, Aristoph. Vesp. 829,
and al.), or éAtyou Sez, or map’ OAtyov.
(2) Calvin, Kuinoel, Schottg., Olsh., Nean-
der, take it for év 6Aly~ xpdv@, which cer-
tainly is allowable, but does not correspond
to ueydAw below, nor, as I believe, does it
come up to the general sense of the expres-
sion. (3) The phrase éy oAly@ occurs in
Greck writers with various nouns under-
stood according to the nature of the case,—
and sometimes it will bear any of several
supplements with equal propriety. Thus
in Demosth. p. 33. 18, p¢diov eis tavTd
adv Baa Bovdetal tis GOpoloayTa ev
éalye, where Schaefer in his Index Greeci-
tatis says, scil. xpéve, aut xdpy, aut ACYes
aut 7év@. So also here we may understand
Ady or wéve (or xpdévy ?)—or still better
as it seems to me, leave the ellipsis unsup-
plied (see Eph. iii. 3). We have a word
in English which exactly expresses it,—
one which has fallen into disuse, but has
no equivalent ; lightly: i. e. with little
pains, few words, small hesitation. Then
next as to the reading, 1 have followed the
most ancient MSS., in editing motjoat and
not yevéo@a. This being so, we have to
choose between 7e(Oers of BN and mel@y of
A. lt is almost impossible to give any
assignable meaning to the former; and I
suspect it has come in by a confusion of
the two readings. Whereas 7ei@y seems
to take up the wef@opa of ver. 26. The
Thave preferred therefore that of
received reading has probably found its
way in from first imagining that met0- had
to do with Paul’s persuading Agrippa,
and then the mojoa: having no sense,
became conformed to the yeveo@a: in the
Apostle’s speech below. And now, as to
the sense of Agrippa’s saying. In deter-
mining this, enough attention has not been
paid to two points: (1) the present tense,
wel0y, thou art persuading thyself, art
imagining ; and (2) the use, in the mouth
of a Jew, and that Jew a king, of the
Gentile and offensive appellation xpto-
riavés. To my mind, the first of these
considerations decides that Agrippa is cha-
racterizing no effect on himself, but what
Paul was fancying in his mind, reckoning
the mef@ouar which he had_ expressed
above : the second, that he speaks of some-
thing not that he is likely to become, but
that contrasts strangely with his present
worldly position and intentions. I would
therefore render the words thus: Lightly
(with small trouble) art thou persuading
thyself that thou canst make me @
Christian: and understand them, in con-
nexion with Paul’s having attempted to
make Agrippa a witness on his side,—‘ Iam
not so easily to be made a Christian of, as
thou supposest. Most of the ancient Com-
mentators (especially as reading meiOers)
take the words as implying some effect on
Agrippa’s mind, and as spoken in earnest :
but this I think is hardly possible, philo-
logically or exegetically. | Imay add that
the emphatic position of both év ddtyo
and xptotiavév, before their respective
yerbs, strongly confirms the view taken
above. I must again caution the reader
against the mistake committed by Dr.
Wordsworth, in supposing the enclitic pe
to be emphatic, which it cannot be, e“é
being required in such a case. Indeed, a
more insignificant position than it here
holds, next to the most emphatic word of
the sentence, cannot be conceived.
284
x dat. and
=o 6 TlavAoc
TIPAZEIS ATMOSTOAQN.
XXVI. 29—32.
vn - ~ A
Yay TW) Dew Kal
x > ' v? YF
constr., here Evgaiyny ay odtyy
only. see
Xeu. Mem. kat ev peyadyy ov pLovoyv Ge ae Kal wave ae TOUC
il. os
constr., W.
n pos, 2 Cor. axobovrac ane onpecoov jee Tovovrouc : * oro1oc
erin Kaye etl * TageKT oc TOV ® deopury rourwy. *) avéiorn
reft. : \ ed
y sshere only. TE O Pactrzvc Kat o ° NYEMWY n TE Bepvikn Kal ol * Guy-
iii, 4. 1. Or ; > ms 31 Ne? os , NaN y 700
21 éor. ii, 13. KAUN EVOL GUTOLC, Kal ure pugevres aAou oc
al. i v,
eae te aXrX7 nAove Aéyourec ( ore ole Gavarov ‘akgiov 7 ' deopwr
ly t.
a Matt. v.32. moasoet 0 avOpwroc ouroe. © 'Aypimmac Oe TW Diory
2 Cor. x1. 2
A aha Epn ®’AmoXeAvobar edvvato oO avOpwroc ouroc, él pn
ch. xxiii. 29 h ?
bet” emexéxAnto Kaioapa.
ech. xxiii. 24,
&c., ret. *
d Mark xiv. 54 XXVIT
only. Exod. xxiii.32 Ald. Ps. c. 6 only.
g — Matt. xxvii. 15, &c. ch. iii. 13. iv. 21, 23. v. 40.
h ch, xxv. 11 reff. i= ch, xv. 19 reff.
xx. 15 only t.
1 ‘Oe & "exolOn
Xvi. 35, 36. xxviii. 18.
] ,’ -~ c ~ ,
amomA ev HnuaC ELC
f ch. xxiii. 29 (reff).
Heb. xiii. 23. 2 Mace. xii. 25.
Ich. xiii. 4. xiv. 26.
k ~
TOU
e ch. xxiii. 19 reff.
k constr., ch. iii, 12 reff.
29. rec aft o Se mavaAos ins e:mev, with HL rel Chr, edn 86: om ABN p 13. 40. 137
vulg syr. evEaunv X'L c! (f) Lp.
rec (for weyaAw) moAAw (see notes), with HL
rel 36 eth Chr Thl Gc: txt ABN k m p 13. 40 vulg syrr copt arm.
30. rec ins kat Tavta evrovTos avtovu bef aveatn (addn for perspicuity), with HL rel
syr-w-ast Thl (Ec:
zeth-pl arm.—rec om Te:
tt bef mpaooes AN k m p 18 vulg.
kat TavTa evtovtos 137 Syr eth-rom: om ABN cp 13 vulg Syr
txt as above, but ¢ 13. 40 syr-txt copt Chr have de.
31. atwov bef davatov A c copt: 7 decpwy bef aéiov BX k m p 18. 40 vulg.
ins
82. emuxekA. AL 40 Thi: txt BHN p 18. 36 rel Chr ec.
Cnap. XXVIII. 1. kat ovtws expiwevo nyeuwv avameubat Kacapa 64:
29.] I could wish to God, that whether
with ease or with difficulty (on my part),
not only thou, but all who hear me to-
day, might become such as I am, except
only these bonds. He understands év
6Atyy just as Agrippa had used it, easily,
‘with little trouble, ‘with slight exer-
tion? and contrasts with it év peydaw
(70AA@ has been an alteration to suit the
imagined supplement xpévw), with diffi-
culty, ‘with great trouble, ‘with much
labour.” Those interpreters who under-
stand xpév@ above, render this ‘seu tempore
exiguo opus fuerit, suo multo’ (Schott.) ;
those who take éy 6a. for ‘almost, ‘non
propemodum tantum, sed plane’ (Grot.):
“not only almost, but altogether, KE. V.
In evxeoOar Ge the dative implies the
direction of the wish or request to God :
so Aisch. Agam. 852, Ocoto. mpara Seki-
woo: Il. y. 318, Ocotar 5€ xetpas av-
éoxov, and freq. See examples in Bern-
hardy, Syntax, p. 86. Seopav | He
shews the chain, which being in ‘ eustodia
militaris, he bore on his arm, to connect
him with the soldier who had charge of
him. 31, mpaooer] generally, of his
lifeand habits. No definite act was alleged
against him: and his apologetic speech
was in fact a sample of the acts of which he
KaL OUTWS
was accused. 82. ] Agrippa in these
words delivers his judgment as a Jew: ‘ or
aught I see, as regards our belief and prac-
tices, he might have been set at liberty?
But now he could not: ‘nam appellatione
potestas judicis, a quo appellatum est,
cessare incipit ad absolvendum non minus
quam ad condemnandum. Crimina enim
integra servandasunt cognitioni superioris.’
Grot.
Cuap. XXVII. 1— XXVIII. 31.]
PAUL’S VOYAGE TO ROME AND SOJOURN
THERE. I cannot but express the benefit
I have derived in my commentary on this
section, from Mr. Smith’s now well-known
treatise on the voyage and shipwreck of St.
Paul: as also from various letters which he
has from time to time put into my hands,
tending further to elucidate the subject.
The substance of these will be found em-
bodied in an excursus following the chro-
nological table in the prolegomena.
1,] tov (see reff.) contains the purpose of
expi0n. The matter of the decision im-
plied in éxpi6m is expressed in this form
as if governed by the substantive kplocs,
as in ch. xx. 3, é@yévero yvduns Tov
brootpépev. Meyer remarks that the ex-
pressions keAevew iva, elmety iva, OéAcw
wa, &e. are analogous. jpas | Here
XXVIX. 1, 2. TIPAZEIZ AIIOSTOAQN. 285
‘ » ’ m a7 , ~
THV IraXiay, Ta peoloouy tov te LIlavAov Kat TLvac ie ch zit 4.
z ;
Lay 2 n 3 te 4 ’ , , , Oo , ver
ETEOOUC EOMWTAC éekaTovTaoy?) OVOMATL louAtw OTELONC n ver. 42 only.
p - Q2q? , = X ' ’ ~ F Gen. xxxix.
ofpaoTyc. emtPavrec Sad olW Adoapurrnye méd- a (-Trprov,
= Ss > < x Rass ; . see ch. y. 21, 23.)
Aovre* AE [etc | Tovc Kata tyv Actav torouc, © aviy— 0 hee
see ch, xxv. 21, 25. q —ch. xxi. 2 (Matt. xxi. 5, from Zech. ix. 9. ch. xx. 18. xxi. 4,
XXV. 1) only. dat., here only. T Luke vili. 23. ch. xxi. 3. vy.6, 24. Luke only, exc. Rev.
xviii. 17. constr. (accus.) here only. Isa. xlii.10. mAet ta weAaYnN, Polyb. iii. 4. 10. sch,
xiii. 13 reff.
EKpivey avTov o ny. avaTeubar Katoapi 97: ws ovy expiwey o ny. Tov TeumecOat avTov
Tpos Katoapa THN ETLOVeN KaAEoas TOY EkaTOYTApXOV ovoMaTt LovALavoy oTELpns TEBacTNS
mapedidov avTw Toy MavAoy ouy eTepois SeguwTos Syr-Marg: Kat EKplVE TEP aUTOU oO
Pnotos TeuTeTOat avtov mpos Katoapa els THY ITAA. K.T.A. Syr. Tapedidov A a 40
demid syr copt Thl-sif. om etepous c p! 137 syr: deou. bef er. L. ins 1ovArw
bef as well as after ovowati &?.
2. aft em. ins ev c 1387.
adpauuytnvw A, al vary.
rec “eAAovTes (corrn
to suit emtBavtes), with HL rel vulg Chr: txt ABN abcdop 13. 36.40. 137 am syrr
copt «th-pl arm.
we have again the first person, the nar-
rator having, in all probability, remained in
Palestine, and in the neighbourhood of
Paul, during the interval since ch. xxi. 18.
Tmapedidouv | Who? perhaps the as-
sessors with whom Festus took counsel on
the appeal, ch. xxv. 12: but more likely the
plural is used indefinitely, the subject being
‘they, = ‘on’ (Fr.), or ‘man’ (Germ.).
étépovs 8§.] This expression, says
Meyer, is purposely chosen, to intimate,
that they were prisoners of another sort
(not also Christians under arrest). But De
W. shews this to be a mistake, by €repat
moAAal, Luke viii. 3, = &AAG ToAAal,
Mark xv. 41, in both places meaning ‘ many
others of the same sort. Here also they
are of the same class, as far as Seou@tat is
concerned: further, nothing is implied in
the narrative, one way or the other.
omeipns oeBaoras| There is some difii-
culty in determining what this cohort was.
We must not fall into the mistake of several
of the Commentators, that of confounding
this om. ceBaoty with an fn inréwv
kadouuevn S<eBaorynvev, mentioned by Jo-
sephus, B. J. ii. 12. 5, and Antt. xx? 6. 1,
this latter implying ‘natives of Samaria’
(<Baocrn),—whereas our word is the same
adjective as that name itself, and cannot
by any analogy have reference to it. More
than one of the legions at different times
bore the honorary title ‘Augusta.’ Wetst.
quotes from Claudian de Bell. Gild. ¢ Dic-
taque ab Augusto legio :’ from inscriptions
in Mauritania, Legio III. Aug., Il. Aug.,
VIII. Aug.: from Ptolemy, ii. 3, Aeyewy
devtépa ceBaoth (in Britain); iv. 3, Ae-
yeov y. oeBaorn; but of a ‘cohors Au-
gusta,’ or ‘Augustana,’ we never hear. De
Wette and Meyer suggest (but we have no
historical proof of the supposition) that it
was one among the five cohorts stationed
at Caesarea (see note, ch. xxv. 23) thus
rec om es, with HL rel Chr Thl-sif Gc: ins em (B' according
distinguished as the body-guard of the em-
peror (?), and therefore chosen for any ser-
vices immediately concerning him, as in this
case. Meyer thinks it may be the same
(but then would the appellations be differ-
ent ?) with the ometpa *Iradrky of ch. x. 1.
It is remarkable that almost all the Com-
mentators have assumed, without any rea-
son, that this or. o¢Baorh must have been
stationed at Cesarea, whereas it may well
have been a cohort, or body of men so
called, at Rome. Wieseler is the only one
that I have seen who has not fallen into
this error. He controverts the other inter-
pretations (Chron. d. Apost.-g. note, p.
391), and infers that Julius belonged to the
Augustani, mentioned Tacitus xiv. 15, and
Suet. Nero, 20 and 25 (see also Dio Cass.
Ixi. 20: fv pey yap te Kat YO.ov aiTe
ctoTnua és TevTakisxiAlous oTpaTi@Tas
mapeckevacmevoy’ Avyovoteol Te wyo-
paQovto? Kal éeffjpxov tay emaivwy, and
Ixiii. 8), who appear to have been identical
with the evocati (veterans specially sum-
moned to service by the emperors), and to
have formed Nero’s body-guard on his
journey to Greece. The first levying of this
band by Augustus, Dio relates, xlv. 12. To
this Julius seems to have belonged,—to
have been sent on some service into Asia,
and now to have been returning to Rome.
We read of a Julius Priscus, Prefect of
the Pretorian guards under Vitellius, who
killed himself ‘pudore magis quam neces-
sitate,’ after the military murder by Mu-
cianus of Calpurnius Galerianus. This was
ten years after the date of our narrative ;
but the identity of the two must be only
conjectural. 2. "A8paputTtyve | Adra-
myttium CASdpauvrtiov, -eov, or “ATpa-
portiov, and in Plin. v. 32, Adramytteos)
was a seaport with a harbour in Mysia, an
Athenian colony. It is nowa village called
Endramit. Grotius, Drusius, and others
286
t= oh xe 15.
Xen. Cyr. iv.
6.10. L 3
u pass., = VLKEWC,
ch. xxviii. 12
only. (act.,
ch. xxiii. 15
rett.)
v here only t¢-
2 Macc. ix.
27 only.
gir. dta-
KetoBat Tpos .
7 ue
ketlev * avay Hévrec
. Polyb. i. 68.13. (-os, Wisd. i. 6.
xxvi. | reff.
y here only. Prov. iii. 8.
34.)
z=ch. xxiv. 2 reff.
(see ch xx. 4).
8. for Te, Se LX* k m p 40 vulg copt Chr.
Steph om tous, with co: ins ABHLN p 13 rel Chr Thl He. rec
marg.
IIPAZ EIS AMOSTOAQON.
-ta, ch. xxviii. 2.
2 Cor. xiii. 10.) “Gen. xxvi. 29. Xen, Mem. iv. 6. 5 (often).
(-Ays, Prov. xi. 2 Sym.
a ver. 7 only t.
to Tischdf) c 36. 137: ins ess A B(Mai) & p 18. 40 Thl-fin.
aft Qecoadoyv. add de apiotapxov Kat cexouvdou syr:
XXVITI.
Onuev, Ovroe oby Huw “Aptorapyou Makedovoe Gecoado-
‘erépg | y
Katny Onuev eg Sdova, * pirav-
Qpwrwc reo lovAwe TO HatAw Keressyoe * emérpepev
To0¢ Touc pirouc mapeviere
£
BaeNeatdt TUKEY.
ae , A , A ‘
ume Asvoamey TYV Kuzooy ota TO
-elv, 2 Macc. xiii. 23.) w = (see
x inf. aor., ch, xxi. 39 reff. pres., ch.
-A®@s, make xy. 8. -Aetobar, Luke x.
apistapxos Nt.
-vicewy Se apiorapx. K. oe. 137
odova RX}. tovAtavos A syr-
mopevdcyta, with Hi rel Chr Thi-sif He: txt ABN p 13. 36 Thl-fin.
erroneously suppose Adruwmetum to be
meant, on the north coast of Africa (Winer,
RWB.). mheiv [eis] Tots... .|
The bracketed e¢s is in all probability an
insertion to help off the harshness of the
construction. But the accusative is indi-
eative of the direction. We have #AG@e
TloAuvelxns x@éva, Eur. Pheeniss. 110.
See Winer, edn. 6, § 32. 1, on the accus.
after neuter verbs, and Bernhardy, Syn-
tax, pp. 114 ff., and other instances in
Wetstein. *"Aptotdapx. | See ch. xix.
29; xx. 4; Col. iv. 10; Philem. 24. In
Col. ivy. 10, Paul calls him his cuvvarxypd-
Awrtos, but perhaps only figuratively: the
same term is applied to Epaphras, Philem.
23, where follows elena Ne Annas,
Aovicts, of otvepyot jLov. 3. Lava. |
This celebrated city is generally joined in
the N. T. with Tyre, from which it was
distant 200 stadia (Strabo, xvi. 756 ff.),
and of which it was probably the mother
city. It was within the lot of the tribe of
Asher (Josh. xix. 28), but never conquered
by the Israelites (Judg. i. 31; iii.3). From
the earliest times the Sidonians were re-
nowned for their manufactures of glass
(‘Sidon artifex vitri,’ Plin. v. 19), linen
(wérAoL TammotkiAo: epya yuvaikov Su-
doviwy, Il. ¢. 290), silversmith’s work (IL.
y. 743, and Od. o. 115, &e.), and for
the hewing of timber (1 Kings v. 6; Ezra
iii. 7). In ancient times, Sidon seems to
have been under Tyre, and to have fur-
nished her with mariners (see Ezek. xxvii.
8). It went over to Shalmaneser, king of
Assyria (Jos. Antt. ix. 14. 2); but seems
under him, and afterwards under the Chal-
dans and Persians, to have had tributary
kings of its own (Jer. xxv. 22; xxvii. 3;
Herod. viii. 67). The Sidonians furnished
the best ships in Xerxes’s navy, Herod.
vii. 96,99. Under Artaxerxes Ochus Sidon
freed itself, but was by him, after a severe
siege, taken and destroyed (Diod. Sic. xvi.
43 ff.). It was rebuilt, and soon after went
over to Alexander, keeping its own vassal
kings. After his death it was alternately
under Syrian and Egyptian rule, till it fell
under the Romans. The present Saida is
west of ancient Sidon, and is a port of some
commerce, but insecure, from the sanding
up of the harbour (Winer, RWB. See also
Robinson, vol. iii. pp. 415 ff., who gives an
account of the history of Sidon during the
middle ages). mopevdévtt| this dat.
looks very like a grammatical correction :
the wopev8évTa of the rec. would be an
instance of an acc. with inf. after a dat.
preceding, as ch. xxvi. 20; xxii. 17. The
{Ao here mentioned were probably Chris-
tian brethren (see ch. xi. 19, where the Gos-
pel is said to have been preached in Pheeni-
cia; and ch. xxi. 3, where we find brethren
at Tyre); but it is usual in that case for
adeApol or uabntat to be specified: cf.
ch. xxi. 4, 7. The émipedcias tuxety was
perhaps to obtain from them that outfit for
the voyage which, on account of the official
precision of his custody at Czsarea, he
could not there be provided with.
4. trewhevoapev| sailed under, i.e. ‘in
the lee of, Cyprus. ‘Ubi navis vento
contrario cogitur a recto cursu decedere, ita
ut tune insula sit interposita inter ventum
et navem, dicitur ferri infra insulam.”
Wetst., who also says, “ Si ventus favisset,
alto se commisissent, et Cyprum ad dex-
teram partem reliquissent, ut Act. xxi. 3,
nune autem coguntur legere littus Cilicia,
inter Cyprum et Asiam.” With this ex-
planation Mr. Smith agrees; and there can
hardly be a doubt that it is the right one.
The xara thy “Actay tér0 of ver. 2 being
to the west of Pamphylia (which was not in
Asia, ch. ii. 10), the direct course thither
would have been S. of Cyprus ; but having
the wind contrary, i.e. from the W. or
N. W. (‘the very wind which might have
been expected in this part of the Mediter-
Ka- 08
H
TUXEW
ABLN a { ‘
bedfg
hkilm —
opls
[H is
con- ;
tinued
in an
uncial
writing
of about
the xith
cent.]
.
3—7.
Se is CY b? ’
TOUC AVEMOUC ELVAL EVAVTLOUC,
znv. KiAckiay Kat Manpurtav ° dtarAcvoavrec ' karnAOomev
Ts Moppa tne Avkiac.
IIPAZ EIS AMOXSTOAQN.
, A
5 26 7° méAayoc TO
6 ? - ¢ x
KAKEL EVOWV
287
4
d Kata b = Mark vi.
48 || Mt. (xv.
34. ch. XxXvi.
9 reff.) only.
e Matt. xviii 6
€ e .
0 ExaTOVTAOY? ly t-
a OXNG ova, ¥.
21 only.
mw Aotov “AdsEavdpivov ® rréov etc thy Tradtay, ° éveBt- 42 Oy
€ ~ ’ , ,
Bacev nuac £lC auToO.
- GTZ , d ‘ N 1d
mwAoourrsc Kat podtc ™ yevouevor © Kata THY Kyvtdor,
f=ch. xxi. 3. (ch. viii. 5 reff.)
ix. 23 reff, k here only ft.
3d. om tHv a 187. mAevoaytes HY.
ast.
lect-5 Gic: nA@ouwer 25 vulg Syr Jer.
(mn a SiN og Sas ee Ae a a
€v txavalc Oe HneEoatC Bpadv
g ver. 2 reff. r
1 ch. xiv. 18 reff.
Luke x. 32.
Matt. xxiv.7.
e here only t.
Xen. Anab.
vii. 8.1.
Where only. Prov. iv. 11 only. i=ch,
m = ch. xx. 16 al.
add 8: nuepwy Sexawevte c 137 syr-w-
kaTnAdauev AN: katnxOnuev b dh o 14. 38. 57. 66. 76. 93. 97. 98-marg 113
for wuppa, Avorpa A vulg copt arm-marg
Cassiod Bede: Avorpay &: wotpov H': cuvpvav m Bede-gr: ouvpa arm: txt B, and
pupa L 13 rel syrr Chr Thl (ec Jer.
6. raxeibey Al 24: xaxeroe m 15. 25. 36. 40. 180.
aft avro ins Touro N' (8? disapproving).
ranean at this season (summer). Admiral
de Saumarez writes, Aug. 19, 1798, ‘We
have just gained sight of Cyprus, so invari-
ably do the westerly winds prevail at this
season.’” Smith, p. 27), they kept under
shelter of Cyprus, i. e. between Cyprus and
Cilicia; and so damAcdcavtes, having
sailed the whole length of the sea off
Cilicia and Pamphylia, they came to Myra.
See the account of the reverse voyage, ch.
xxi. 3, where, the wind being nearly in the
same quarter (see ver. 1, ev@vdpounoaytes
eis T. K®), the direct course was taken,
and they left Cyprus at a distance (for so
ava. seems to imply) on their left, in going
to Tyre. On the d:arAedoartes, Ke., it
may be well to quote (from Smith) the
testimony of M. de Pagés, a French navi-
gator, who, on his voyage from Syria to
Marseilles, informs us that after making
Cyprus, “the winds from the west, and
consequently contrary, which prevail in
these places during the summer, forced us
to run to thenorth. We made for the coast
of Caramania (Cilicia), in order to meet the
northerly winds, which we found accord-
ingly.” 5. Mvppa| elra Mupa ev
elxoat otadlois bmp THs Oadrdtrns én
peTedpov Adpov, Strabo xiv. 3,—Aé€vtAos
emimeupOels “Avdpicin Mupéwy emivelo,
thy te GAvow eppnke Tod Atmeévos, kal eis
Mipa avyet. The neighbourhood is full
of magnificent ruins; see Sir C. Fellows’s
Lycia, ch. ix. The name still remains.
The various readings merely shew that the
copyists were unacquainted with the place.
6.| The Alexandrian ship may have
been laden with corn for Rome; but this
cannot be inferred from ver. 38, for the
ship had been lightened before, ver. 18.
On her size, see below, ver. 37. Most
probably this ship had been prevented
taking the direct course to Italy, which was
by the south of Crete, by the prevailing
om tyy Ht bchklo.
westerly winds. Under such circumstances,
says Mr. Smith (p.32), “ships, particularly
those of the ancients, unprovided with a
compass, and ill calculated to work to wind-
ward, would naturally stand to the N. till
they made the land of Asia Minor, which
is peculiarly favourable for such a mode of
navigation, because the coast is bold and
safe, and the elevation of the mountains
makes it visible at a great distance; it
abounds in harbours, while the sinuosities
of its shores and the westerly current would
enable them, if the wind was at all off the
land, to work to windward, at least as far
as Cnidus, where these advantages ceased.
Myra lies due N. from Alexandria, and its
bay is well calculated to shelter a wind-
bound ship. The Alexandrian ship was
not, therefore, out of her course at Myra,
even if she had no call to touch there for
the purposes of commerce.” ahéov,
the present, should be rendered en her
voyage. 7. BpaSumA.| It is evident
that the ship was encountering an adverse
wind. The distance from Myra to Cnidus
_is only 130 geogr. miles, which, with a fair
wind, would not take more than one day.
Mr. Smith shews that the wind was N. W.,
or within a few points of it. ‘ We learn
from the sailing directions for the Mediter-
ranean, that, throughout the whole of that
sea, but mostly in the eastern half, includ-
ing the Adriatic and Archipelago, N.W.
winds prevail in the summer months; ...
the summer Etesie come from the N.W.
(p. 197); which agrees with Aristotle’s ac-
count of these winds,—oi érnata: Acyd-
evo. pli @xovtes Tv Te ard TIS
uoxtov pepomevwy x. Cedtpov, de Mundo,
ch. iv. According to Pliny (ii. 47), they
begin in August, and blow for forty days.”
podts| with difficulty: not as
E. V., ‘scarce,’ which being also an adv.
of time, gives the erroneous idea to the
288
m here only f.
h ver. 2 onl
Te
« ,
or 1sonly Kpnrny kata Ladpowvny,
xiii. 3. eS ” ’
auTYv nd Oopev lc
p ch. viii. 11
reff.
7. mposeewytos N.
8. om tiva A 133 Syr.
TIPAZ EIS AMOZTOAQN.
TOTOV
Atpévac, eyyuc nv wodtc Aaoéa.
modus bef ny AX a? 18.
XXVII.
int = fe = - ’ J in of » , a
7) TOOCEWVTOC NuaC TOU ave“ov, uUmETAEVTaMEY THY
8! udduc Te ° mapadeyouevor
ria KaAdovmevov Kadove
e ~ \
9 Pikavou 6&
for Aasaia, adkacoa A 40.
96. 109 syr-marg (Alasa): Thalassa vulg eth and mss mentd by Jer: Thessala al:
Aaoa N3: txt BH'L p 13 rel syr copt wth-pl Chr Thl Hc Jer (of these, H'L rel[ exe m]
syr Chr Thl Cc have [through common confusion of vowels | Kacaia), arr ara Nite
English reader that the ship had scarcely
reached Cnidus when the wind became un-
favourable. yev. kata] having come
over against, as EK. V. Kvidov |
Cnidus is a peninsula at the entrance of
the Hgeaun Sea, between the islands of Cos
and Rhodes, having a lofty promontory and
two harbours, Strabo, xiv. 2. ‘With N.W.
winds the ship could work up from Myra
to Cnidus; because, until she reached that
point, she had the advantage of a weather
shore, under the lee of which she would
have smooth water, and, as formerly men-
tioned, a westerly current ; but it would be
slowly and with difficulty. At Cnidus that
advantage ceased.” Smith, p. 37.
py) wpose@vt. | The common idea has been
that the prep. in composition implies that
the wind would not suffer them to put in at
Cnidus. But this would hardly be recon-
cileable with the fact ; for when off Cnidus
they would be in shelter under the high
land, and there would be no difficulty in
putting in. I should be rather inclined to
regard this clause as explaining the pdédcs
above, and the zpés in composition as im-
plying contribution, or direction: ‘with
difficulty, the wind not permitting us by
favouring our course.’ umewA. T. Kp.
Kk. Ladpovnv]| “ Unless she had put into
that harbour (Cnidus), and waited for a fair
wind, her only course was to run under the
lee of Crete, in the direction of Salmone,
which is the eastern extremity of that is-
land.” Salmone (Capo Salomon) is de-
scribed by Strabo (x. 4) as 6fb axpwrhpioy
Td Saudviov, emt thy Atyumtoy vevoy, Kat
Tas ‘Podlay vhoous. Pliny (iv. 12) calls it
Sammonium. 8. nodes trap. | “ After
passing this point (Salmone), the difficulty
they experienced in navigating to the
westward along the coasts of Asia, would
recur ; but as the south side of Crete is also
a weather shore with N.W. winds, they
would be able to-work up as far as Cape
Matala. Here the land trends suddenly to
the N., and the advantages of a weather
shore cease, and their only resource was to
make for a harbour. Now Fair Havens is
the harbour nearest to Cape Matala, the
farthest point to which an ancient ship
could have attained with N.W.-ly winds.”
Smith, ib. mapadey. does not, as
Servius on Ain. iii. 127 supposes, imply that
the ship was towed (“funem legendo, i. e.
colligendo, aspera loca preetereunt ”), but,
as Meyer explains it, that, the places on the
coast being touched (or perhaps, rather, ap-
pearing) one after another, are, as it were,
gathered up by the navigators. Mr.
Smith (p. 42) exposes the mistake of Eus-
tathius (adopted by Valpy, from Dr. Fal-
coner), by which the ship taking the S.
coast of Crete is attempted to be explained :
viz. SusAliwevos Kpfhtn mpos thy Boppav:
whereas there are, in fact, excellent har-
bours on the N. side of Crete,—Souda and
Spina Longa. Kadovs Atpévas | The
situation of this anchorage was ascertained
by Pococke, from the fact of the name still
remaining. “In searching after Lebena
farther to the west, I found out a place
which I thought to be of greater conse-
quence, because mentioned in Holy Scrip-
ture, and also honoured by the presence of
St. Paul, that is, ‘the Fair Havens, near
unto the city of Lasea ;? for there is an-
other small bay about two leagues to the
E. of Matala, which is now called by the
Greeks good or fair havens (Ameéoves
kaAdovs):” [Calolimounias of Mr. Brown’s
letter: see excursus as above.| ‘Travels
in the Hast, ii. p. 250: cited by Mr. Smith,
who adds: “The most conclusive evidence
that this is the Fair Havens of Scripture,
is, that its position is precisely that where
a ship circumstanced as St. Paul’s was,
must have put in. I have already shewn
that the wind must have been about
N.W. ;—but with such a wind she could
not pass Cape Matala: we must therefore
look near, but to the E. of this promon-
tory, for an anchorage well calculated to
shelter a vessel in N.W. winds, but not
Srom all winds, otherwise it would not
have been, in the opinion of seamen (ver.
12), an unsafe winter harbour. Now here
we have a harbour which not only fulfils
every one of the conditions, but still retains
the name given to it by St. Luke.” Smith,
p. 45. He also gives an engraving of the
place from a sketch by Signr. Schranz, the
8—l1.
NIPAZEIS AITIOSTOAQN.
289
q
" yoovou dtayevonévou kat Ovroc non * EmtagaXoue Ti tree
" whove dua TO Kal THY
" Tapyver 0 TlavAoe }° Aeyor avroic “Avépec,
* UBpewe Kal 7ToAAne
“pooriov kat tov wXolov adXa a tov °
tvs \
ote * wera
f
péidXEv “&
eacaoGar rov * rAovv.
d , \ ~
kuBepynry Kal Tw
15, 1 Pet.iv.3. Jer. viii. 20.
(-veo.s, Wisd. viii. 9. )
ix. 37.
(-1ecv, ch. xiv. 5.
1 Cor. iii. 15.)
-7iCecv, Matt. xi 28.)
-tatys, Rom. i. 30.)
e here only + = ch. v. 3%, &c. reif.
10. Acopw X!.
137 Chr Thl-sif. vuov L783 lect-12.
‘vnaretay 70n "
* pavk\now ate eveiOero » Tole F
Dan. ii. 9 Theod,
w ch. xix. 26 reff.
y = ver. 21 (2 Cor. xii. 10) only.
a = here (Matt. xi. 30. xxiii. 4. Luke xi. 46 bis.
b = ch. xv. 26 reff. 4
XViii. 17 penis: Prov. xxiii. 34. Ezek. xxvii. 8, 27, 28 only. (qv, Prov. xii. 5.
only +.
ania ap NSPE, 2 Mace. xi.
wp & auly.
r here only +.
Ewpw Wisd. ix. 14
only. (-@c,
2 (nutac i povov TOU Wisd. iv. 4.)
p = s here Bis Shae
= on
UX av nov Wiad. Bet Ae
0 Ob are nC TW pone only,
u (2 Cor. vi. 5
reff.)
= Matt. xiv.
vver. 22only+t. 2 Macc. vii. 25, 26 only.
x = ch. v. 26. xxv. 23 al. fr. 1 Macc.
TH ano THY 6uUBpwyv Up, Jos. Antt. iii. 6. 4, end.
zver. 21. Phil. iii. 7, 8only. Ezra vii. 26. ie ovv,
Gal. vi.5) onlyt. (Sir. xxi. 16.
ce ch, xi. 28 reff. d Rev.
-vnows, 1 Cor, xii. 28.)
rec goptov, with b c! o Thi-fin Gc: txt ABH'LN p 18 rel 36. 40.
11. rec ewe:BeTo bef waddov, with H'L rel syrr Thl-sif Hc: txt ABN k m p 138. 40
artist who accompanied Mr. Pashley in his
travels. There is no ground for iden-
tifying this anchorage with Kady aKrH
mentioned as a city in Crete by Steph.
Byzant. For this is clearly not the name
of a city, by the subjoined notice, @ eyys
jv wots Aacéa. Nor is there any reason
to suppose, with Meyer, that the name kadot
Aum. was euphemistically given,—because
the harbour was not one to winter in: this
(see above) it may not have been, and yet
may have been an excellent refuge at parti-
cular times, as now, from prevailing westerly
winds. Aagéa | This place was, until
recently, altogether unknown; and from
the variety of readings, the very name was
uncertain. Pliny (iv. 12) mentions Lasos
among the cities of Crete, but does not
indicate its situation. It is singular, and
tends to support the identity of Lasos with
our Lasea, that as here Alassa, so there
Alos, is a various reading. The reading
Thalassa appears to have been an error of a
transcriber from -a\acoa forming so con-
siderable a part of a word of such common
occurrence. There is a Lisia named
in Crete in the Peutinger Table, which may
be the same. [On the very interesting
discovery of Lasea by the Rev. G. Brown
in the beginning of the year 1856, see the
excursus at the end of Prolegg. to Acts.
The ruins are on the beach, about two
hours eastward of Fair Havens. | 9.
ixavov xp.] Not ‘since the beginning of
our voyage, as Meyer:—the time was
spent at the anchorage. ToU Tods |
Not ‘sailing, but the voyage, viz. to
Rome,—which henceforth was given up as
hopeless for this autumn and winter.
That this is the meaning of 6 mAods, see
ch. xxi. 7. And by observing this, we
Vou. Il.
avoid a difficulty which has been supposed
to attend the words. Sailing was not
unsafe so early as this (see below) ; but to
undertake so long a voyage, was.
TY vyoreiav | The fast, kat éfoxhv, is
the solemn fast of the day of expiation,
the 10th of Tisri, the seventh month of
the Jewish ecclesiastical year, and the first
of the civil year. See Levit. xvi. 29 ff. ;
xxiii. 26 ff. This would be about the time
of the autumnal equinox. The sailing
season did not close so early: ‘Ex die
igitur tertio iduum Novembris, usque in
diem sextum iduum Martiarum, maria
clauduntur.’ Vegetius (Smith, p. 45, note)
de Re Milit. iv. 39. 10.| From the
use of Mewp here, and from the saying
itself, it seems clear to me that Paul was
not uttering af present any prophetic inti-
mation, but simply his own sound judg-
ment on the difficult questionatissue. It
is otherwise at vv. 22—24. As Smith re-
marks, “The event justified St. Paul’s
advice. At the same time it may be ob-
served, that a bay, open to nearly one half
the compass, could not have been a good
winter harbour.” (p. 47.) peta
UBpews is interpreted by Meyer as sub-
jective—‘ accompanied with presumption
on our part ? but not to mention that this
would be a very unusual sense, ver. 21,
Kepdjoa Thy UBpw Tavt. K. T. Cnulay, is
decisive (De W.) against it. Sug fiske
pedAew | A mixing of two constructions,
see Winer, edn. 6, § 44. 8, note 2.
This is most flagrant in later writers, as
Pausanias and SPARES: Bernhardy,
Syntax, p. 369; but is also found earlier,
e. g. Plat. Charm., p. 165: ov« dv aicxuv-
Oeinv drt ui) ovx) dpb@s pavas cipynrevar.
Iseus, wep) Tod PiroKT. KANP- Bey : éretd7
290
g here onlyt.
(eveTtos,
Luke ix. 62.)
h here bis. ver.
8 only. Ps. mw
evi. 3U.
ich. ii. 30 reff. eee
k here only t.
IIPAZEIS AIOZTOAQN.
b70 [rod | TlatAov Acyonuévore.
XXVIL.
9 b) , \ ~
12 8 avev0érov be TOU
h , 1¢ , ‘ k ’ Aa py ,
Amévoc 'vTapyovtog mpoc * Tapayemaaiay ol TAELOVEC
1 ’ ~ > ~ A NF
™ BovAnv ° avay OInvat exeWev, ? et ? we Ouvatvro
’ ' , h , cd
‘katavtnoavrec cic Doika * Tapayemacat Améva THC
Diod. Sic.
below ie 4 s “ t A? 40 ' Wat Sv ~
Lay TNC A\ETro kata "“AiBa Kat ‘Kata woov.
Leonie 19 Kon 1¢ 6) TovTa yoo
reff. m here only. Judg. xix. 30. n= ch. v. 38 reff.
10. xi. 14. Phil. iii. 11 only. w. opt., here only.
xvi. 6. Tit. iii. 12 only +. (see above [k].)
viii. 26, 36. Phil. iii. 14.)
vulg arm Chr-comm Thl-fin.
(Ec: om ABN p.
12. rec wAciovs, with H'L 13. 36 rel Chr Thl Gc: txt ABN p 40.
s=hereonly. Ezek. xi. 1 al.
uhere only. Gen. xiii. 14 al.
o ch. xiii. 13 reff. p Rom. i.
reh. xxviii. 11. 1 Cor.
t see note. (ch.
qch. xvi 1 reff
v here only +t.
rec ins tov bef mavaAov, with H'L 18. 36 rel Chr Thl
rec xaKel9ev,
with Hr rel syr Thl Ge: txt ABLX bchkop 18. 36. 40 vulg Syr arm Chr.
SuvayvTa A.
dé mposSiaeuaptupyeey ws vidv elvar yvi-
c.ioyv Evethwovos TovTov. . . See other refer-
ences in Winer, 1. c. 11. T. vavkdrpo |
the owner of the ship. Wetst. cites from
Plutarch, vadras wey exA€eyera KuBepynTns,
Kal kuBepyhtny vavkAnpos. So Hesych.:
vavkeAnpos, 6 deomdtns 7. mAolov,—and
Xen. (eon. viii. 12: popriwy, 80a vavKaAt-
pois Képdous veka &yera. (Kuin.)
12.] See above on ver. 8. The anchorage
was sheltered from the N.W., but not from
nearly half the compass. Grotius and
Heinsius’s rendering of mpds mapaxetm.,
‘ad vitandam tempestatem,’ is contrary
to usage, besides being singularly incon-
sistent with the fact in more ways than
one. For this purpose the anchorage was
e#Oeros, and in it they had (see next verse)
actually ridden out the storm, before they
left it. exetOev] The xaxetOev of the
ree. would be thence also, as from their
former stopping-places. Potvika |
Ptolemy (iii. 17) calls the haven @oikovs,
and the city (lying some way inland)
boivit. Strabo (x. 4) says, 7d 5& bev
ic@uds eoTw ws ExaToy otadlwy, Exwv
Katoilay mpds pev Th Bopelw Oaddrry
"AudiuddAayv, mpds b& TH voTi PowiKy TOV
Aauréwy. This description, and the other
data belonging to Pheenice, Smith (p. 48)
has shewn to fit the modern Lutvo, which,
though not known now as an anchorage,
probably from the silting up of the har-
bour, is so marked in the French admiralty
chart of 1738, and “if then able to shelter
the smallest craft, must have been capable
of receiving the largest ships seventeen
centuries before.” [See an inscription
making it highly probable that Alexan-
drian ships did winter at Lutro, in the
excursus at the end of Prolegg. to Acts. ]
BXerovTa kata AiBa Kk. KaTa XO-
pov| looking (literally) down the S.W.
and N.W. winds; i. e. in the direction
of these winds, viz. N.E. and 8.E. For
Atv and x@pos are not quarters of the
compass, but winds ; and card, used with
a wind, denotes the direction of its blow-
ing,— down the wind. This interpretation,
which I was long ago persuaded was the
right one, I find now confirmed by the
opinion of Mr. Smith, who cites Herod.
iv. 110, eépovto kata Ktua Kal &vewor,
and Arrian, Periplus Euxini, p. 3, apve
vepedh emavactaca ekeppayn Kat’ evpov.
So also kara fdov, Herod. ii. 96. And in
Jos. Antt. xv. 9.6, the coasts near Caesarea
are said to be Svsopya Sia Tas Kata AiBa
mposBoAds. See also Thucyd. vi. 104.
In the reff, the substantive is not one of
motion like Ai, x@pos, or pdos, but of
fixed location, as weonuBpla oxdmos. The
direction then is towards the spot indi-
cated, just as in the present case it is in
that of the motion indicated. The harbour
of Lutro satisfies these conditions ; and is
even more decisively pointed out as being
the spot by a notice in the Synecdemus of
Hierocles, uiwikn ror *Apadevas vijcos
KAavéos. Now Mr. Pashley found a vil-
lage called Aradhena a short distance above
Lutro, and another close by called Ano-
polis, of which Steph. Byz. says, “Apadnv
moAts Kpytns’ 4 5€ “AvwrdAis Aéyerau,
dia 7d eivat Gvw. From these data it is
almost demonstrated that the port of
Phenice is the present port of Lutro.
Ptolemy’s longitude for port Pheenice also
agrees. See Smith, pp. 51 ff. Mr. Smith
has kindly sent me the following extract
from a letter containing additional con-
firmation of the view: ‘ Loutro is an ex-
cellent harbour ; you open it unexpectedly,
the rocks stand apart and the town appears
within. During the Greek war, when eruis-
ing with Lord Cochrane, ... Chased a
pirate schooner, as they thought, right
upon the rocks ; suddenly he disappeared,
and when rounding in after him,—like a
change of scenery, the little basin, its ship-
ping, and the town of Loutro, revealed
themselves. See Prof. Hackett’s note,
eee
~<a
ABLN&
abcdf
ghkl
mop l3
12—14.
TIPAZ EIS ATOSTOAQN.
291
we 4 \ pe eat ? ~
13 UTOTVEVOaAVTOC d& voTOU oocavrec THC z ™00- ts
0é z Ww a bes e Ne 13. Luke =
EDEWC KEKPATNHKEVAL, aoavrsc acoov TAOE eyOvTo xii. 59 (xi.
‘ , , > ‘ \ d ’ 319 Mt. xiii.
THY Kpnrnv. bet Ov ToXDd be eBaXev Kat 29. Rev.
xxi. 13) only.
Exod. x. 13. Sir. xiii. 16 al. y = Rom. viii. 28. ix. 11. Eph.i. 11. iii, 11. 2 Tim. i, 9.
2 Macc. iii. 8. z =hereonly. (Heb. vi.18.) Kp. THs tpvG., Diod Sic. xvi. 20. a = here
only. So Thucyd. ii. 23 al. b here only. comparat., =ch. xxv. 10 reff. c ver. &
d= here only. see note.
13. uvromvevoartes(sic) &.
impugning the above view and interpreta-
tion ; which however does not alter my
opinion. Mr. Howson gives his solution
thus: “The difficulty is to be explained
simply by remembering that sailors speak
of every thing from their own point of
view, and that the harbour (see chart in C.
and H. ii. 397) does look—from the water
towards the land which encloses it—in
the direction of S.W. and N.W.” But
I cannot believe, till experience can be
shewn to confirm the idea, that even sailors
could speak of a harbour as ‘ looking’ in
the direction in which they would look
when entering it. 13. dromvevoavTos |
as K. V., softly blowing, compare izo-
petdidw. The S. wind was favourable for
them in sailing from Fair Havens to
Pheenice. 56§. +t. mpo8. Kekpar. |
imagining that they had (as good as)
accomplished their purpose; i. e. that
it would now be a very easy matter to
reach Pheenice. G@pavtes “may be
translated either ‘ weighed,’ or ‘set sail ;’
for ancient authors supply sometimes Tas
aykvpas, and sometimes Ta foTia.....
Julius Pollux, however, like St. Luke,
supplies neither, which is certainly the
most nautical way of ne. it: he
says, atpovtes amd THs yins, lib. i. 103.”
Smith, p. 55. aocov aa They
crept close along the land till they passed
Cape Matala. “A ship which could not
lie nearer to the wind than seven points,
would just weather that point which bears
W. by S. from the entrance of Fair Havens.
We see therefore the propriety of the ex-
pression G@ooov zap., ‘they sailed close
by Crete,’ which the author uses to de-
scribe the first part of their passage.”
Smith, p. 56. The Vulg. has: ‘ quum
sustulissent de Asson,’ connecting &partes
with *Aooor, and understanding the latter
as the name of a Cretan town, There is
an Asus mentioned by Pliny (iv. 12), but
it is ‘in Mediterraneo,’ not on the coast,—
and the construction would be inadmissible.
Erasmus, Luther, &c., have taken “Accov
as the accusative of direction, ‘ when they
had weighed for Assus.’ But besides the
local objection, this construction also would
he most harsh, as &payres does not indicate
the progress of their voyage, but only the
setting out. Heinsius took &paytes = ava-
gavevres, ch. xxi. 3,—‘postquam Asos
attollere se visa est’ (Meyer). But there
can be little doubt that all of these are
mistakes, and that aoooy is the adverb.
14. Badev kat’ aitas]| These dif-
ficult words have been taken in three ways :
(1) (The common interpretation) referring
avtns to thy Kpntny just mentioned.
Thus they might mean, (a) ‘drove (us)
against Crete, or (8) ‘struck (blew)
agaist Crete, i. e, in the direction of
Crete. Now of these, (a) is contrary to
the expressed fact :—they were not driven
against Crete. And (f) is as inconsistent
with the implied fact. Had the wind blown
in the direction of Creteatall, they, who.gave
themselves up to it, and were driven before
it (emddvtTes epepducba, ver. 15), must have
been stranded on the Cretan coast, which
they were not. (2) referring avtis to
the ship, understood. This is adopted by
Dr. Bloomfield and Mr. Smith. (The
latter, I find by a letter received since
this note was written, now understands it
as I have explained it below.) But not
to mention the harshness occasioned by
having to supply a subject for adr7s which
has never yet been mentioned,—a decisive
objection against this rendering is, that the
ship throughout the narrative is 7d wAotor,
not 7 vais, in every place except ver. 41, —
and 7d 7A. occurs in the very next clause,
which, had this been meant of the ship,
would certainly have been expr essed ouvap-
macbetons Sé, Or guvapracbeions de avrijs.
(3) referring adtijs to wpobecews. In
that case anaes kat’ avtTyjs must either
(a) = KaréBarev Tuas &m aitis, as
Plato, Euthyph. 15 5, am eAmidos we kata-
Badrav peyaAdns a&mrépxet, which is harsh,
and hardly allawable; or (8) be under-
stood, taking the neuter sense of Bad\Aw
(motambds eis GAa Baddwr, Il. A, 722), as
meaning ‘ blew against it,’ so as to thwart
their design. And so Luther: ‘erbhob fic
wider ihr Bornehmen.’ But this mixture
of literal and figurative is also harsh, and
hardly allowable, (4) A method has oc-
curred to me of rendering the words, which
seems to remove all harshness, whether of
U 2
292 TIPAZEIS AMOSTOAQN. XXVITI.
>, = 7 e ‘ e , fees ,
Bie ae auTnc avEnoc TupwrlkKog oO KaAouuevoc evpakvAwy.
-@y, isa.
xiii. 21 Aq.) 15 g
, \ - ’ Nias , h?
ouvaprasbévroc d& Tov wAolov Kal wy SuVapévou "avT-
of ad pew Tw avin | emoovrec * epeooucba. 16
(ch. xv. 30 reff.) Diod. Sic. xx. 16.
1 here only.
f here only t.
g ch. vi. 12 reff.
h here only t.
Wisd. xii. 14
only. i = here only {.
xxvi. 36. see ch. ii. 2.)
] ,
vyoloyv
k = (nautical) here bis only. (Lev.
14. for kar’ avtns, kata TavTns &. rec evpoxAvdey, with HtL p(evpo cAvdw) rel
Syr Chr Thl Cc: evpuxaAviwy B? 40.133: evpaxdrvdov syr: evpakvkAwy arm: aquilo
maris (omg Tud. o KaA.) wth: evtpaxndAwy copt: evpakndwy sah: evparoidwy (ilacism)
13: txt (see note) A B'(see table) &, confirmed by Huroaquilo vulg Cassiod, by 15 sah
and in some measure (evgar.) by syr arm copt.
15. dvvopyevov B'.
aft exidovTes INS Tw TACOYTL K. TUOTELAaYTES Ta LoTLAa C137:
TN TVEOVTN K. TUVAYOVTES TO TKEVUS WS EpepeY EpEepomefa, Syr-w-ast.
reference in avrjs, or of construction.
There can be no question that the obvious
reference of avtis is to Crete. What
then is €Badev kat’ adtas ? EBadrey ap-
plied to wind may be understood as above,
neuter, or reflective, ‘blew, ‘rushed.
Assuming this, and that there is no object
to be supplied between €Sadcy and the pre-
position, «ar aitjs may surely be ren-
dered, as in BH Se kat? OvAvpro1o0 Kapy-
vov,—Kar “Idaiwy opéwv,—KaTa méeTpnS,
&e., viz. down (from) Crete, ‘down the
high lands forming the coast’ It is a
common expression in lake and coasting
navigation, that ‘a gust came down the
valleys” And this would be exactly the
direction of the wind in question. When
they had doubled, or perhaps were now
doubling, Cape Matala, the wind suddenly
changed, and the typhoon came down upon
them from the high lands ;—«at first, as
long as they were sheltered, only by fits
down the gullies, but as soon as they were
in the open bay past the cape, with its full
violence. This, the hurricane rushing down
the high lands when first observed, and
afterwards ouvapra(wy Tb mAotoy, seems
to me exactly to describe their changed cir-
cumstances in passing the cape. A confirma-
tion of this interpretation may be found by
Luke himself using raréBn to express the
descending of a squall from the hills on the
lake of Gennesareth, Luke viii. 28, where
Matt. and Mark have only éeyevero and
yiverat. Mr. Smith also suggests cat&
Tov Kpnuvov, Luke viii. 33, as confirma-
tory. The above is also Mr. Howson’s
view. See, in the excursus appended to
the Prolegg. to Acts, the confirmation of
this view in what actually happened to the
Rev. G. Brown’s party. TUPHViKds |
«The sudden change from a south wind to
a violent northerly wind, is a common oc-
currence in these seas. (Captain J.Stewart,
R.N., in his remarks on the Archipelago,
observes, “It is always safe to anchor
under the lee of an island with a northerly
wind, as it dies gradually away; but it
would be extremely dangerous with south-
erly winds, as they almost invariably shift
to a violent northerly wind.”) The term
‘typhonic’ indicates that it was accom-
panied by some of the phenomena which
might be expected in such a case, viz. the
agitation and whirling motion of the clouds
caused by the meeting of the opposite cur-
rents of air when the change took place,
and probably also of the sea, raising it in
columns of spray. Pliny (ii. 48), speak-
ing of ‘repentini flatus,’ says, ‘ vorticem
faciunt qui Typhon vocatur: <Aul. Gell.
xix. 1, ‘Turbines etiam crebriores . . . et
figure quedam nubium tremende quas
tupavas vocabant.’” Smith, p. 60.
evpaxvAwv | I have adopted the reading of
ABR, according to my principle of going
in all cases where there is no overpower-
ing objection, by our most ancient MSS.
It may be that etpaxtAwy had become in
common parlance corrupted into evdpo-
KAvdwy, an anomalous word, having no
assignable derivation, but perhaps arising
from the Greek sailors having changed
the Latin termination into one having sig-
nificance for themselves. Mr. Smith, in
his appendix, ‘On the Wind Euroclydon,’
has satisfactorily answered the objections
of Bryant to the compound edpaxvAwy,—
by shewing that eipos properly, was not
the S8.E., but the E. wind; and that com-
pounds of Greek and Latin in the names of
winds are not unknown, e.g. Euro-Auster.
The direction of the wind is established
by Mr. S., from what follows, to have been
about half a point N. of H.N.E.; and the
subsequent narrative shews that the wind
continued to blow from this point till they
reached Malta. 15. cvvapr.| being
hurried away, ‘borne along,’ by it: see
reff. avrop9ahpetv] It is hardly
likely that this term, which is used so
naturally and constantly of men facing an
enemy (Polyb. i. 17. 3, and eight times
more), and also metaphorically of resisting
ABLR
abcdf
ghkl
mopl13
C -dns
nv ap-
GVTES eee
ABCLN
abcdf
ghkl
mopl3
15—17.
O€ Tt
IIPAZEIS ATMOSTOAQN.
” vrodpapovrec kadobmevoy eee tox boapen
298
m here only tf.
n=ch. vi. 10
° norte P mepunger ete yeveobar TC * oxapne, 7 5 nv aoavrec och ee
reff.
t
"BonBetarc * Peo, mroGaEyivzee TO mAowyv, popov- p here only
’ lyt. Bel
MEVOL TE MI) ELC THY " ovotiv ’ extécwow ~ yadacavrec TO &Dr33
only, but
not =. (-os, 2 Mace. xii. 3, 6.) dureovatin occ Ps, vii. 10. Sir, xl. 24 al. (-Qetv,
ch. xxi. s -0s, Heb. xiii. 6.) s ver. . 1 Cor. vii. 21 al. L.P. Wisd. li. 6. t here
onlyt. 2 Mave. iii. 19 only.
Pols yb. xxvii. 3.
Plat. Rep. x. 616. 3, Edvar yap ToUTO TO Y@s
ou ie Tov OvUpavov, oLoyv Ta Ph ih lenrtaiae T. Tptnp@yv, ovTw Taaav Evvéxov Thy mepipopcy.
see Thucyd. i. 29.
u here only t.
els Gyimous, and al.
16. vrodpauouvres B'(Mai) 93. 95.
w ch. ix. 25 reff.
Vv = vy. 26, 29 only. Diod. Sic. ii. 60, Exmecetv
rec kAav-, with AH'L &(but A erased) p rel
13. 36. 40. 137 syr syr-marg-gr Chr Thl (ce:
Syr, Gaudem Cassiod.— ree -dnv, with H'L rel :
kav- B vulg eth Jer, Kyra or Keuda
-dav c 25 lect-12, -dam fuld: -5a BX p
13. 40. 137 vulg syr syr-marg-gr copt eth. (A has only KAA, the remaining letters are
gone at the end of a line.)
rel 36 syrr copt «th-pl Chr :
17. Boneras H® c p 36. 96 lect-12:
temptation (uh Svvas@ar Tots xphwacw
avtopbadpuetv, Polyb. xxviii. 17. 18),
should have been originally a naval term,
derived from the practice of painting eyes
on either side of the beaks of ships. More
probably the expression was transferred to
a ship from its usage in common life.
émSdvtes | So Plutarch de Fortun. Rom.
cited in note on ver. 26. Either ‘the
ship, or ‘ourselves, may be supplied:
or better perhaps, neither, but the word
taken generally—giving up. edepo-
pe8a| passive: we were driven along.
16. trodSpapovtTes | running under
the lee of. ‘St. Luke exhibits here as on
every other occasion, the most perfect con-
mand of nautical terms, and gives the ut-
most precision to his language by selecting
the most appropriate: they ran before
the wind fo leeward of Clauda, hence it is
trodpaudytes: they sailed with a side
wind to leeward of Cyprus and Crete:
hence it is tremAcdoauey” (Smith, p. 61,
note). KAatda} Here again, there
can be little doubt that the name of the
island was Kavéda, or Tatéa, as we have
in some MSS., or, as in Pliny and Mela,
Gaudos: but Ptol. (iii. 7) has KAavéos,
and the corruption was very obvious. The
island is the modern Gozzo. ioxv-
cap. pod. «.7.A.] “ Upon reaching Clauda,
they availed themselves of the smooth
water under its lee, to prepare the ship to
resist the fury of the storm. ‘Their first
care was to secure the boat by hoisting it
onboard. This had not been done at first,
because the weather was moderate, and the
distance they had to go, short. Under
such circumstances, it is not usual to hoist
boats on board, but it had now become
necessary. In running down upon Clauda,
it could not be done, on account of the
ship’s way through the water. To enable
rec podis bef ioxuvocapev (Che of order ), with H'lL
txt ABN m p 18 (40) vulg.
-Oiay &'.
exmreowow NI. om To XN}.
them to do it, thé ship must have been
rounded to, with her head to the wind, and
her sails, if she had any set at the time,
trimmed, so that she had no head-way, or
progressive movement. In this position
she would drift, broadside to leeward. I
conclude they passed round the east end of
the island: not only because it was nearest,
but because ‘an extensive reef with nume-
rous rocks extends from Gozzo to the N.W.,
which renders the passage between the two
isles very dangerous’ (Sailing Directions,
p. 207). In this case the ship would be
brought to on the starboard tack, i. e. with
the right side to windward.” .... “St.
Luke tells us they had much difficulty in
securing the boat. He does not say why :
but independently of the gale which was
raging at the time, the boat had been towed
between twenty and thirty miles after the
gale had sprung up, and could scarcely fail
to be filled with water.” Smith, pp. 64,
65. 17.] dpavtes, having taken
on board. BonPeiats| measures to
strengthen the ship, strained and weak-
ened by labouring in the gale. Pliny (ii.
48) calls the typhoon ‘ preecipua navigan-
tium pestis, non antennas modo, verum ipsa
navigia contorta frangens.’ Grot., Hein-
sius, &c., are clearly wrong in interpreting
Bonéet., ‘the help of the passengers.’
trolwvvivtes Tt. wA.] undergird-
ing, or frapping the ship. “To frap a
ship (ceintrer un vaissear) is to pass four or
five turns of a large cable-laid rope round
the hull or frame of a ship, to support her
in a great storm, or otherwise, when it is
apprehended that she is not strong enough
to resist the violent efforts of the sea: this
expedient, however, is rarely put in prac-
tice.’ Falconer’s Marine Dict. :—Smith,
p- 60, who brings several instances of the
practice, in our own times. See additional
294
IIPAZEIS AITOSTOAQN,
XXVIT.
~ cu ied Sie oe.
xhereonly. * gxgyoc ovtwe § epgoovto. 18 ¥ gdoowe Oe ” 5s aComévwy ee
donald: 6. 3 ed 7
Xen. Ce. ae Pe or ~
paetae NUwWY TH eEne | "exBoAny ETOLOUYTO, Kal TH se ven ia |
=e he 2) - ‘ fre 4
aie it « QUTOYELVEC TIV © OKEU nv TOU mAotov gppiwav* nre
19 F. Sit. », Goa 2 if : Se
iii. 1 \ c , rt ,’ > .
(only. (6s, O€ NALOU pyre © doTpwv © EeTipawovTwv * ETL baht mue-
Exod. x. 19.) al ees) moo? m? XY n? , o X \
mherp only. pac, YEe&luwvoc TE OVK = OALYOU — ETLKELMEVOD, OLTOV f
10 only. a ch. xxi. 1 reff. b here only. Jonah i. 5. c alone, Luke xiii. 52 only.
Exod. xxi. 29. w. mjépa, Matt. xvi. 21 al. fr.
Ald. (Jonah i. 6?) only.
xxvii.6. Luke iv.35. xvii. 2 only. Gen. mex ae
i.79. Tit. ii. 11. iii. 4 only. Deut. xxxiii.
k= ch. ii. 40 reff.
m ch. xii. 18 reff.
Job xix. 3. o = 2Tim. iv. 8.
18. for Se, re A 25 spec Syr eth-pl.
19. rec eppuaper (corrn to first person to suit avtoxerpes :
-auev should have been altered to -av, to suit
more probable than that, as De W.,
€TOLOUYTO:
txt AB’C a b o p 18. 36. 40 vulg spec.
ones in C. and H. ii. 404, f. Horace
seems to allude to it, Od. i. 14. 8, ‘ac sine
funibus Vix durare carine Possint impe-
riosius Alquor.’ See reff. THY ovpTty |
The Syrtis, on the African coast ; there
were two, the greater and the lesser (ai
poBepal kat tots akovovor Svptes, Jos.
B. J. 11. 16. 4), of which the former was
the nearer to them. éxtécwo | See
reff. and add gepduevor TH Tvevmati....
etémimtov mpos Tas métpas, Herodot. viii.
13. xa. tT. oxetos|] “It is not
easy to imagine a more erroneous transla-
tion than that of our authorized version :
‘Fearing lest they should fall into the
quicksands, they strake sail, and so were
driven.’ It is in fact equivalent to saying
that, fearing a certain danger, they de-
prived themselves of the only possible
means of avoiding it.” Smith, p. 67. He
goes on to explain, that if they had struck
sail, they must have been driven directly
towards the Syrtis. They therefore set
what sail the violence of the gale would
permit them to carry, turning the ship’s
head off shore, she having already been
brought to on the starboard tack (right
side to the wind). The adoption of this
course would enable them to run before
the gale, and yet keep wide of the African
coast, which we know they did. But what
is xaX. TO oKevos? It is interpreted by
Meyer, De W., and most Commentators, of
striking sail (as E. V.): but this (see above)
could not be: “In a storm with a contrary
wind or on a lee-shore, a ship is obliged to
lie-to under a very low sail: some sail is
absolutely necessary to keep the ship steady,
otherwise she would pitch about like a
cork, and roll so deep as to strain and
work herself to pieces.” Encycl. Brit. art.
‘Seamanship:’ Smith, p. 72, who inter-
oKkeuny Exatov TpinpEct, Diod. Sic. xiv. 79.
(-m7etv, ch. xxii. 23.)
2. GG vera, 2 Thess. ii. 8.
J= Matt. xvi. 3 (xxiv. 20 { Mk. John x. 22.
n= here (Luke y. 1, xxiii. 23. John xi. 38. xxi. 9.
see note), with HL rel syrr copt xth-pl Chr Thl Gc :
e here only. Gen, xxxi. 23
f ver. 29. Matt. ix. 36. xv. 30,
g ch. vii. 43 reff. h Luke
-vs, ch. ii. 20.) ich xiii. 3) reff.
2 Tim. iv. 21) only. Job xxxvii. 6.
1 Cor. ix. 16. Heb.ix. 10) only.
d here only t.
so Meyer, which is much
epewayv Bl: eprpay N:
prets the words, lowering the gear, i.e.
sending down upon deck the gear connected
with the fair-weather sails, such as the
suppara, or top-sails. A modern ship sends
down top-gallant masts and yards, a cutter
strikes her topmast, when preparing for a
gale. In this case it was perhaps the heavy
yard which the ancient ships carried, with
the sail attached to it, and the heavy ropes,
which would by their top-weight produce
uneasiness of motion as well as resistance to
the wind. See a letter addressed to Mr.
Smith by Capt. Spratt, R.N., quoted in C.
and H. ii. p. 405, note 5. oUTws | i.e.
“not only with the ship undergirded, and
made snug, but with storm-sails set, and
on the starboard tack, which was the only
course hy which she could avoid falling into
the Syrtis.” Smith, ib. 18. éxBod.
érov.| “The technical terms for taking
cargo out of a ship, given by Julius Pollux,
are €x0éaba, amopopticacba, Koupioa Thy
vavy, emeAappuvat, exBorAhy moinoacbat Tay
goptiwy. So that both here, and after-
wards in ver. 38 (éxovpiCoy 7. wAoiov), St.
Luke uses appropriate technical phrases.”
Smith, ib. Of what the freight con-
sisted, we have no intimation. Perhaps
not of wheat, on account of the separate
statement of ver. 38. See ref. 19. +.
oKeuny T. TA. Epp.| 4 cKev7y is the furni-
ture of the ship—beds, moveables of all
kinds, cooking utensils, and the spare rig-
ging. avroxetpes is used with &pupav
as shewing the urgency of the danger—
when the seamen would with their own
hands, cast away what otherwise was
needful to the ship and themselves. This
not being seen, avtédx. has been supposed
to imply’ the first person, and eppipauev
has crept in: see var. readd. 20. |
The sun and stars were the only guides of
18—25.
Pp = Xv \ — q ~ , A) e ~
meompetto éAmic Taca * rov owlecOat Huac.
TIPAZEIS AIOSTOAQN.
295
*! rodXine »; p=2 ae oe
r? , s ¢ , , t \ e ll
Te "aowtlagc *umapyovonc, TOTE ou Oo TavAoe ev iver di)
, > ~ if "ERS , Ld ” § rh) Ge
iow aUTwY ELTEV el MEV, W avogoEc, “ Tet apxnoarrac q constr., ch.
SR ey ? \ re , w r here only t.
mot By avayso0at azo tno Kontne, “ kepdnoat te thy ie
x@ 7 nl Boas 2 / 99 i EE PG TA La SRS -TELY,
uBow Tavurnv Kat tnv © Cymiay. kat® ta voy * wapawwe Mace. ii'17.
gh se ote Ga Wk X N c ~ > Pee , -Tt, Job
vuac * evOupey atofo0An yao “wuyne ovoeula Eatat && xxiv. 6) ‘
cia ad . ~ ' 3 D , =f chowh Tarte
vawy “ wAnv tov wAolouv. TapéoTn yap jot Tory my 6k eee
\ ~ 7) - ? Ea | ? ‘ ° Lue 7,
VUKTL TOU VEOU OU ELLLL [eyo | Ww Kal AaToevw
24 Atyor, My pogom Tasks Kaioapt oe Oe '
oTnval, Kat tov ©
h , ‘ ~
wr €OVvTaC META GOV.
Jos. Antt. ii. 3. 2.
a here bis.
(-BaAAewv, Mark x. 50.
28. xx. 23. Deut. i. 36.
ii. 10 reff. h ver. 2 reff.
20. zAciovs Ne
x ver 10.
Heb. x. 35.)
eg 101.
James y. 13 only, Ps. lxvii. 18 Ald. only. (see ver. 36 al.)
ech. vii. 7 reff.
om Aooy B.
v ch. xii. 13
dyyehoe, reff.
w = here only.
er (Comix
Taoa &c. reft.)
A 5 n-
KEyapioral cot o Ode mavrae rove aa
p \ > - ” a , t -
25 Sid * evOupetre, avooEce’ TIGTEVW aa
y ch. iv. 29 reff. z ver. 9 only (reff.).
b Rom, xi. 15 only ft.
ce =ch. xv. 26 reff. d [John viii. 10.] ch. xv.
f = Rom. xiv. 10. Dan. vii. 10. g 2 Cor.
rec maa bef eAms, with CHt L(z.
n €A.) N rel 36 syr Chr: txt AB k m p 18 vulg spec copt.
21. rec Se, with HtL rel syr copt Chr: txt ABCR c p 13. 40. 137 vulg spee Syr
zth-pl Thl-fin.
om tys H'.
22. ovdeuia bef puxns N! 80.
23. for Tavtn, Tnde N?.
om tote A 21.
eumerw A.
for avtwy, nuwy ¢ 137.
rec Ty vuxts bef tavtn, with (none of our mss)
syr (ic: txt ABCH'LN rel 40. 137 vulg arm Chr Thl-sif (Thl-fin om tavz.).
rec
ayyedos bef Tov Geov (corrn of order), with HrL rel vulg spec; bef w «. Aatpevw 13:
txt ABCX m 40. 137.
ins AC?8 40 vulg copt zth arm.
the ancients when out of sight of land.
The expression, all hope was taken away,
seems, as Mr. Smith has noticed, to betoken
that a greater evil than the mere force of
the storm (which perhaps had some little
abated :—x. ov« 6Atyouv seems to imply
that it stillindeed raged, but not as before)
was afflicting them, viz., the leaky state of
the ship, which increased upon them, as is
shewn by their successive lightenings of
her. 21. aowtias | “ What caused the
abstinence? A ship with nearly 300 people
on board, on a voyage of some length, must
have had more than a fortnight’s provisions
(and see ver. 38): and it is not enough
to say with Kuinoel, ‘ Continui labores et
metus a periculis effecerant ut de cibo ca-
piendo non cogitarent.’ ‘Much abstinence’
is one of the most fr equent concomitants of
heavy gales. The impossibility of cooking,
or the destruction of provisions from leak-
age, are the principal causes which produce
it.’ Smith, p. 75: who quotes instances.
But doubtless anxiety and mental distress
hada considerable share init. tdte brings
vividly before us the consequence of the
éoitta—when they were in that condition,
languid and exhausted with fasting and
fears. kepoqaat | < lucrifecisse, to
have gained, not = to have incurred —
rec om eyw, with BC!H'L p 13 rel spee syrr Chr EL (ec :
but to have turned to your own account,
i.e. ‘to have spared or avoided.’ So Jos.
in ref. Aristotle, Magn. Mor. ii. 8, 6 kara
Adyov Cyutay jv AaBeivy, Tv ToLodTOY
Kepdavayta evTvxX} g¢duev (‘if he escape
it’). Plin. vii. 40, ‘quam quidem injuriam
luerifecit ille. Cicero, Verr. i. 12, ‘lu-
cretur indicia veteris infamie’ (‘ may have
them wiped out,’ and so make gain of
them by getting rid of them). UBpvw |
See on ver.10. “The #Bpw was to their
persons, the (juiay to their property.”
C. and H. ii. 410, note 4. 22.| The
neglect of precision in é&roBoAy Wuxis ov-
Seula .... WAHY Tov TAolov is common
enough. So Rev. xxi. 27, od um eiséA@n
. Tay Kowov Kk. Toy BdéAVyUa.. .
ei ph of yeypaumevor ev TH B. T. (wis.
See Winer, edn. 6, § 67. 1. e. 28.
Paul characterizes himself as dedicated to
and the servant of God, to give solemnity
to and bespeak credit for his announce-
ment. At such a time, the servants of
God are highly esteemed. 24. kexa-
ptorat| “ Etiam centurio, subserviens pro-
videntiz divine, Paulo condonavit capti-
vos, ver. 43..... Non‘ erat tam periculoso
alioqui tempore periculum, ne videretur
Paulus, que necessario dicebat, gloriose
dicere.” Bengel. peta gov| “ Paulus,
pool. 26
n=ch. xvi. 25.
Heb. iii. 8,
from Ps. xciv.
8.
o here only.
see ch. xvi.
25. Matt.
XXv. 6.
P ch. xiii. 25
reff.
(ch. xvi. 20 reff.) Josh. iii. 9.
Xix. 19. 1 Chron. xx. 2.
li. 7 [from Ps. viii. 5], 9. xiii. 22) only. Isa. lvii. 17.
1 Kings vii. 10 al. fr.
26. nuas bef de B.
27. emeyeveto A p vulg: txt BCH'LN rel 36 Chr.
IIPAZEIS AIOSTOAQN.
’ ~ , ~- ¢«- k? -
ELC VNGOV O€ TWA CEL NMAC ~ EKTEGELY.
S. ‘ > = ra
: TOOCAYELY TLVA aUTOLG YwpaY,
> ‘ , A \ , \ ,
F opyuliac etkoot, ~ Bpayd de “ Stacticavrec Kal waAW
s U t. == u? ‘ S / 929 , '
BoXtoavrsc evoov ~ opyulac oekaTévte, poBovmevot
q here bis. Rey. xviii.17 only +. (-tikdés, 3 Kingsix. 27. Jonahi. 4.)
u here bis only +.
XXVIT.
~ ~ , tet aN i 7 , ,
. yao tw Yew Ore ovtwe Estat! Kal’ ‘ov } toomov AcAaAnrat
7 "Qe 8
1 8 , S pre n 8 , Cri R
TEDOaoECKAL EKaATY) vos eyeveTo Lapepomevany YM@V Ev
Cae ! n Xo , cao SBD CE , fq -
TW Aépia, Kata MECOV THC VUKTOC™ UVITEVOOUVUY OL ‘VaUTAL
, t <<
28 Kal : BoAtoavrec eupov
r = here only.
s here bisonly+. (-Ay7, Luke xxii. 41.) __t=ch.
Vv = Luke xxii. 58. ch. v.34 (John vi. 7. Heb.
w Luke xxii. 59. xxiv. 51 only. tr., Isa. lix. 2.
for mposaryety, mposavexety
B?: mposaxew B'(R1): mposeyyiCew ¢ 137: mposayaryew 40: Tpoayaye N!.
28. for Ist kat, ortives Ni
opyvas (twice) B(Btly) b! p 18, so (once) Hto:
opyvuas B (“teste Thoma Btl” Tischdf.).—Mai and Vere edit opyvias without any
remark, for 2nd evpoy, evpopey C!.
in conspectu Dei, princeps navis, et con-
siliis gubernator.” Ib. 26. Set] Spoken
prophetically, as also ver. 31: not perhaps
from actual revelation imparted in the
vision, but by a power imparted to Paul
himself of penetrating the future at this
crisis, and announcing the Divine counsel.
Mr. Humphry compares and contrasts
the speech of Cesar to the pilot under
similar circumstances: réAua Ke. 5€d101
MnGev, GAAG emididov TH TIxn TA forla
kal 5€xou Td mvetua, TE mvéoyTe mioTEvwr,
drt Kaloapa pépers kal thy Kaloapos tbxnv,
Plut. de Fortun. Rom. p. 518. 27.
Siadep.| driven about, or up and down,
as E. V., not ‘drifting through,’ as Dr.
Bloomf., though this may have been the
fact; see examples below. Plutarch
speaking of the tumult during which
Galba was murdered, tod gopetou Kabdmep
ev KAVEwr Bedpo KaKe? diapepouevou (pro-
bably from Tacitus, ‘Agebatur hue illue
Galba, vario turbe Sluctuantis impulsu,’
Hist. i. 40) ; Philo, de Migr. Abr. p, 454,
emaupotepittal mpbs Exdtepov rorxov, ds-
mep oKxdpos im evaytiov mvevudtwv dia-
pepsucvor, droxAtvoyres. The reckoning
of days counts from their leaving Fair
Havens: see vy. 18, 19. év TO
*ABpia| Adria, in the wider sense, em-
braces not only the Venetian Gulf, but the
sea to the south of Greece :—so Ptolemy
(ili. 16), 7) 5¢ MeAomdvynoos SpiCera .
amd Sutuav Kat KeonuBpias Te Adpratind
meddyet. So also (iii. 4) § 38 Suceria
dpifera . . . . amd BE dvatoray bed rod
*Adpiov meddyous. In fact, he bounds
Italy on the S., Sicily on the E., Greece
on the 8. and W., and Crete on the W. by
this sea, which notices sufficiently indicate
its dimensions. So also Pausanias (vy. 25),
speaking of the straits of Messina, says that
the sea there is @aAdcons yemepiwtarn
maons. of Te yap &vemor tapdocovow
arty aupotépwhev Td Kida emdyovTes,
éx Tov ASpiov, kal e& Exépou meAdyous 6
Kadetror Tuponvoy. tmevdouv] What
gave rise to this suspicion? Probably the
sound (or even the apparent sight) of
breakers. “If we assume that St. Paul’s
Bay, in Malta, is the actual scene of the
shipwreck, we can have no difficulty in ex-
plaining what these indications must have
been. No ship can enter it from the east
without passing within a quarter of a mile
of the point of Koura: but before reaching
it, the land is too low and too far from the
track of a ship driven from the eastward, to
be seen in a dark night. When she does
come within this distance, it is impossible
to avoid observing the breakers: for with
north-easterly gales, the sea breaks upon it
with such violence, that Capt. Smyth, in his
view of the headland, has made the breakers
its distinctive character.” Smith, p.79.
I recommend the reader to study the rea-
sonings and calculations by which Mr.
Smith (pp. 79—86) has established, I think
satisfactorily, that this yépay could be no
other than the point of Koura, east of St.
Paul’s Bay, in Malta. Tposayety |
was approaching them. The opposite is
avaxwpeiv, ‘recedere.’ ‘Lucas optice lo-
quitur, nautarum more.’ Kuin. 28.
Bodicavtes | BodlCew, Hyour Bdos Oaddc-
ons meTpety moAvBdivn KabéTe@, i) TowodiTe
twl. Kustath. on Il. «. p. 427 (Wetst.).
dpyuids | dpyuia onuatve: thy éxra-
ow TéY XE—pay aby TH TAdTEL TOD oTH}OOUS
(Etymol. Magn.) = therefore very nearly
one fathom. Every particular here cor-
responds with the actual state of things.
26—31.
, x A y — , k ? ,
TE py TOV Kata Tpayetc TOTOUC EKTEGWLEV,
zi i a sy
TPUUYNC pibartec
Y npéoay : yevéoOar.
~ ’ ~ ’ \ f , ‘
puyev eK TOU awAolov Kal yaXacavrwy THY
, N ,
€(c THY Qaraccar,
b? , ,
aykuvoac teA\XovT wv
ryKupac
, \ - , Ins S =
TW EKATOVTAOXY Kat TOLC GT PATlLWITAlLC Kav py ouToL 16.
x1. 2 dch, xii. 18 reff.
h Mark xii. 40 L. John xv. 22. Phil. i. 18.
reff.
w. xélp, ch. xxvi. 1 al,
29. for re, 5e CN c p 13 vulg syr copt Thl-sif.
word), with HtL rel 36 copt Chr: wnmw A: txt BCR ¢ p 18. 40 Thl-sif.
written above the line by XN! or corr!.)
txt ABCN ¢ p 18. 40 Thl-sif.
rel 137 vulg syrr copt Chr.
30. exouyew A c 96. 137. 142.
IIPAZEIS AMOSTOAQN.
30 tov 8:
it Tpopacet
pst
EKTELVELY,
e=ch. siii. 8 reff.
1 Thess. ii. 5 only. Ps. exl. 4.
k ver. 41 onlyt. (-pevs, Ezek. xxvii. 20.)
rec exmecwoy, with c df p sah:
[evxovto, so B'CH". |
mpwpns Ad13: tAwpys NR’.
297
’
x vv. 5, 7 reff.
EK F Lake iil. §
b>? , , ce 7 fi ex.
ayKkupac Ttéscaeac EV OVTO eee
os e 7 z ver. 4.
1 yauTwy CnrovvtTwy eae 38
(3 :
& oKaGnY Bere bin ver.
i ’ k , aa: Heb. vi.
(eh) kK Towoa 9 only t.
3] z é fe o ag ¢ ech. xXvi. 24,
sirev>o LbauAoc fore
9, James v.
3 John
2only. Num.
g ver. 16.
i= ch. xxiii. 15
= here only. Ps. lix. 8 (10). elsw.
f ch. ix. 25 reff.
ree pytes (corrn to simpler
(mov is
rec (for kata) es, with HtL rel 36 Chr:
txt ABCH'LN 13
rec meAAoYT@V
bef ayxupas (corrn of order for euphony), with H'L& rel am Chr Thl Ge: txt ABC
m p 13. 40.
At twenty-five fathoms depth (as given in
evidence at the court-martial on the officers
of the Lively, wrecked on this point in
1810), the curl of the sea was seen on the
rocks in the night, but no land. The
twenty fathoms would occur somewhat past
this: the fifteen fathoms, ina direction W.
by N. from the former, after a time sufii-
cient to prepare for the unusual measure of
anchoring by the stern. And just so are
the soundings (see Capt. Smyth’s chart,
Smith, p. 88), and the shore is here full of
tpaxeis Téro1, mural precipices, upon
which the sea must have been breaking with
great violence. 29. é« mpvpyys| ‘The
usual way of anchoring in ancient, as well
as in modern navigation, was by the bow:
‘anchora de prora jacitur.’ But under cer-
tain circumstances, they anchored by the
stern; and Mr. Smith has shewn from the
figure of a ship which he has copied from
the “Antichiti de Ercolano,” that their
ships had hawse-holes aft, to fit them for
anchoring by the stern. “That a vessel
can anchor by the stern is sufficiently
proved (if proof were needed) by the his-
tory of some of our own naval engage-
ments. So it was at the battle of the
Nile. And when ships are about to attack
batteries, it is customary for them to go
into action prepared to anchor in this way.
This was the case at Algiers. There is
still greater interest in quoting the instance
of the battle of Copenhagen, not only from
the accounts we have of the precision
with which each ship let go her anchors
astern as she arrived nearly opposite her
appointed station, but because it is said
that Nelson stated after the battle that
he had that morning been reading Acts
xxvii.” C. and H. ii. p. 414. The passage
from Cesar, Bell. Civ. i. 25, ‘has quaternis
ancoris ex quatuor angulis distinebat, ne
fluctibus moverentur,’ is not to the pur-
pose, for it was in that case a platform
composed of two vessels, and anchored
by the four corners. ‘The anchorage
in St. Paul’s Bay is thus described in the
Sailing Directions: ‘The harbour of St.
Paul is open to E. and N.E. winds. It is,
notwithstanding, safe for small ships ; the
ground, generally, being very good: and
while the cables hold, there is no danger,
as the anchors will never start” Smith,
p- 92. evxovto | Uncertain, whether
their ship might not go down at her an-
chors: and, even supposing her to ride
out the night safely, uncertain whether the
coast to leeward might not be iron-bound,
affording no beach where they might land
in safety. Hence also the ungenerous but
natural attempt of the seamen to save their
lives by taking to the boat. See Smith,
jee Bic 30.] “ We hear of anchors
being laid out from both ends of a ship
(éxatépwev), Appian, Bell. Civ. p. 723.”
ib. éxteiverv | because in this case
they would carry out the anchors to the
extent of the cable which was loosened.
31. éav py «.7.A.] “ Mirum est
quod reliquos vectores salvos posse fieri
negat, nisi retentis nautis: quasi vero Dei
promissionem exinanire penes ipsos fuerit.
Respondeo, Paulum hic de potentia Dei
precise non disputare, ut eam a voluntate
et mediis sejungat: et certe non ideo fide-
libus virtutem suam Deus commendat, ut
contemptis mediis torpori et socordi indul-
geant, vel temere se projiciant, ubi certa est
cavendi ratio. .... Neque tamen propterea
sequitur, mediis vel adminiculis alligatam
esse Dei manum, sed quum Deus hune vel
298
TIPAZEIS AIOSTOAQN.
XXVII.
, > ~ , € - ~ 5 , 32 ,
m Mark ix.43, wervwoly EV TH TAotWw, Uusic cwHrvat ov Stvacbs. * rors
iii. 10, 26. ? ‘ ~ s , - ,
Sie ™améxoWav ol stoatwrar ta “oyowla THC © sxapne,
las Kae asm neThy Pe iv, PG 82 ov 1 Huéoa* Huerd
ruil. Kal eldgay aUTyY © EKTESELY. ayxou O& ov 1 nnEoa * NE
only. 2 Kings
iii. 2.
reff.
p ch. vii. 18
reff.
q ver. 29.
r = ch. xxi. 27
reff.
s =and constr.,
ch, xxiv. 4.
t ch. ii. 46 reff.
uch ix. reff. ¢ -~
Vv ver. 27.
Gen. xiv. 5. ee
w absol., Matt.
xxiv. 50. ch.
(iii, 5. x. 24
reff.) xxviii.
6.
x here onlyt.
(-tla, ver.
21.)
} 7 Tk €
y here only. 37 J nucOa Oe at
Deut. ix. 7.
Jer. xx. 18. 2 Mace. v. 27 only.
x. 30. 1 Kings xiv. 45. d Luke xxi. 18.
xxiv. 51. g ch. ii. 46 reff.
vv. 22, 25.) 7
k so ch, xix. 7. 1 = ch. ii. 41 reff.
31. wewwow bef ev Tw mAoWw Nc h.
, \ g NG w c ? i
TAVTWV, Kal kKAadoac no ato ێoULELV.
New yivecOa, * rapekaXe 0 TlavAoce amavracg ‘ petada-
Bew © TOONC, Aeywr sf Tesoapeckatoexarny onMEooV nugoav
¥ TOOCOOKWYTEC, *Gotrou) dtareAgire unOev * toocAa(omevot.
3t do § Tapakadw vac petadaPew Fi Toopng’ TOUTO yao
“qpoc TNC UpeTéouc cwTnolac ” yTapyet” oveevoc yao
ad ois ano TNC Kepadnc
d? - oS \
avroX strat. 35 ELTTac Oe
- \ a ” eu? ] = 0) ihe decd aed
TavuTa Kal AaBov aoTov EVX AOLOTNHOEV TW EW EVWTLOV
t
36 eyOuuor Oe
, , \ ’ Nez , ui -
YEVOMEVOL TWAaAVTEC KAL AUTOL ™o0ceAaPorrTo TooPNc.
- \ ~
¥ Taoatl 'uyat ev TW TAolw otakdotat
Zz = ver. 36 only. (ch. XXViii. 2 al.)
émiokeWoueta éav TT n Liv ™pos Aoyou ty Plat. Gorg. 459.
I &
a = here only.
c Matt.
b ch, viii. 16 reff.
f = Lukei. 19. Gen.
e Rom. i. 21 reff.
h here only+. 2 Mace. xi. 26 only. (-ws, ch. xxiv. 10. -etv,
i gen., Rev. ii.17. Winer, edn. 6, § 30.7. c. jM
att. xxiii. 30 bis. Eph. ii. 3 only.
32. rec ot otpatiwta bef amexopay (corrn of order for perspicuity), with HrL rel
coptt Chr :
txt ABCR ¢ m 13. 40. 137 vulg syrr eth Thl-sif.
33. rec eueAddev bef nuepa, with H'L rel syrr eth Chr Thl He: txt ABC p 13 vulg.
[mucdadev, so BCL cl p 18. 40 Thi-sif. |
txt ABN 40.
34. aft 510 ins ka B.
Nl: twos c. for mpos, tpo B 101 sah.
p 13 rel Chr Thl-sif. ovOevos A.
rec under, with CH'L rel 36 Chr:
mposdapBavouevor (corrn to suit mposdoxwytes) A 40 lect-12.
mapaka(sic) &.
with H'L rel Thi-sif ic: txt ABCR b dhk o p 18. 36. 1387 Chr Thl-fin.
rec mposdafew (from mposad. above),
add tt
nquetepas AL ah syr Thl-fin: txt BCH'N
rec (for amo) ex(corrn from Luke xxi. 18),
with HtLX rel Thl Ge: txt ABC p 13. 36. 40. 187.
ree mecerta (corn to LXXx,
see 3 Kings i. 52, 1 Kings xiv. 45, 2 Kings xiv. 11. If, as Meyer supposes, amor. were
acorrn from Luke xxi. 18, we should not have had the future, but as there, ov pn
aroAnrat), with HtL rel syr sah Chr: txt ABCN m p 18. 40 vulg Syr copt eth arm
Thl-fin.
35. rec erway (corrn to more usual form), with HTL p 18 rel 36: txt ABCN 24.
nuxap. A p 137: evxapiotnoas N: Kat evxapioTnoas 40.
36. amavtes N'(but a erased).
Bavoy 137: wetadaBar(sic) &.
mposeAaBov A 40: mposeAapBavov c: peTeAau-
37. rec nuev (corrn to more usual form), with CH'L 13. 36 rel Chr: txt ABN p 40.
rec ev Tw TAotw bef at mara W. (corrn of order to connect yuxat and Siak.), with
H'L rel syr Chr: txt ABCNk m p 18. 40. 137 vulg (Syr) copt arm Chr-comm Thl-sif.—
om a A km p, aoa bef a: Chr-comm Thil-sif.
Cis p(so Scriv ; noting “ o5¢ Tischendorf., vix recté ”’).
arising from w of how and C of the numeral, so Tischdf) B sah.
A: om wm.
illum agendi modum ordinat, hominum
sensus continet, ne preescriptas sibi metas
transiliant.”’ Calvin. 33.| This pre-
caution on the part of Paul was another
means taken of providing for their safety.
All would, on the approaching day, have
their strength fully taxed: which therefore
needed recruiting by food. axpi... ov
.... until it began to be day: i.e. in
the interval between the last-mentioned
occurrence and daybreak, Paul employed
the time, Ke. mposdokavtes] waiting
for diakoctat eBdounkovta eb,
for diaxocia, ws (mistake
for ef, mevTe
the cessation of the storm.
expressions, dour. diat., und. mposdr., are
spoken hyperbolically, and cannot mean
literally that they had abstained entirely
from food during the whole fortnight.
apos with a gen. (‘e salute vestra’) is only
found here in N. T.: compare ref., and
€Amioas mpos EwuTod toy xpioudy elvat,
Herodot. i. 75. 35.] ‘‘ Paul neither
celebrates an yarn (Olsh.), nor acts as
the father of a family (Meyer), but simply
as a pious Jew, who asks a blessing before
The following °
32—40.
eBdouncovrase, 8
Sots ~ ’ ~
TO wAotov ° exPadXonevor TOV OlTOV ELC THY QaXascap.
39 Gre Oe P nuéoa
r tN 8é s 4
KOATOV € tTiva KQaTEVOOUVY eyovTa
" eBovAgvovro, «
‘ w? , x UA y Sf td ‘ , o
Tag © ayKupac meotehovrec * Elwy Etc THY faXacoav, ana
TIPAZEIS ATOSTOAQN.
\ - , .
™ kooeabévrec O& "“ roogne © EKOUPIZOY ™1 Cor. iv. 8
Pp Ld , ‘ ~ >
eyéveTo, THY ynV ovK
-
U v? ~ Q =
duvawro, eEwoat TO awAotov.
299
only. Deut.
Xxxi. 20
only.
n here only.
Jonah i. 5.
1 Kings vi. 6.
o = here only.
(Matt. viii. 12
, UJ
1 ereylvwoKov,
t > s 2 a
avytaXov, ELC OV
40 yy vale)
KQLU P vv. 29, 33.
q = and constr.,
Matt. xiv. 35.
Xvii. 12. see
ch, xxviii. 1.
Zi aE ye Y Et i) 5 / Cpe iF
AvVéEVTEC TAC CevKrnolac TWv TY aXiwy, Kal eTMapavrTec r = here (Luke
vi. 38. xvi
22,23. Johni. 18. xiii. 23) onlyt. (Gen. xvi. 5.) s Matt. vii.3)L. 2 Mace, ix. 25. tch.
xxi. 6 reff. u=ch. v. 33 reff. v = here (ch. vii. 45) only. Thucyd. 11. 40. Ww Vv.
29, 30 reff. x = here only. (ver. 20 rett.) y = Luke xxii. 51. Exod. xxxii. 10.
z= ch. xvi. 26 (refl.). a here sae, b James iii. 4 onlyf, e=ch.i.9.
38. ins ts bef tpopns Ht™L d g 1m Chr. exBadouevor L a. om thy XN}.
39. for emey., eyivwakov B 25. for es, mpos A. rec eBovAevoayTo, with
H'L rel syr Chr Thl Ge: efovdovto A p wth-pl: txt BCR 13(sic) 36. 40 vulg.
duvawro, dvvatov CH'L rel 36 Syr wth Chr ec: txt ABN p 13 vulg Thl.
B'C copt th. apocdovtes Nl.
he eats.” De Wette. 36.] When we
reflect who were included in these mayres,
—the soldiers and their centurion, the
sailors, and passengers of various nations
and dispositions, it shews remarkably the
influence acquired by Paul over all who
sailed with him. 37.] Explanatory of
mavres: q. d., Sand this was no small
number; for we were, Ke. 38.
éxovd. T. wAotov | See above on ver. 18.
This wheat was either the remainder of the
cargo, part of which had been disposed of
in ver. 18—or was the store for their sus-
tenance, the cargo having consisted of some
other merchandise. And this latter is much
the more likely, for two reasons: (1) that
otros is mentioned here and not in ver. 18,
which it would have been in all probability,
had the material cast out there been the
same as here ; and (2) that the fact is re-
lated immediately after we are assured that
they were satisfied with food : from whence
we may infer almost with certainty that
6 ottos is the ship’s provision, of part of
which they had been partaking. It is a
sufficient answer to Mr. Smith’s objection
to this (“ to suppose that they had remain-
ing such a quantity as would lighten the
ship is quite inconsistent with the previous
abstinence,” p. 99), that the ship was pro-
visioned for the voyage to Italy for 276
persons, and that for the last fourteen days
hardly any food had been touched. This
would leave surely enough to be of conse-
quence in aship ready to sink from hour to
hour. 39.]| It may be and has been
suggested, that some of the Alexandrian
seamen must have known Malta ;—but we
may answer with Mr. Smith that “St.
Paul’s Bay is remote from the great har-
bour, and possesses no marked features by
which it might be recognized.” p. 100.
koAtrov ... . €xovT. atyradov] a
for
EKT WTA
creek having a sandy beach. Some Com-
mentators suppose that it should be aiyia-
Aby €xovTa KdAmTov, since every creek must
have a beach: but what is meant is, a creek
with a smooth, sandy beach, as distin-
guished from a rocky inlet. eEdorar |
Not, ‘to thrust in” as E. V., but to
strand, ‘to run a-ground:’ so Thucyd.,
ref., and more in Wetst. 40.] (1)
They cut away all four anchors (the rept
may allude to the cutting round each cable
in order to sever it, or to the going round
and cutting all four), and left them in the
sea (eis 7. Odd. ‘in the sea, into which they
had been cast’). This they did to save
time, and not to encumber the water-logged
ship with their additional weight. (2) They
let loose the ropes which tied up the rud-
ders. ‘ Ancient ships were steered by two
large paddles, one on each quarter. When
anchored by the stern in a gule, it would be
necessary to lift them out of the water, and
secure them by lashings or rudder bands,
and to loose these bands when the ship was
again got under way.” Smith, p. 101. (3)
They raised (ératpew, ‘to raise up,’ con-
trary to catéxew, ‘to haul down, a sail)
their épréuwy to the wind. It would beim-
possible in the limits of a note to give any
abstract of the long and careful reasoning
by which Mr. Smith has made it appear
that the ‘artemon’ was the foresail of the
ancient ships. I will only notice from him,
that the rendering ‘ mainsail’ in our E. V.
was probably a mistaken translation from
Baytiusor De Baif, the earliest of the modern
writers ‘ de re navali,’ and perhaps the only
one extant when the translation was made :
he says, “est autem artemon velum majus
navis, ut in Actis Apost. xxvii. .... etenim
etiam nunc nomen Veneti vulgo retinent et
artemon vocant.” These words, ‘velum ma-
jus,’ they rendered by mainsail ; whereas
300
d here only ¢.
e coustr., here
only. g
f = here only.
Polyb. i. 25.
7. Thucyd.
Viii. 23.
g Luke x. 30.
James ie
only. 2Kings ~
i. 6. 42 TWwWvV
h here only t.
OUK ElKos
6.0aXat-
Tac amoKtéivwow, pytic “exkoduuPnoac * diapoyy’
TIPAZEIS AMOSTOAQN. XXVIII. 41—44.
maid peer ~e pe PE = ge «a 8h tena aes
TOV apTeuwva TH TVEOVOY) KkaTelyov etc TOV avyta Ov.
i E cic TO ” bar ' eméxetr
TEOLTEDOVTEC ce gl\¢ TOTOV tUaAacoaon, ETEKELAaV
‘ k daa Ae \ 1 ¢ m? id of n? a
Ty vaupy Kal 1 MEV TpPwpa Eeptloaoa EuelVEY ADOAAEUV=
€ Oe oO be p bd , ig ‘ = q , = r 7
TOC, OF ToUmVA EAVETO UTO TNC Biac [tov Kupatwy |.
\ ~ s AP oe ed Le t ,
O& OTOATLIWTWY Bovdn EVyEVETO tvya TOUC oso -
43 6
> . \ e , , Ww ~ \ ~
tov elvac 76 Og EKATOVTUDY NC, BovAdopevoc Staswoat TOV TavAoyr,
méAayos TO a
*AtAavti-
x 7 J “
; EKWAUGEV auTouc TOU
kov, Strabo,
i. p. ll. ihere only t. Hom, Od. ¢. 148.
m here only. Prov. v.6. Polyb. iii. 46. 1.
o ver. 29 reff.
viii. 24 | Mk. xiv. 24. Jude 13 only.
lonly. Gen. xxxix. 20.
only. Josh. viii. 22.
4. Xen. Cyr. ii. 4. 23. Polyb. ii. 8. 8.
Omep Hv TovTOLs BuvAnua, Demosth. 1109. 15.
Ps. cvi. 25.
p = Rev. v. 2. Esdr. i. 55 (42).
w see ch. xxiii. 24 reff.
y , aay , N
BovAnuaroc, EKEAEUCED TE TOUC
khere only. 3 Kings ix. 26. 1 ver. 30.
n Heb. xii. 28 only. Exod. xiii. 16. Deut. vi. 8. xi. 18 only.
qch. v. 26 reff. Acts only. r Matt.
s =ch. v.88 reff. w. iva, here only. t ver.
where only t. Diod. Sic. xx, 88. (soAmpP., ver. 43.) v here
x ch. x. 47 reff. constr., here only. Mic. ii.
y Rom. ix.19. 1 Pet. iv. 3only +. 2 Macc. xv. 5 only.
40. rec apreuova, with L 138 rel: txt ABCH'N a b? cdf gl m? p.
41. rec emwxeiAay, with B?H'(eroxiAay) L rel 36: txt AB'CR p 138. 40.
euevey AH? ch vulg: txt BCLX& 13 rel copt Chr Th] Me.
amo Xk.
because the transcribers eye passed from twy to twv in ver 42) ABR! :
mpwpa, mpwTn A.
dieAveto Lm 137 lect-12: eAuto &.
for
om Twy kumatwy (possibly
ins CH'LN? 13.
36 rel Chr: a vi maris vulg: a fluctibus maris xth.
42. om de Cl. ins wa bef untis &3.
exkoAuBnaas(sic) N: eykoAupB. g.
rec diapuyou (grammatical emendation, see note), with k m: txt ABCH'LN p 13 rel
36. 137 Chr Thl.
43. tov mavdoyv bef Siacwoa A 13. 68. 8-pe.
for te, 5 C ce p 138. 40. 137 syr copt.
BovAevuatos a f.
the largest sail of the Venetian ships at the
time was the foresail. | The French ‘arti-
mon,’ even now in use, means the sail at the
stern (mizen). But this is no clue to the
ancient meaning, any more than is our word
mizen to the meaning of the French misaine,
which is the foresail. The usual techni-
cal name of the foresail was ddAwv, that of
the mizen, émldpouos. See on the whole
question, Smith’s Dissertation on the Ships
of the Ancients, appended to his Voyage and
Shipwreck of St. Paul. TY Tveovoy |
scil. apa. Dat. commodi ;—for the wind
(to fill) ;—or (according to Meyer and De
Wette) of direction,—to the wind. (4)
They made for the beach. The expression,
xaréxew | vady or vyt| eis. . . for “ to steer
to land,” isnot uncommon in the classics :
cf. examples in Wetst. It seemss'to get this
meaning by a pregnant construction, “to
keep the ship { or, to keep one’s course in the
ship | in hand [and direct it] towards....”
41. torov 8\8dhacaov | At the west
end of St. Paul’s Bay is an island, Selmoon
or Salmonetta, which they could not have
known to be such from their place of an-
chorage. This island is separated from the
mainland by a channel of about 100 yards
wide, communicating with the outer sea.
Just within this island, in all probability,
was the place where the ship struck, in a
place where two seas met. érr-
éxetkav| émixkeAAew is used by Homer
for BovAnuaros, Bnuatos X!:
(ref.) in the sense of ‘adpellere navem.’
Its commoner use is intransitive: see
Hom. ib. ver. 1388, and Apollon. Rhod. ii.
352, 382; iii. 575. In Od. e. 114, it is
said of the ship itself, 7elpw éréxeAoe. The
emoxeAAe of the rec. is used several times
by Thucydides, and has the same twofold
usage : cf. Thucyd. iii. 12; iv. 28; viii. 102:
they ran the ship a-ground. “The
circumstance which follows, would, but for
the peculiar nature of the bottom of St.
Paul’s Bay, be difficult to account for.
The rocks of Malta disintegrate into very
minute particles of sand and clay, which
when acted on by the currents, or by sur-
face agitation, form a deposit of tenacious
clay : but in still water, where these causes
do not act, mud is found ; but it is only in
the creeks where there are no currents, and
at such a depth as to be undisturbed by the
waves, that mud occurs. ... A ship there-
fore, impelled by the force of the gale intoa
creek with a bottom such as that laid down
in the chart, would strike a bottom of mud,
graduating into tenacious clay, into which
the fore part would fix itself and be held
fast, while the stern was exposed to the
force of the waves,” Smith, p. 103.
42.| tva gives not only the purpose, but
the substance of the BovAy. Their counsel
was,—to kill, &c.: thisit was, and fo this
it tended. diapvyor has probably been
a correction to suit eyévero. But the sub-
a Ae
XXVIII. 1—3.
UPAZEIS AMOSTOAQN.
301
, ~ ,’ ae, 7
Ouvamévouc 7 KoAun Pav R avopptbavrac TOWTOUC emt ater ost
sa
‘ fod b a7 7 \ 4 4. “a A
THY -ynv © e&tevat, 44 kat rove Aowrove °ovc péiv Em C aided
d ! cs 8: ha) os ett N - i , John y. 2.)
oaviotv ove O& ETL TIVWY TWwY ~aTo kd 7 AOLOV. a=andconstr.,
\ e | anal | , here only.
Kal OUTWC eYyEVETO TaVTac " GaswOnvar éml Thy yay. arena
XXVIII. } Kai " dias wher ec tore Be as AD Miah sale
2 ee gee
MeXirn 7 n vndoe K arterriat. Ol TE " BapBagor ' magsty av Mic. viis19
k
ou THY erear
n N
Tuoay
Tov 4 EpeoTwTa Kal Oia 70 " Puxoc.
A.) Cant. viii. 9. Ezek. xxvii. 5 only.
reff. g constr., Luke vii. 37. ch. xix. 34. xxii. 29.
Col. iii. 11 only.» Ezek. xxi. 31.
bis, Rom. i. 14.
2. 1 Tim. vi. 17.
ch. xxvii. 3.)
bis only. Judith vii. 5 al.
p ch. xiv. 17 reff.
r John xviii, 18.
vat. 2 Macc. xiv. 30.
1 Cor. xiv. 11 (bis).
exxoAvuBay B. amopwavtas CR.
gravOouniay new”
mpocehaBovro Tavrac juac Sia Tov
k = ch, xix, 11 reff.
m = Lake viii. 16. xi. 33. xv. 8 [x xii. 55 v. r.] only.
o = Rom. xiv. Kia mere
q = here only.
2 Cor. xi. 27 only. Gen. viii. 22.
(cvatpopy, ch. xix, 40.)
” apavrec yao beh ‘xiii. 42
P VE Tov eT Cor xi. 21
,d fe only.
3 > Susrosbavtocg Os © 4 Kings si.
9 vat. F. (not
e see ch. xii. 1]. xv. 5. f constr., ch. iv. 5
Ezek xvi. 62. see ch. xxvii. 39. h here
i =—ch. xvi. 16 reff. xxii.
1 Tit. iii. 4 only +. 2 Mace. vi. 22. (-@s,
Judith xiii. 13. n here
Philem. 17. Ps. xxvi. 10. 1xxii. 24.
6 ég~eotws Coos. Polyb. xviii. 3.7. see 2 Tim. iv. 6.
s here (Matt. xvii. 22 v.r.) only. Judg. xi. 3
77s yns Ni c.
Cuap. XXVIII. 1. aft d:a@woayres ins ot wept (Tov) mavAoy ex Tov woos (beginning of
an ecclesiastical portion) C3-marg Lb g k m o Thi-sif :
rec emeyvwoay (corrn to suit ch xxvii. 39 ?), with
txt ABCN ec! p 13. 137 vulg syrr copt 2th.
o. wept T. 7. BapBapor 1-marg.
C3-marg H'L rel 36 Chr:
Tov is omd by C*: alii aliter:
2. ree d¢ (altern of characteristic te), with H'LX rel 36 copt Chr: txt ABC cp
13. 40 syrr eth Thl-sif.
Bavoyv &' ec.
nuas 40. vpeotota L 13.
junctive after the past is merely a mixture
of construction of the historic past with the
historic present, and is used where the
scene is intended to be vividly set before
the reader. 43.| anoppivayvtas is
reflective, sc. éavTovs. 44. rows
Noutrovs | scil. emit thy yi ékévar.
TWov Tov aro T. w.| probably, as EH. V.,
broken pieces of the ship:—some of the
parts of the ship: the cavides being whole
planks, perhaps of the decks. dt0.-
ow. émi| may be = dias. x. adixécOat ert,
—a constructio pregnans, but this need
not be, as dtatwOAva isto get safe through,
and é7i is simply the direction in which the
act is carried out. XXVIII. 1. Me-
Atty] The whole course of the narrative
has gone to shew that this ean be no other
than Maura. The idea that it is not
Maura, but Meleda, an island off the
Hlyrian coast in the Gulf of Venice, seems
to be first found in Constantine Porphy-
rogenitus, de Adminiculis Imperii, p. 36—
vijoos meydAn Ta MéAeta trot TO Mado-
CeGrat, Ny ev tais mpdtecot T. Groot. 6
&yios Aovkas meuvntat, MeAltny tavtny
mposayopevwv. It has been adopted by
our own countrymen, Bryant and Dr. Fal-
coner, and abroad by Giorgi, Rhoer, and
more recently Paulus. It rests principally
on three mistakes :—1. the meaning of the
[waperxav, so ABN |
precise word), with H'L rel 36 Chr, Thl Gc: txt ABCN p
om maytas A copt “eth Chr-ms: nyas bef rarras 13 lect-12 vss :
om 2nd dia &’.
rec avapaytes (corrn to more
13. 40. TposaverAau-
om
name Adria (see above on ch. xxvii. 27),—
2. the fancy that there are no poisonous
serpents in Malta (ver. 3),—3. the notion
that the Maltese would not have been called
BdpBapo. The ideaitself, when compared
with the facts, is preposterous enough. Its
supporters are obliged to place Fair Havens
on the north side of Crete,—and to sup-
pose the wind to have been the hot Sezvocco
(compare ver. 2). Further notices of this
question, and of the state of Malta at the
time, will be found in the notes on the fol-
lowing verses. Observe, their previous state
of ignorance of the island is expressed by
the ‘jmperf. éreylywoxov ;—the act of re-
cognition by the aor. eréyvwper.
2. BapBapo.| A termimplying very much
what our word natives does, when speaking
of any little-known or new place. They
were not Greek colonists, therefore they
were barbarians (Rom. i. 14). If it be
necessary strictly to vindicate the term,
the two following citations will do so:
tort SE vcOos avtn (Malta) Powilkwv
&motkos, Diod. Sic. v. 12.—éyv 5€ SuceAla
2évn BapBapa trade eoriv, Edvvol, Sixavol,
Sucedol, Poivixes, TpSes, Scylax, Periplus,
p- 4. amposedaB.] received us, not
to their fire (Meyer), but as in reff.
terdv | * Post ingentes ventos solent imbres
sequi.’ Grot. Tov édeot.| not, ‘which
302 TIPAZEIS AIIOSTOAQN. XXVIII.
- , t s ‘
there only. tov [lavAou povyavey te “wAnOoe Kat éemBévroc Emi ABCLY
iS Isa. x1. BPE I eS gah Siok Gite ~ « Of v9 eNO Z prey
Retake ii. 13. U % pay eX! va avo 7n¢ Eeoune lECe ovoa a a)
John xxi. 6.
v Matt. iii.7 || L.
xii. 34. xxiii.
*xaOnpev tne yetpoc avrov. * we oé etdoy o1 BaoBapor
* kpsuauevov to Onplov ex the XELo0¢ avTov, TOC aXdAn-
33 eae A
Isa. lix. q- 4 b i é r ; ea £
im apres eae Aove eAgyou Ilavrwe * poveve ear o avlpwmoc ouToc,
Sal. Sir. ¢ d , ’ - , G / ~ ’ /
xxiv.3. "OV Stacwhivra ex tHe Dadaosnc 7 © Oikn Cyv ovK Elacer, ~o"% |,
x here only. Roe \ 5 f? ’ \ ' ’ ‘ - a
Job vi. 17. , > ABLN
enter O [MEV OUY a7TrorTu aéac TO Onptov tl¢ TO TuUp é7Ta Dev Abioien
Mark xiv. 54.) ; MES here only. Job xx. 25. z here onlyt. trans., Polyb. viii. 8.3, tas mpwpas & hkl
Tay Opyavwy Eis akivyrov KabymTe. So Xen, Cyneg. vi. 9. a ch. v. 30 reff. 1 Macc. i. 61. beh. MOopl3
dsee ch. xxiii. 24 reff. e = here (2 Thess. i.9. Jude
Xxi. 22 reff. ech. vii, 52 reff.
f Lukeix.5 only. Judg. xvi. 2U F. 1 Kings x.2. Lam. ii.7
7) only. Demosth. 422, 11; 722, 25.
only. (-aysa, Isa. i. 31, Symm.)
3. oppuvyavey (but o marked for erasure) N!. rec om Tt (as unnecessary), with
H'L rel 36 syr Chr: ins ABCR(perhaps prima manu: in small letters) 13. 40 vulg(not
am) Thl-fin, re p. emiOevTes(sic) &. rec (for amo) ex (see note), with rel Chr
Thl-sif ic: txt ABCH'LX bck o p13. 36. 40. 137 Thl-fin, @ calore vulg. rec
efeAOovea (corrn, the compound bet. not being elsw found in N T, and its force not
being seen, vide note), with BCX p 13. 36 rel Chr-comm Thl-fin He: txt AHtLadf g
k lo Thl-sif. Kkadnyato C bh o 36, 40. 137 Chr Phot Niceph.
4. cidav B. rec edeyor bef mpos adAnaous (corrn of order for perspicuity), with
HrL rel copt Chr Gc: om mpos adAAndous Syr: txt ABCK ¢ m p 13. 40. 137 vulg syr
Thi. om 2nd t7s N?.
5. amotwakapevos (corrn from ch xiii. 51, xviii. 6? so De W.) AH'L p rel 13.36. 40.
137 Chr Thl-fin: txt BX ae fm Thl-sif He.
came on suddenly’ (Meyer), but which was
on us:—another instance of overlooking
the present sense of €ornka. Wdxos |
This is decisive against the Scirocco, which
is a hot and sultry wind even so late as the
month of November, and moreover (Smith,
p- 109) seldom lasts more than three days.
3. svotpéavtos | ‘ vincti officium
faciebat submisse, aliis quoque inserviens.”
Bengel. dpvydvev | From the circum-
stance of the concealed viper, these were
probably heaps of neglected wood gathered
in the forest. emOévros x.7.A.| The
difficulty here is, that there are now no
venomous serpents in Malta. But as Mr.
Smith observes, “no person who has studied
the changes which the operations of man
have produced on the animals of any coun-
try, will be surprised that a particular
species of reptiles should have disappeared
from Malta. My friend, the Rev. Mr. Lands-
borough, in his interesting excursions in
Arran, has repeatedly noticed the gradual
disappearance of the viper from the island
since it has become more frequented. Per-
haps there is nowhere a surface of equal
extent in so artificial a state as that of
Malta is at the present day,—and nowhere
has the aboriginal forest been more com-
pletely cleared. We need not therefore be
surprised that, with the disappearance of
the woods, the noxious reptiles which in-
fested them should also have disappeared.”
pp. 111, 112. The reading é« rT. @épu.
has been an explanation of ard, which here
for kakoy, Ttovnpoy c: om NR}.
signifies from locally, not ‘on account of.
To suppose the converse (“the amé was
adopted by those who thought the sense was
‘on account of the fire,’ ”? Dr. Bloomf.),—
is simply absurd ; for 1) no man ever could
suppose the sense of éx insuch a connexion
to be this: and 2) even if any one did, he
would not have substituted another ambi-
guous preposition, dé. Paul had placed
the faggot on the fire, and was settling
or arranging it in its place, when the
viper glided out of the heat and fixed
on his hand. SieEeXO. vives the more
precise sense, and is a less usual word than
efeXO. The serpent glided out through the
sticks. xa0ywWev| attached itself: a
usage unexampled in earlier Greek. The
narrative leaves no doubt that the bite did
veritably take place. 4.| The natives,
who were sure to know, here positively de-
clared it to have been a venomous serpent.
I make these remarks to guard against the
disingenuous shifts of rationalists and semi-
rationalists, who will have us believe either
that the viper did not bite, or that if it did,
it was not venomous. TavTws ov.
éot.| ‘vincula videbant,’ Beng. The
idea of his being a murderer is not to be ac-
counted for (as Elsner, Wolf, Kuin.) by the
member which was bitten (for this would
fit any crime which the hand could commit),
—nor by supposing (Heinsius) the bite of
aserpent to have been the Maltese punish-
ment for murder ; it is accounted for by the
obviousness of the crime as belonging to
4—7,
sf 7 e A
ovoev KaKOV, 6 ol oe
i , ) Wk , Le ,
Tiumoac0at n “ KataminTEv apyw veKoov.
oe Lee ad pn 8 , No , A p»”
EauTwy " TeocdoKwytwy Kat ° PewpodvTwy pndev ° atomoy
* weraadouevor eheyov avrov elvat
, 12S ,
£t¢ UUTOV yivopevonv,
Gcov. a ly eer roig *
‘ ywola TW
xvi. 26 only. Josh. x. 9.
moXv avtexet, Thue. ii. 64.
p Luke xxiii. 41. ch. xxv. 5.
29 vat. F. (not A.)
50. see ch. xiii. 13.
xiii. 50 reff,
6. mposedoxovy H'L 13. 40 Thl-sif.
lect-12: eumimmpacba 27. 29:
Soxovvtwy A: -Kovtwy Lf k p.
penOey B. rec weTaBaddouevor, with H'LN 13 rel:
rec Oeov bef avroy evar, with H'L rel Chr Ge:
IJPAZEIS AMOSTOAQN.
g 30 ’ s
WOOCE OKWVY QuUTOV
rept TOV romoy EKEIVOD ©
" TowTw THC vycou, Ovomart TTlorAiw,
m here only.
n absol.,
2 Thess. ii. 2ouly. Jobiv. 8
v. 9.3, KaXov 1pO avnkéorov cuugmopas petaBaréaGar:
r=here only. npfato tamecvovcbu tt TEpi Tas Or Bas, Diod. Sic. i.
s ch. iii. 6 reff.
eumimpacba XN! 40. 667. 98-marg 105.
Oewpwytwy N': Oewpnoavtwy c:
303
h , “3
ech. iii. 5 reff.
pede bh =ch. xxi. 27
De oN im Se ren:
emt moAv i here onlyt.
evs d.oder
Kal Tip-
™Tpatat TO
oma, Diod.
Sic. ii. 12.
k Luke viii. 6.
umNO XEv ch. xxvi. 14
a only. Ps.
OC | sexliv. 14.
lch. ii. 2.
(seech. xx. 9,11.) 2 Kings iii. 1. ptoos ob émi
ch. xxvii. 33 reff, oO w. particip., ch, xvii. 16,
q here only. Josh. viii. 21. Jos. B. J.
and freq. act. inter., Job x. 8. 2 Mace. vi.
t ch. i. 18 reff. a and counstr., ch.
mimpacba A o' 1. 3. 4. 68 Gc-ed : mempacbat
™pos-
Bewuevwr |.
txt ABb ¢ p 40. edeyay B.
etvat avtoy Oeovy A: avtov Oeov
ewotac km 13 Thl-sif: txt BX p vulg Thl-fin.
the most notorious delinquents, and the
aptness of the assumed punishment, —death
for death. 4 Sixy] Justice, or Nemesis.
What the Pheenician islanders called her,
does not appear; but the ¢dea is common to
all religions. 5.] “ Luke does not so
much as hint, that any divine intervention
took place.” De Wette. True enough:
but why ? Because Luke believed that ‘the
very dullest of his readers would understand
it without any such hint. According to
these rationalists, a fortunate concurrence
of accidents must have happened to the
Apostles, totally unprecedented in history
or probability. Besides, did not the natives
themselves in this case testify to the fact ?
None were so well qualified to judge of the
virulence of the serpent,—none so capable
of knowing that the hanging on Paul’s
hand implied the communication of the
venom :—yet they change him from a mur-
derer into a god, on seeing what took place.
Need we further evidence, that the divine
power which they mistakenly attributed to
Paul himself, was really exerted on his be-
half, by Him who had said ders dpotow ?
See belowon ver. 8. The fact that St. Luke
understood what thenatives said, isadduced
by Dr. Wordsw. as another proof (see his
and my note on ch. xiv. 11) that the
Apostles and Evangelists commonly under-
stood unknown tongues. But such an
inference here has absolutely nothing to
rest on. Are we to suppose that these
BapBapor had no means of intercourse
with Greek sailors ? 6.] Both these,
the inflammation of the body, and the fall-
ing down dead suddenly, are recorded as
results of the bite of the African serpents.
Mr. Humphry quotes from Lucan, ix. 790,
‘Nasidium Marsi cultorem torridus agri
Percussit Prester (an African serpent named
Jrom this very verb rivmpac@at): illi ru-
bor igneus ora Succendit, tenditque cutem,
pereunte figura: and, of the bite of the
asp, ix. 815: ‘At tibi, Leve miser, fixus
precordia pressit Niliaca serpente cruor :
nulloque dolore Testatus morsus, subita
caligine mortem Accipis, et somno Stygias
descendis ad umbras.’ 1 posdoKwv-
tov | not,as EK. V., ‘when they had looked,’
—but when they were long looking.
petaBad.| There is no need to
supply 7. yvouny, though it is sometimes
expressed :—so of mwAcioTu TaY avOpdrwy
fetaBadAovTa: mpos Ta TapdvTa, kK. Tals
TUxats etxovot, Lysias, pro Nicia fratre
(Wetst.): muetaBadrdrcobar Sore? kal ovdey
éxew moroy 7 méAts, Demosth. pro Me-
galop. (id.),—in neither of which places
can T. yvéuny well be understood.
Gedv] “Comparabant vel Herculi qui in
ulnis adhue jacens angues superavit: vel
AEsculapio, qui cum serpente pingitur.”
Wetst. and so also Grot. But so much as
this can hardly be inferred: nor are we
sure of the theogony of these Pheenician
barbarians. 7.] mwp@tos MeArtalwy
was probably an official title: the more so,
as Publius can hardly have borne the appel-
lation from his estates, during his father’s
lifetime. Two inscriptions have been found
in Malta, at Citta Vecchia, which seem to
establish this view : a Greek one, contain-
ing the words a(vAos) k(aorpi)Kwws kup.
TPovdivs LMTEVS PHL TPWTOS MEALTOLWY KaL
TatTpwy aptas Kat appimodeus a o (AvyotoT@
oeBacT@) Oew...., and a Latin one,
with the same title, ‘Mel. primus.’ If su
(and his Roman name further confirms it),
d04
TIPAZ EIS AMOZTOAQON.
XXVIII.
% a) , Co wee oF ~ , ror
¥ Heb. xi. 17 * avadekauevoc juac nueoac toec “ diAopoovwe * eCencev.
once. vi yy \ ‘ - ’ Z - \ —
eae Thy eyévero O& TOP mattoa tov IlumXtov * ruperoic Kat a
‘only. a3 ' b , du aaBce® “ s 5 ABILN
bf plat UCEVTEOLIV OUVEY OMEVOY KaTAKELOUGaL ToC OV oO “Heat
; shes oe - a e® , \ , > \ N
Xea- Corey. TlavAocg “eceADwv, Kai ° mpoceveamevoc, ‘emleic tac eer
Sinton =e ; ~ a> > , \ , \
(eaett. 8 XEtpac avtw, tasato avrov. * rovrou & Yevomévov Kat
rec. -Pppo- e \ ee te ’ A > , ,
veivs 2 Mace, OL Aourot ou €v TH vnsw EXovTEC © aabevetac TOUCHY OVTO
ii. 25. “| :
xch. x. 23 reff. equ 10
y constr., ch,
iv. 5 reff.
z Matt. viii.
154. John
iv. 52 only.
Deut. xxviii.
22only. (-€ocev, Matt. viii. 14.)
E eDeoaTevovro,
d w. 790s, ch. xi. 3 reff.
Luke vy. 15 al. fr. 2 Mace ix. 2), 22.
xiii. 13 reff. 1 = here only. Xen. Cyr. viii. 2. 4.
xx. 34 reff. och. xxvii. 12 reff.
ral here only t.
al. Jobiii. 24. see 2 Cor. v.14 reff. (-ox, 2 Cor. ii. 4.)
e absol., ch. x. 9 reff.
h ch. viii. 7 reff.
cA \ 7 i = el)
Ol Kal woA\Xate Timat¢c ETIUNHOAYV
¢ x \k? , k eee m om ‘ ‘ nh /
NMAC, Kal avayomevorc eréQevro ™ ra moog Tag ypEtac.
ll ‘ \ ~ ~ k ? , > ~ ° c
Mera 6¢ TOELE MNVvaC avny Onpuev ev tow Tapa-
b = Matt. iv. 24. Luke iv. 38. viii. 37, 45
c = Marki. 30. Jolnyv.3,6. Prov. vi. 9.
f ch. viii. 17 reff. g = Matt. viii. 17-
i= Rom. xiii. 7 (see note). k ch.
m Luke xiv. 52. xix. 42. 2 Pet. i. 3. n ch.
7. ree tpets bef nuepas, with AH™LN p (13) rel 36 Chr Thl Gc: oma 69: txt Be
k m 40. 137. |
8. rec dusevrepia, with p rel 36 Chr: -repiois 13: -aus 25. 40: txt ABH'LN m.
9. ree for de, ovy (seemingly more natural copula), with HtL rel 36 Syr 'Thl (ec: txt
ABIX ¢ gk p 13. 40. 137 syr copt Chr.
aft yevou. ins vyious Hr. om ka B.
rec exovres aobemas bef ev 7 ynow, with H'L rei 36 syr Chr: txt ABIN k m p
18. 40 vulg Syr copt Thl-fin.
10. for ta, Tras A 137: om NI.
tponpxov B.
rec Thy xperav (Meyer thinks ras xpe.as a gloss
Sor ta mpos thy xpevav,— De W., that the plur has crept in from ch xx. 34. But
Bornemann rightly objects (1) that the tas preceding in A 137 shews the transcriber’s
eye to have passed on to tas of tas xpeas in earlier copies, (2) that the use of the plur
is much rarer than of the singular: see also note), with H'L p rel 36 Chr: txt ABIN
13. 40. 137 vulg syr.
ll. nxO@nuey Htab' kI mo.
Publius was legatus of the Pretor of
Sicily, to whose province Malta belonged ;
see Cic. in Ver. ii. 4. 18. pas |
Hardly perhaps more than Paul and
his companions, and, it may be, Julius.
At ver. 10, a special reason had occurred
for his honouring Paul and his company :
at present, his hospitality must have been
prompted by the courtesy of Julius, who
could hardly fail himself to be included in
it. The three days were probably till they
could find a suitable lodging. 8. wv-
petots| Hippocrates also uses the plural.
It probably indicates the recurrence of
fever fits. Susevteptw | dusevrepla, Ar-
Tik@s* -piov, “EAAnves. Moris; —dysen-
tery. Dr. Falconer makes this an argu-
mentagainst*‘ Melita Africana’ being meant.
“ Such a place, dry and rocky, and remark-
ably healthy, was not likely to produce a
disease which is almost peculiar to moist
situations.” But Mr. Smith answers, that
the changed circumstances of the island
might produce this change also: and be-
sides, that he is informed by a physician of
Valetta, that the disease is by no means
uncommon in Malta. émdels rr.
xeipas atte] It is remarkable, that so
soon after the ‘taking up of serpents, we
should read of Paul having ‘ laid his hands
on the sick and they recovered.’ See the
two in close connexion, Mark xvi. 18.
10. tipats}] The ordinary interpretation of
this as rewards, gifts, may be right, but is
not necessary. In all the passages quoted
to support it, Sir. xxxviii. 1, Cicero, ad
Diversos, xvi. 9 (‘Curio misi ut medico
honos haberetur’), the expression timf is
general, and the context renders an in-
ference probable as to what sort of tiwh is
meant. See especially 1 Tim. v. 3, 17 and
notes. Here there is no such unavoidable
indication, whereas the other meaning
is rendered probable by the form of the
sentence, which opposes to these timat,
bestowed on them during their whole stay,
7a mpos T. xpelas, with which they were
loaded at their departure. Render it there-
fore honoured us with many honours
(or ‘distinctions,’ or ‘ attentions’). Thy
xpelay has perhaps been an alteration after
St. Paul’s G@rak x. ds eis thy xpelav wor
eréuWare, Phil. iv. 16. 11.] They
probably set sail (see on ch. xxvii. 9) not
8—15.
IIPAZ EIS AIMOSTOAQN.
505
Ri > - /, - f a , ,
KEyeluaKOTL EY TH VICW, AdEavdoinw, ? Tapaonuw p here only t.
Avockovpote. 12
~
Eucivagev yugoac ToEc
‘Pr \ ‘ / c f u? 7
cauev etc Phywov Kat pera plav nuépay “ excyevopmévou
ViewZ - oo» , ,
vorov ~ devrEpator nrADouev eve LoroAove,
\ q Og ? , a,
kat “Katay@évrec etc Lupakoveag * en-
S ° , 7
13 GOev § meoteADovrec * KatnvTH-
3 Macc. 11. 29.
see note.
= ch. xxvii.
3 (xxiii. 15
refi.).
rch. x. 48 reff.
sch. xix. 13.
1 Tim v. 13.
Heb. xi. 57
14 only. Jobi.
7
= e 7
OU EVOOVTEC
t ch. xvi. 1 reff.
> Q x , > ° ~ , ~ c ,
adeA pode TaoekAnOnuev Tap avuToc " emreusivat NMEOAC here only +.
e Be Voy , N aw ”
emra’ Kat Yourwe etc tHv Pony nOanev.
e > \ ? ,
OL adeX por AKOUGAYTEC
Thueyd. iv. 30.
Xen. Cyr. v. 2. 2, beg.
z ch. xxiv. 10 reff.
12. nuepors tpiow B.
v ch, xxvii. 13 reff.
x constr., ch, xiii. 42, but pass. here only.
> ~ Ep. Jer. 47
15 KAaKEEY only, but not
Zz ‘ Zz \ [2 ei * ’ =a GUS
Ta TEOL HUwvY 7AOVav ELC Paros ETE
yevopevou,
w here only. see John xi. 39. 1 Kings ix. 20.
y = Rom. ¥. 12 reff.
13. mepieAovtes BR!.
14. rec (for wap) em’, with H'L rel Chr Thl-sif He: txt ABIN dm! p 13. 36.40 Thl-
fin.
emmevavtes Ht ¢ 137 Thl: emmecva (sic) A.
rec 7A@ouev, with H'I p rel
36: ecsnA@ouevy L: txt ABN.—nAO. bef ers (rnv) pwuny AL p 13. 40 vulg arm.—om Tyy
Alabcho 13. 40. 137 Thl-fin.
15. om ao: B 96.
earlier than the sixth of the ides of March
(i.e. Mar. 10). Tapacnpw Atos-
kovpots | with the sign (of) the Dioscuri,
as dvduatt TomAtw, ver.7; not, ‘with the
Dioseuri as a sign.” So in the inscription
found by the Rev. G. Brown at Lutro
(Pheenice) in Crete, given at length in the
excursus at the end of the prolegg. to Acts,
we have “ gubernator navis parasemo Iso-
pharia.” The ancient ships carried at their
prow a painted or carved representation of
the sign which furnished their name, and
at the stern a similar one of their tutelar
deity. Sometimes these were one and the
same, as appears to have been the case
with this ship. Cyril, in Cat., says, €@os
Get mws ev tais “AdAckavdpewy madioTa
vavou mpds ye TH mpdpn Sekid Te Kal els
evdvuna ypapas eivar Toravtas. See Virg.
Ain. x. 209; Ovid, Trist. 1. 9. 1; Pers.
Sat. vi. 30. Castor and Pollux, sons of
Jupiter and Leda, were considered the
tutelar deities of sailors. See Hor. Od.
lo ds 1a. 28. 12.] Syracuse is about
eighty miles, a day’s sail, from Malta.
13.] aweptehOdvtes apparently denotes the
roundabout course of a vessel tacking with
an adverse wind. That the wind was
not favourable, follows from émyevouwévou
below. Mr. Lewin’s account is, “as the
wind was westerly, and they were under
shelter of the high mountainous range of
Etna on their left, they were obliged to
stand out to sea in order to fill their sails,
and so came to Rhegium by a circuitous
sweep.” And he cites a case of a passage
from Syracuse to Rhegium, in which a
similar circuit was taken for a similar
reason, p. 736. The day at Rhegium, as
perhaps the three at Syracuse before, was
spent probably in waiting for the wind.
émy. vor.| the South wind having
Vou. II.
rec e&jA Gov, with H'L rel 36 syrr eth-pl Chr: txt ABIN p 40
sprung up,—succeeded the one which blew
before. Sevtepator | viz. after leaving
Rhegium : a distance of about 180 nautical
miles. TlortcAovs | Puteoli (anciently
Dicearchia, Strab. v. 4, now Puzzuoli)
was the most sheltered part of the bay
of Naples. It was the principal port of
Southern Italy, and, in particular, formed
the great emporium for the Alexandrian
wheat ships. Strabo, xvii. 1. Seneca (Ep.
77) gives a graphic account (cited by Smith,
p- 117) of the arrival of the Alexandrine
fleet at Puteoli: “ Subito nobis hodie Alex-
andrinz naves apparuerunt, que premitti
solent et nuntiare secuture classis adven-
tum ; tabellarias vocant. Gratus illarum
adspectus Campaniz est. Omnis in pilis
Puteolorum turba constitit, et ex ipso
genere velorum, Alexandrinas quamvis in
magna turba navium intelligit, solis enim
licet supparum (the topsail) intendere quod
in alto omnes Labent naves. Nulla enim
res que adjuvat cursum, quam summa
pars veli; illic maxime navis urgetur.
Itaque quoties ventus increbuit majorque
est quam expedit, antenna submittitur,
minus habet virium flatus ex humili: cum
intrare capreas et promontorium ex quo
‘Alta procellos speculatur vertice Pallas,’
eetere velo jubentur esse content, sup-
parum Alexandrinarum insigne est.”
14.] These Christians were perhaps Alex-
andrines, as the commerce was so con-
siderable between the two places.
ovtws| after this stay with them: imply-
ing that the request was complied with.
15.] The brethren at Rome had
heard probably by special message sent by
some of their fellow-voyagers. See a de-
tailed account of the stages of the journey
not here mentioned, in C. and H. ii., pp.
438 ff. Ta Tept Hav | the news con-
306 TIPAZEIS AIOSTOAQN. XXVELE
: ’ , (Ca ” ? , , \ vad
eGo aly amavrnoww naw Paypt Armiov Popov cai Tow Ta-
Matt. 6. as a FQN G ~ > , ~ ~
1 Thess. Peover, ove wowv o TlavAoc ° evXaploTnaag TH ew
17 only. ,
pec éXafev * Oapaoc.
-Tav
eo Ces \ AN: , ‘Dp’ h? , =
ae pe 16"Ore S& etcnAOoucy etc Pony, . eTEeTpaTN TH
bch. xi. 5 reff. , / i ’ € ‘ ‘ ~ k ,
c Rom i. 8 ref. TlatAw pévev ‘Kal’ eavrov avy tw ~~ pvAacoovrt
ere only.
avaX. 6, Job xvii. 9. (-cetv, ch. xxiii. 11.) e=ch. xxvii. 1 reff. fch, xvi. 25, 27 reff.
g here only t. : h = and PA ch. xxvi. 1 reff. i James ii. 17 only. Gen. xliii.32, see Rom.
xiv. 22. = ch. sii. 4 reff.
copt eth. [-6ay, so BIN.] (13 def.) vravtnow &!: cuvavtnow g. nuov Le
dgkop 13. 36.40 Thl-sif: vaw &!. rec axpis, with HtIL rel 36: txt ABN p 18.
aft axpt, m was written by &!, but marked and erased.
16. rec nAOouev (the force of the compound not being regarded), with L rel 36 vulg
syr Chr Thl ec: 7A@ov Ht: txt ABIN d m p 13. 40 Syr copt eth. (-@awer A, but not
BIX rel.) ins Tnv bef pwunv L &!(N* disapproving) c 137 lect-12 3-pe. *rec aft
ins 0 &KaTO ie EOWK ve f Seomt ® oTparo-
peuny ins O EKaTOVTAaDYXOL ° TUPsdWKE TOC | O£oMLoOVG TW ~ OTPA
medapyy(-doyy HL g![k?] 1m), and tw oe TlavAw exerparn, with HL
rel 36 syr-w-ast Thl ic: om ABIN p 40 vulg (Syr) arm Chr. (13 def, but has not space
cerning us, i.e. that we were coming.
*Ammiov Pdpov kx. T. TaBepvav |
Luke writes as one of the travellers to
Rome, who would come on Appii Forum
(forty-three miles from Rome) first. It
was on the Via Appia (‘Censura clara eo
anno (U.c. 442) Appii Claudii, et C. Plautii
fuit : memorize tamen felicioris ad posteros
nomen Appii, quod viam munivit et aquam
in urbem duxit, eaque unus perfecit.”
Liy. ix. 29), which leaving Rome by the
Porta Capena, passed through the Pontine
marshes, as far as Capua. Being not far
from the coast (Strabo, v. 233), it was the
resort of sailors (‘Forum Appi differtum
nautis, cauponibus atque malignis.’ Hor.
Sat.i. 5.3. It has been suggested to me,
that these may have been sailors belonging
to the canal boats, as Appii Forum is too
far inland to have been resorted to by
sailors from the coast), and an unpleasant
halting-place for travellers, having, besides,
‘aqua deterrima’ (ib. ver. 7). The
© Tres Tabernz’ was a ‘ taberna deversoria,’
or way-side inn, ten miles nearer Rome.
Cicero mentions both in the letters to
Atticus, ii. 10, ‘Ab Appii Foro hora
quarta: dederam aliam paullo ante Tribus
Tabernis.’ The brethren were in two
parties: some had come the longer, others
the shorter distance, to meet the Apostle.
We have in Jos. Antt. xvii. 12. 1, an ac-
count of the pretended Alexander, on his
way to Rome, landing at Dicarchia (Pu-
teoli, see above), and it is added, mposea-
Odvros eis thy ‘Péunv Adyou Tov ep)
avrov, mav tb THde “lovdalwy mAzOo0s
bmavtid(ovres eéjecay. Suet. relates, on
Caligula’s return from Germany, “populiR.
sexum, xtatem, ordinem omnem usque ad
vicesimum lapidem effudisse se.” Cal. ¢. 4.
And Tacit. Ann. iii. 5, speaking of the
honours paid by Augustus to the body of
Drusus, says, “ipsum quippe asperrimo
hiemis Ticinum usque progressum, neque
abscedentem a corpore simul urbem intra-
visse.” O@apaos | Both encouragement
as to his own arrival, as a prisoner, in the
vast metropolis,—in seeing such affection,
to which he was of all men most sensible ;
and encouragement as to his great work so
long contemplated, and now about to com-
mence in Rome,—in seeing so promising a
beginning for him to build on. 16.]
[The omission of the words 6 éxat.....
oTpatomeddpx(-x7n) may have been origi-
nally caused by the transcriber’s eye pass-
ing from -apxos to -apxw, as in syr. (‘ per-
misit centurio Paulo’): this done, the
emendation of the text so as to construe by
ejecting 6 éxatdvtapxos was obvious.
It does not follow, from the singular being
used, that there was but one preefectus pree-
torio at this time, and ¢hat one Burrus ;—
though it may have been so. The prefect
mentioned might be one of the two who
preceded Burrus, or one of the two who
followed him—so that no chronological
datum is here contained (against Wieseler,
who builds upon it: Chron. der Apostg.
p-. 86). He attempts to meet the above
argument by accounting it improbable that
the prisoners would be consigned to either
of the prefects; this may have been so,—
but they certainly would be delivered to
one, not to both; and the fact might well
be thus related. Luke is not so precise in
Roman civil and military matters, as that
he necessarily should in this case have
written év) Téyv orpatomeddpxwr. The
‘prefectus pretorio’ was the person ofli-
cially put in charge with the prisoners sent
from the provinces: so Plin. Epp. x. 65,
“ Vinctus mitti ad preefectos praetorii mei
debet.” The pretorian camp was out-
side the Porta Viminalis, where it had been
ABILN
abcdf
ghkl
mopls
SERVI. 2: z
17.1. auTov OTOATLWT)).
ABLN ™
abcdf
mop 13
16—21.
17! eyévero
+
q 7 ce r , , e
EVeouy TOLC TaTowotc, : Ofopmtoc ef lepocoX bw
¢ s ‘ a ~ £ UJ t ad ?
eo0Ony sie Tac Xeloacg Twy Pwuatwy, 18 ofrwee " avakoi-
NIPAZEIZ ATOSTOAQN.
suyKkaXécac0at avrov rove bvtac tav lovSalwy " Tpw-
. , aa
tovc’ °ouveAPovtwy d& avrav eXeyev To0C avrove Eye, reff
> ‘4 > \ ~~
avooec adeAr Hoi, ovdev ? Evaytiov Tomsac TW
307
\ a c , ~
Oe pera nueoacg Tpétc | conttr.sch.tv.
m mid., ch. x.
24 reff.
nch. xiii. 50
san eee cee:
= =ch, xxvi. 9
Naw y TOL ae
t q - Hart i
= Ich. &xii. ¢
Tap reff.
sch. xvi. 25,
27 reff.
’ t ch. xxi. 11.
s ? , v? ~ ‘ ‘ ’ ?
vavtéc me eovAovro “aroAvoa dia TO undentiay “ airiay Matt. xvii. 22
Ww 0 , x .¢ , > ’ ,
avaTou UTAOYXELV €v é"ol.
> , >
lovdatwv * qvayKacOny * exikadécacbat Kaisaoa, ovx
19 y 2
- ‘ x re Job xvi.
avriveyovrwy oe TwY uch. iv. 9 reff.
v =ch. xxvi.
32 reff.
w ch. xiii. 28
~
be ~ oo cv 4 “
WC TOU eOvove fhovu EXwv TL : KaTnyooselv 20 ota TauT Hv he 16
x J ‘ Deal e , eee ie
OUYV THY alTlav maoskaXeoa vac
vw \ ~ hoe , oy. ‘ ‘ i@
EVvEKEV yao TNC ; éAmiooc TOU IopanX Thy aAvow rautny
© 8: ‘ SS < e ~ »”
ol ie 7 poc auTOov eétt7Tav Huete OUTE
k U
TEOLKEMAL, 2
11. Gal. ii. 3,14. 1 Macc. ii. 25.
¢ constr., ch. xsi. 13. xxiii. 17,18. Luke vii. 40. xii. 50. Winer, § 44.3.
e = here only. Xen. Cyr. i. 5.7, buds mupexadreca,
gch. xili. 43 only. Exod.iv.16F. Wisd. xiii. 17 only.
Vili. 24.
of pers., 2Cor.i. 6. Phil. i. 20. Ps. xiv. 6.
Heb. v. 2. xii. onlyt. 4 Mace. xii. 3.
enough for the addition.)
demid syr-w-ast.
for eavt., avtov B.
> ~ \ ~ reff,
Loely Kal * moocAaANsat’ y Lake xx. 27.
ch. xiii. 45.
Rom. x. 21.
L.P., exc.
John xix. 12.
Hos. iv. 4.
z=ch. xxvi.
b «= ch. xxiii. 15 reff.
d ch. xxiv. 2 reff.
f =ch. xvi. 40. Lake viii. 20 al. 4 Kings
h constr. w. gen.
k Luke xvii. 2 § Mk.
ach. xxv. 11 reff.
i ch. xii. 6 reff.
add ef tns mapeuBoAns 137
17. rec for avtov, Tov mavdov, with H'L rel Syr eth: txt ABIN k p 18. 36. 40. 137
vulg syr copt Chr.
de aft cuvedA9. is written twice by RX’.
rec avdpes adeAgot
bef ey, with H'L rel 36 Syr Chr: txt ABI(&) ¢ p 13. 40. 137 vulg syr copt arm Thl-
fin.—for eyw, Aeywy N!(but corrd).
18. ins moAAa bef avaxpwavtes c 137 syr-w-ast. avakpwoytes &\. add pe
&'(N° disapproving).
19. aft covdaiwy ins kar emucpaCovTwy ape Tov exOpoy nuwy c 137 syr-w-ast. aft
Mov ins ov (but marked and erased) N!.
txt ABN p 13. 40.
syr-w-ast.
20. mapexadeoay (but v erased) XR.
&, but ¢ erased.
21. [emav, so ABH'N p. |
rec Kkatnyopnoat, with H'L rel 36 Chr:
add aAA wa AvTpwowpat THY Wuxny mov ex Bavatov ¢e 137
for mposaA., AaAnoa H'. ervexey A, so
edetaueda bef rep: cov A 13 vulg eth-pl Thl-fin:
txt BH'L® p rel 36 syrr Chr Thl-sif Gic.—for epi, kata &.
fixed and fortified by Sejanus: see Tacit.
Ann. iv. 2.] ewetpaty TO II.] This
permission probably resulted from the let-
ters of Festus, expressing that no crime
was laid to the charge of Paul; perhaps
also partly from the favour of Julius, and
his report of the character and bearing of
Paul on the journey. oTpaTiaTy | a
Preetorian, to whom he was chained ; see
below, ver. 20; and noteonch. xxiv. 23.
17.] The banishment of Jews from Rome
(ch. xviii. 2) had either tacitly or openly
been abrogated some time beforethis. Pris-
cilla and Aquila had returned when the
Epistle to the Romans was written, Rom.
Xvi. 3. Paul was naturally anxious to
set himself right with the Jews at Rome—
to explain the cause of his being sent there,
in case no message had been received by
them concerning him from Judza,—and to
do away if possible with the unfavourable
prejudice which such letters, if received,
would have created respecting his character.
x 2
The fact of his sending for them, and
their coming to him, seems to shew (as in
the gloss on ver. 16: see digest) that he
was not imprisoned in the Praetorian camp,
but was already in a private lodging.
18. éBovd. droAtoat| This may have been
at ch. xxv. 8. The possibility of such a re-
lease is asserted by Agrippa, ch. xxvi. 32.
19.| ‘My appeal was a defensive
and necessary step—not an offensive one,
to complain of my nation.’ The inf.
aor. of the rec. would point to some one de-
Jinite charge: katyyopety means ‘ to play
the accuser against my nation in any
thing: indicating the habit. 20. |
mapekadeoa is here in its primary mean-
ing, I have called you to me.
81a TavT. T. ait., for the reason just stated:
because I have no hostile feeling to my
nation. Then éverev yap... adds another
motive; for not only so, but I may well
wish to see and speak with you, being a
prisoner for the hope of Israel (see ch.
2
308
1 = here only.
(Luke xvi. 6,
m absol., ch.
xvii. 10 ref.
n= ch. xxii. 5.
Dent. xv. 3.
o = ch. xv. 38
NPAZEIS AIMOSZTOAQN. XXVIII.
' yeaupara meot cov edebapcBa amo THC ‘Tousatac, our
” mapayevonevoc TIC TwWY
" adeAgav amnyyEAev n &\a-
22
v3 ® aroupev ce Tapa cou
TEOL nev ues The 4
Anoév Tl TEOL oov TmoVngOV.
a“
akovoat a ” ppoverc® GlpeoEewe Tav-
(reff.) only.
pcmomezi, TNE " yvworor mel éoTlv OTL
3 2 Macc.
xiv.o6. 28" raSauevor Of auTw si a
q ch. v. 17 reff. t
r = ch. xiii, 38
’ , 7
‘Eeviav “ rXkziovec, otc
t> ,
* mavraXou avTiAgyerat.
> A ? a
* FA0ov ™poc avroy eg TY
* eeriOero ” dtapaprupopevoc THY
‘h. xvii.30 0 z ‘ =e =
nek. BactAklay tov * Beov, * meiQwy TE avTove mEpt rou Inoov
t ver. 19.
u=ch. xv. 2. Matt. xxviii. 6. constr., here only. Job xiv.13. Tovs pdpous Tots “EXAnge zatas, lian, Var.
Hist. x1. 9. v Philem. 2? only ¢. Blian, Var. Hist. iii. 37. w ch. ii. 40 reff. x ch,
xi. 4 ref. y ch. viii. 25 reff, constr., ch, xxiii. 11 reff. z ch, xix. 8 reff. aw. TeEpl,
here only.
22. axovoa bef rapa cov LX b do 40 eth:
rec cot bef nuw, with H'L rel vulg spec syr copt Chr Thl-sif (ic :
40 Thl-fin.—vyw p.
23. *ree HKOV, with HtL rel Chr Thl Ec :
diauaptupovmevos p 36 Thi-fin:
vos A. om Ist te N!: Kae weiBwr dd.
syrT.
xxvi. 6, and notes). 21.] It may
seem strange that they had received no
tidings concerning him. But, as Meyer
well remarks, (1) defore his appeal, the
Jews in Judea had no definite reason to
communicate with the Jews in Rome re-
specting him, having no expectation that
Paul, then a prisoner in Judea, and the
object of their conspiracies there, would
ever go to Rome, or come into connexion
with their brethren there. And (2) since
his appeal, it would have been hardly pos-
sible for them to have sent messengers who
should have arrived before him. For his
voyage followed soon after his appeal (ch.
xxv. 13; xxvii. 1), and was so late in the
year, that for the former reason it is as
unlikely that any deputation from them
should have left before him, as for the
latter, after him. Had any left within a
few days, the same storm would have in all
probability detained them over the winter,
and they could not certainly have made a
much quicker voyage than Paul’s ship to
Puteoli. Still, as casual, non-official tidings
might have reached them, Paul shewed this
anxiety. It appears, however, that none
had come. OJshausen’s view, that the
banishment of the Jews from Rome under
Claudius had interrupted the relations
between the Roman and Judean Jews, is
hardly probable: see on ver. 17. 22. |
The 6€ and wey are inverted: “wey si
dicitur non sequente 6¢, aut intelligi potest
d5€, aut omittitur illa pars orationis in qua
sequi debebat dé, quae aliquando preecedit.”
Herm. ad Viger., p. 839. It precedes, be-
cause it connects with the foregoing.
SiaapTupauevor N! :
rec ins Ta bef coe (as rec in ch viii. 12,
tat in ch xix. 8), with L rel Chr Thl @c: om ABH'™N ac
om akovou 13.—for mapa, wept H*.
txt ABX km p 13.
nd\Oov ABN k p 13. 36. 40. (nA@av A.)
Tapat e.eWe-
and
ce p 18. 36. 40. 137 vulg spec
-pamevos N®:
at. mapa cov, we beg of thee: see reff.
THs atp. Tavt.| To which they per-
haps inferred that Paul belonged, from ver.
20: or they might have heard thus much
generally respecting him by rumour, though
they had received no special message.
Their short notice of Christianity is perhaps
the result of caution, seeing as they did the
favour shewn by the authorities towards
Paul (see Hackett, p. 392): or perhaps of
dissimulation. Many Commentators
have noticed the omission of all mention
of the Christian Church at Rome, and of
Paul’s connexion with or work among them.
And some recently in Germany (e.g. Bauer)
have called in question the credibility of
the Acts on this account. But without any
reason: for the work of the Apostle among
churches already founded is not the sub-
ject of our history, and is seldom related
by Luke, without a special reason. Of
the three years at Ephesus (ch. xx. 31),—
the year and a half (ch. xviii. 11), and
three months (ch. xx. 3) at Corinth, we
know from the narrative nothing that
took place among the Christians them-
selves. Besides, one great object of this
history is to shew forth Paul as working
out the Lord’s implied command (ch. i. 8),
to preach the Gospel ‘to the Jew first, and
also to the Gentile,’ and, having every
where done this, it is but natural that he
should open his commission in Rome by
assembling and speaking to the Jews.
23. 7. feviav| Probably the pwlo@wua of
ver. 30: hardly, as Olsh., the house of
Aquila. mwe(Owv | persuading: not
‘teaching, as Kuin., nor ‘trying to per-
ABLY.
abcdf
par
~ mopil3
22—28. TIPAZEIS ANOSTOAQN. 309
amo TE TOU ° vd OU Mauaiw l TWYV < eS b= ch. xvii. 2
‘ -xvil. 2
[A Cc Kal TW 7 eogntwr, a7vro ciahextnias
d> Md? df ¢ , 4 ee 18 sd ! = ff.
© growl “two “esmépac. 7 Kat of pév © eretovro roig NE a3 Kings xxii.
1 ‘ 33 heer IaH 0 \ oo» ‘ 35. ;
YOHEVOLC, OL OE NTLoTOUY. acuupwvot O€ OVTEC woo ¢Met ye)
aX k ? Xe ee! - , | PR Le ea Paes
aAXnAove “ameXvovro sitovtoe tov TlavAov PNMA — EV, FLuke xxiv. 24.
e m = ‘ = Pear F) we A ch. iv. 3 only,
OTL KaAwe TO TVvEULa TO ayloY ” ehaAnoev ota ~Hoatov EU te
g = Luke xvi.
- , ‘ NOLO , Cx = las), , : C ii
Exop- TOV TOOPITOV TONE TOUG *TaTEpac °ULwY 26? Aéyov TTlopev- rabselg ve
evOntt... 0 ‘ ‘ N ~ \ ee ? ~ 9 , , h Mark xvi. 11,
ABELN UNTL TOOC TOV Aaoyv TovToy Kal ELTOV Akon GQKOUOETE Kat 6. Luke
abcdf , ‘ ~ \ , , a > . E
ghkl OU {tN GUVNTE’ Kal BXérovrec BAzPpere Kal Ov py lOnTe. 2 Tim. ii 18
mopl3 O71? , . = , oa ~ , \ ~ only t. Wisd.
exayuvdn yao 1 kapota tov Aaov rovtov, Kal ToC Winionas
=) al s , ” \ \ ? ‘ (ia He eae
Wolv Bapiwc HKovoav, Kal TOUC op0aXrpove auTwy ene
stage 5 , , due > = \ Ce Ce) 1a. .
éekKauuvoav pynTOTE 1OWwow TOIC opPadpotc Kat TOLC WOLV eae
> 7 ‘ ~ ¥ MG ~ Sen y \ Diod. Sic. iv.
QakKOUOWOLY Kal ™ kao td GUVYWOLVY Kal ETLaT pEehwow Kat 1.
rn rs k=ch. xiii 3
28
Vv ‘ is de 4 -
yvwoTov OUY UVUULVY FOTW OTt TOLC tel xXVii.
20 w? an - \ wy , - cae > \ 14. sce Matt.
EVUVEOLV aATECOTAAYH TOUVUTO TO OWTHOLOV TOU Mcou QuUTOL xxi. 24
m= Matt. xv.
we ? ,
tagouat auTouc.
\ ? , 2
kat ) axovcovtat *, 7 ale deri
n ch iii. 21 reff. och. iii. 25 reff. p constr., Rev. iv. 7, 8al. see ch. xxi. 23. q Isa.
vi 9, 10. r = Matt. xiii. 15 (from 1. c.) only. Deut. xxxii. 15. s Matt. xiii. 15 (from
l.c.)only. Gen. xxxi. 35. 2 Mace. xi. 1. xiv. 27 only. t Matt. xiii. 15 only. Isa. 1. c. xxix. 10.
Lam, ili. 44 only. u = ch. iii. 19 reff. vch. xiii. 38 reff. w see ch. siii. 26.
x = Luke ii. 30. iil. 6. Eph. vi.17 only. Ps. xevii. 2. Isa. 1x. 6. y fut. mid., John v. 25, 28.
otherwise, Acts (ch. iii. 22, 23. xvii. 32) only. Nom. ix. 8. z ch. xv. 7 (reff.) only t.
24. aft wey ins ovy X!.
25. for Ist de, Te N!. for Sia, eps X?. a. 7. Tatepas vuwy bef dia yo. T.
apo. A.—rec nuwy (most prod altered to conform it to Paul’s being a Jew, and to the
tone of his other speeches: not as Meyer and Bornemann, altered to up. to distinguish
him from the Jews, or because the speech was solely addressed to Jews. The vp. here
has an important and characteristic meaning), with H'L rel 36 vulg spec copt Chr Thl
(ic Ambr Jer: txt ABN k p 18. 40 Syr Ath Cyr-jer Bas Did Vig Quest.
26. rec Aeyor, with AH rel 36 Chr Gc: txt BLN f 13 Thi. rec eime (commoner
Sorm), with c Thl Ee: txt ABEH'TLN p 13 rel Chr. akovoynte and BAeyntre AL
p 13 Thi-sif: -cere and -~yre H'®? Bas: txt BLN! rel 36 Chr Thl-fin Gc. OUVEITE
L p Thi-fin: cumere 13.
27. <Bapuvdn X'. . aft Ist wow ins avrwy AN bdo 18 tol Syr xth-pl arm Thl-
fin Jer,(om,) Vig. om kat Tn kapdia cvvwow N'. emotpevouow AE p Thl-fin.
e rec tagwua (so in Matt xiii. 15), with E p 13 Chr @c: txt ABH™LN g! 1187
ev Thi.
28. rec eorw bef yur, with AEH'LN rel: txt B mp. rec om TovTo (as unneces-
sary ?), with EH'LN? tol eth Thl Ge: ins ABN! ¢ p 13. 36. 40 vulg E-lat syrr copt Chr.
[29. rec ins Kal TavTa avrov eimovToc amnAoy ot Lovdator, ToAAHY
Eyovrec éy EavTolc ‘ oucnrnow, with HrL rel 36 syr-w-ast «th Chr Thl dic:
om ABEN c p13. 40 am(with demid fuld &c) spec Syr copt. (Zn the paucity of uncial
suade” Meyer wellremarks,—Paul, on his 14). 28.] rovro was probably omitted
part, subjectively, performed that indicated as superfluous, and perhaps to suit Luke
by me(Gew; that this did not produce its iii. 6. It adds greatly to the force: this,
objective effect in all his hearers, does not the message of God’s salvation, q. d.
alter the meaning of the word. 25. <thereis no other for those who reject this’
ciovros] they departed, but not before avrot kat ax.| They will also
Paul had said one saying. It is very (besides having it sent to them) hear it.
remarkable, that the same prophetic quota- Quod expertus erat Paulus in multis
tion with which our Lord opened his teach- Asie et Europe urbibus, ut apud gentes
ing by parables, should form the solemn — sermonis felicior esset seges, idem et nune
close of the historic Scriptures. : 26.] futurum prospiciebat.”” Grot. [29.]
pope cerOy 35 referred to himself, This verse has not the usual characteristic
in his application of the prophecy. These of spurious passages,—the variety of read-
words are not cited by our Lord (Matt. xiii. ings in those MSS. which contain it. It
310
ach. xiv. 22
ret,
b ch. xxiv. 27
only. (-tTHs,
Mart. ii. 16.
2 Mace. x.3.) dl f
see ch. xx.
31.
c here only$.
(Deut. xxiii. 2
IIPAZEIS AMOSTOAQN.
, ‘ { , - - \ , h
KNOVOTWY TYV * BaciAtlav TOU E Qeov Kal oidacKkwy Ta
XXVIII. 30, 31.
’ A ab ’ er > ar , \
308’ Rvegueevev O& " Otetiav OAnY EV Lol ° waOomatt, Kat
, , ‘ , A , 7
4 amedtyeTo wavtac Tove * etcmopEvopévoug TPOG auTOY,
‘
TEOL TOU Kuplov "Inoov Xeltorov ‘wera Tmaone ' zappnotac
18.) (-00- Nvrwe.
otar, Matt SENEETOE
xs 1,7.) —
ach. ii.'41 reff NPAZEIS AMOSTOAQN.
ew. Tpos,
here only. Esth. ii. 14. fch. xx. 25 (reff). g ch. xix. 8 reff. hch. xxiii. ]1. Sir.
xix. 30. i ch. ii. 29 reff. k here onlyt. Job xxxiv.31 Symm. (-os, Wiad. vii. 22.)
MSS, and seeing that there are no considerable varr in the omitted passage, I have
treated it as doubtful. It is perhaps one of those many additions which D alone of
the first class MSS would have contained, had it been preserved to us, and was inserted
on acct of the abrupt transition from ver 28 to ver 30: but see notes.)]
30. rec (for even.) ewewev, with AEH'LN® rel 36 Chr: emeuewev ¢ 137. 156: txt BR!
€
p 13.—evemivar(sic) XR. rec aft de ins o zavAos, with H'L rel 36 tol Syr syr-w-ast
wth Chr Thl @c: om ABEN ¢ p 18. 40 vulg copt arm. aft avroy ins covdatous
137: wovdarous Te Kat EAAHVas C tol syr-w-ast.
81. aft didackwv, add quoniam hic est Christus filius Dei, per quem omnis mundus
judicabitur tol: aft axwAutws, Aeywy oTL ovTos ETT XpLOTOS INGOUS O VIOS TOU BeoU be
ov koomos oAos meAAet Kpiveg@a syr demid. om inaov XR! e. at end add anny
c 15. 18. 36. 40. 43. 96 am fuld harl syr Chr-ms.
SUBSORIPTION. mpateis Twy ayiwy amoctoAwy AEH'L: om d gl m: tedos Tay
mpatiwy b oO: TEA. ouv Oew Twv mp. T. am. 137: TeAOS T. Mpak. T. ayiwy amoot. f:
mpaters Twv amogToAwy p: txt BR.
may perhaps, after all, have been omitted
as appearing superfluous after ver. 25.]
$0, 31.] It is evident that Paul was not
released from custody, but continued with
the soldier who kept him,—(1) from the
expressions here ; he received all who came
in to him, but we do not hear of his preach-
ing in the synagogues or elsewhere: he
preached and taught w7th all boldness and
unhindered, both being mentioned as re-
markable circumstances, and implying that
there were reasons why this could hardly
have been expected: and (2) from his con-
stantly speaking of himself in the Epistles
written during it, as a prisoner, see Eph. vi.
19, 20; Col. iv. 3, 4; Philem. 9; Philipp.
passim. On the whole question regarding
the chronology of his imprisonment,—and
the reason of this abrupt ending of the
history, see Prolegg. to Acts, § iv. 4—7 :—
and on its probable termination and the
close of St. Paul’s life, see the Prolegg. to
the Pastoral Epistles, § ii. 17 ff.
ABELN
abcecdft
ghkl
mop 13
+7 O-
aorodos
ABCEK
LNabe
dtghk
Imno
17
WPOS POMAIOYS.
I. ! TavdAoc *SovA0e “Incod
~ b X ‘ pay deat We by 1s iF
Xelorou, KAHTOC ATO- Jamesi. 1.
2 Petar.
b=vv.6,7. 1Cor.i. [1] 2,24. Judelal. 2 Kings xv. 11.
TITLE.—rec wavAov tov amogtoAov 7 TpOs pwuatovs emLoTOAN: Em. Trav. mp. pw. 1:
Tov aylov kat Tavevpnuov amrogT. mav. ew. mpos pw. Li 14. 44. 80: mavAou em. mp. pw. m:
™p. pw. Tav. er. k: mav. ew. mp. pw. 17:
(mpos p[. . Ja{.]us is legible in C.)
txt ABCN n o and D at head of pages.
Cuap. 1.1. xpirrov bef maou Bisic: see table) am(with fuld tol &e) Orig, Aug
Ambr Ambrst Bede.
Cuap. I. 1—7.] AppDREsS OF THE EPIs-
TLE, WITH AN ANNOUNCEMENT OF PAvUL’s
CALLING, TO BE AN APOSTLE OF THE Gos-
PEL OF THE SON OF Gop. “ Epistola tota
sic methodica est, ut ipsum quoque exor-
dium ad rationem artis compositum sit.
Artificium quum in multis apparet, qu
suis locis observabantur, tum in eo maxime,
quod inde argumentum principale deduci-
tur. Nam Apostolatus sui approbationem
exorsus, ex ea in Evangelii commendatio-
nem ineidit: qua quum necessario secum
trahat disputationem de fide, ad eam, quasi
verborum contextu manu ducente, delabi-
tur. Atqueita ingreditur principalem totius
Epistole queestionem, fide nos justificari:
in qua tractanda versatur usque ad finem
quinti capitis.” Calvin. Paul in the
addresses of his Epistles never uses the
common Greek formula xalpew (James i.
1), but always a prayer for blessing on
those to whom he is writing. In all his
Epistles (as in both those of Peter, and in
the Apocalypse) this prayer is for xd¢pis and
eipfvn, except in 1 and 2 Tim., where it is
for xdpis, ZAcos, and eipfhyy, as in 2 John.
In Jude only we find cos, eipfvn, and
aya. The address here differs from
those of most of Paul’s Epistles, in having
dogmatic clauses parenthetically inserted:
—such are found also in the Epistle to
Titus, and (in much less degree) in that to
the Galatians. These dogmatic clauses
regard, 1. the fore-announcement of the
Gospel through the prophets: 2. the de-
seription and dignity of Him who was the
subject of that Gospel: 3. the nature and
aim of the apostolic office to which Paul
had been called,—including the persons
addressed in the objects of its ministration.
1. SodA0s “I. x.] so also Phil. i. 1,
and Tit. i. 1 (S00A0s Oe0d, amdor. 5 x.’1.),
—but usually am. x. I. (2 Cor. Eph. Col.
1 Tim. 2 Tim.): [KAntds] am. x. 71. (1Cor.),
—simply aréarodos (Gal.),—déoutos x. 71.
(Philem.), but in almost all these places
the reading varies between xpiotod *Incod
and *Inaod xpiorod. The expression an-
swers to the Hebr. nim 72», the especial
O. T. title of Israel, and of individuals, as
Moses, Joshua, David, Daniel, Job, and
others, who as prophets, kings, &c., were
raised up for the express work of God. See
Umbreit’s note, Der Brief an die Rémer
auf dem Grunde des alten Testaments
ausgelegt, p. 153 f. It must not be ren-
dered slave with Schrader, nor pius eultor
with Fritzsche: because, as Mehring re-
marks, the former excludes the element of
freewill, while the latter does not express
the entire dedication to Christ.
KAntTos améor.| In naming himself a
servant of Jesus Christ, he bespeaks their
attention as a Christian speaking to Chris-
tians : he now further specifies the place
which he held by the special calling of
God ; called, and that to the very highest
office, of an apostle; and even more—
312
Sorat co t ae
e acts xiii 2 gTOAOC, © apwplauEvog ELC
al. i.
Lev. xx. 26.
dch. xv. 16
ref. 3
e 2 Cor, ix. 5
only t.
f plur., Acts
xvii. 2 reff.
g here only. ae
see ch. xvi. 26. 2 Tim. iii. 16.
vii. 42. (Acta xiii. 23.) 2Tim.ii. 8. Jer. xxii. 30.
20 al. Paulonly. see John viii. 15. 2 Cor. xi. 18.
g € ,
aylat¢c
i \0 k \ k
patoc ' Aaveid “kata
among the Apostles, not one by original se-
lection, but one specially called. ‘ Ceteri
quidem apostoli per diutinam cum Jesu
consuetudinem educati fuerunt, et primo
ad sequelam et disciplinam vocati, deinde
ad apostolatum producti. Paulus, perse-
cutor antehac, de subito apostolus per voca-
tionem factus est. Ita Judei erant sancti
ex promissione: Greci, sancti ex mera
vocatione, ver.6. Preecipuam ergo vocatus
apostolus cum vocalis sanctis similitudi-
nem et conjunctionem habebat.” Bengel.
amdéatoXos must not be taken here in the
wider sense, of a missionary, as in ch. xvi.
7, but in its higher and peculiar meaning,
in which the Twelve bore the title (ods ra)
amoatéAous wvduacev, Luke vi. 13), and
Paul (and perhaps Barnabas), and James
the Lord’s brother. This title was not con-
ferred on Paul by the agoptoatre 54 wor of
the Holy Spirit, Acts xiii. 2, but ia virtue
of his special call by the Lord in person ;
compare oxevos éxAoyfs, Acts ix. 15, with
efeActduny, John vi. 70; xiii. 18; xv. 16;
Acts i. 2. “ Neque enim iis assentior, qui
eam de qua loquitur vocationem ad eter-
nam Dei electionem referant.”’ Calvin.
a&dwpiopévos} not in Acts xiii. 2, merely,
though that was a particular application
of the general truth :—but (as in Gal. i.
15, 6 apopioas pe ex KoirAlas untpds mov)
Srom his birth. “Idem Pharisei etymon
fuerat: hoe autem loco Paulus se non
solum ex hominibus, ex Judzeis, ex disci-
pulis, sed etiam ex doctoribus segregatum
a Deo significat.” Bengel. els} for
the purpose of announcing. evay-
yéAvov Be00 = 7d eday. Tov 0., which (see
reff.) is the usual form. Bp. Middleton
(on ver. 17) remarks on the anarthrousness
of Paul’s style, and cites from Dion.
Hal. de Comp. Verb. c. 22, as a character
of the abornpa apuovia, that it is dAvyo-
wivdecuos, GvapOpos. See the passage
cited at length in the Prolegomena, § v. 2,
—the good tidings sent by (not concern-
ing) God. The genitive is not, as in 7d
ebayyeAwy Tis Bacidelas, Matt. iv. 23,
one of apposition, but of possession or
origin; God’s Gospel. And so, whenever
the expression ‘the Gospel of Christ’ oc-
curs, it is not ‘the Gospel about Christ,’
but Christ’s Gospel; that Gospel which
IIPOX PQMAIOYS.
,
capKa,
h = Gal. iv. 4. Phil. ii. 7.
§
~ a
* evaryyéAtov 100, 20° ™00-
~ ~ > - , a
exnyyéiAato oid TwVv TooPnT@Y avTOU ww fg ypapaic
\ = ~ - ~
TEpl TOU viuv auToU, To " yevouévou Ex ' oTEp-
-1¢ , t~ ~
4 TOU ootobévroc vLOU Oeov
Acts xix. 26,
k = ch. iv. 1. ix. 3, 5.
1 Acts xvii. 26 reff.
iLukei. 65. John
1 Cor. x. 18. Gal. iv. 23,
flows out of His grace, and is His gift to
men. ‘Thus in the very beginning of the
Epistle, these two short words announce
that the Gospel is of God,—in other
words, that salvation is of grace only.
2.] This good tidings is no new inven-
tion, no after-thought,—but was long ago
announced in what God’s prophets wrote
concerning His Son:—and announced by
way of promise, so that God stood pledged
to its realization. émeid}) 5€ Kal Kawvorto-
‘play evexddovy TG mpdyuati, Selxvuciw
auto mpeaBitepoy ‘EAAhvwy bv, Kal év
Tois mpopytats mpodiaypapduevorv. Chrys.
Hom. ii. p. 431. ypad. ay. | not, ‘in
sacred writings,—nor ‘in passages of
Holy Writ:—but in the Holy Serip-
tures. The expression used is defined
enough by the adjective, to be well under-
stood without the article;—so mvetua
ayiwo. below,—mv. dywov passim. See
Winer, edn. 6, § 19. 2 (and for nouns in
government, Middleton, ch. iii. § 6). But
one set of writings being holy, it was not
necessary to designate them more particu-
larly. See also above on evayy. Geo. This
expression (evayy. 8 mpoernyy.) is used
in the strictest sense. Moses gave the
Law: the prophets proclaimed the Gos-
pel. See Umbreit’s note, p. 159.
3. wept Tov viod avrod} belongs to 6
mpoer. above,—which he promised be-
forehand, &c., concerning His Son, i. e.
‘which (good tidings) He promised before-
hand, &c., and indicated that it should be
concerning His Son.’ This is more natural
than to bind these words to evayy. @evd
which went before. Either meaning will
suit ver. 9 equally well. Christ, the Son of
God, is the great subject of the good news.
yevopéevov| not dvtos, see John i.
1—3, and notes. Kata odpka| On
the side of His humanity, our Lord éyévero;
that nature of His begins only then, when
He was yevduevos ex yuvaicds, Gal. iv. 4.
odpé is here used exactly as in
John i. 14, 6 Adyos cape eyévero, to sig-
nify that whole nature, body and soul,
of which the outward visible tabernacle
of the FLEsH is the concrete representa-
tion to our senses. The words é«
oméppatos AavelS cast a hint back at the
promise just spoken of. At the same time,
C rov
YEVOL ..e
ABCEK
LNabe
dfghk
lmno
17
:
2—5.
, , s ~
cei ° Suvauet "Kata NS mveupa °°
IIPOS PQMAIOYS.
aywobvnc
313
r > , j
VEE avacracewe patos oo
~ 19. 1 Cor. iv.
" veKOWY, "Inoov Xpiorou TOU Kuplov Huo, 5 oe ov éA\a- 2U. xv. 43.
Col. i. 29 al.
n Gal. iv. 29. o here only. see John xiv. ng 2Tim.i.7. 1 John iy. 6. p 2 Cor. vii. 1.
1 Thess. iii. 13 only, Ps. xcv. 6. xcvi. 12. cxlivy. 5. 2 Mace. iii. 12 only. q = James ii. 18
(bis). Rev. viii. 11 al. r 1 Cor. xv. 12 reff. L.P.H.
in so solemn an enunciation of the dignity
of the Son of God, they serve to shew that
even according to the human side, His
descent had been fixed in the line of him
who was Israel’s anointed and greatest
king. 4.| The simple antithesis would
have been, Tod pev yevouévou... byTos 5€
viov Oeov Kata mvevua, see 1 Tim. iii. 16.
But (1) wonderful solemnity is given by
dropping the particles, and taking up sepa-
rately the human and divine nature of
Christ, keeping 6 vids adrod as the great
subject of both clauses, and thus making
them, not contrasts to one another, but
correlative parts of the same great whole.
And (2) the Apostle, dwelling here on
patent facts,—the announcements of pro-
phecy,—the history of the Lord’s Hu-
manity,— does not deal with the essential
subsistent Godhead of Christ, but with
that manifestation of it which the great
fact of the Resurrection had made to men.
Also (3) by amplifying mvedua into my.
Gywwovrvys, he characterizes the Spirit of
Christ as one of absolute holiness, i. e. as
divine, and partaking of the Godhead :
see below. 6piabévTos | “ Multo plus
dicit quam apwpicuévos, ver. 1: nam
apopicerar unus e pluribus, dpiCerar unicus
quispiam.” Bengel. See retf. Nor does
it = mpoopiodevtos, as vulg. predestina-
tus, and as Ireneeus (iii. 22. 1, p. 219) and
Augustine de Pradest. Sanctorum, ec. 15,
vol. x. p. 982 :—“ Preedestinatus est ergo
Jesus, ut qui futurus erat secundum car-
nem filius David, esset tamen in virtute
Filius Dei secundum Spiritum Sanctifica-
tionis: quia natus est de Spiritu Sancto et
Virgine Maria.” But this is one of the
places where Augustine has been misled
by the Latin :—the text speaks, not of the
fact of Christ’s being the Son of God barely,
but of the proof of that fact by His Re-
surrection. Chr ysostom has given the
right meaning: Ti ody éorw SpioBévros ;
TOU ya amopavbevTos, xpiévros,
dmoAoynOévros Tapa Tis amrdvTwy yvouns
kal Whoov.... Hom. ii. p. 432. That an
example is wanting of this exact use of the
word, is, as Olsh. has shewn, no objection to
such use ; the dpi¢ew here spoken of is not
the objective ‘fixing, ‘appointing’ of
Christ to be the Son of God, but the sud-
jective manifestation in men’s minds that
He is so. Thus the objective words moteiy
(Acts ii. 36), yevv@y (Acts xiii. 33) are used
of the same proof or manifestation of
Christ’s Sonship by His Resurrection. So
again éd:cad6n, 1 Tim. iii. 16. év
Suvaper belongs to dpia0évros,—not to viod
@cov,—nor again is it a parallel clause to
kat. wy. ay. and ée& dvaor. ver. (as Chrys.,
who interprets it arb T@y Oavudtwy arep
érpatte, Theophyl. &c.) manifested with
power (to be) the Son of God. See reff.
KaTG Trvedpa Gyiwovvys | ayiwo. is
not = ay.oy; this epithet would be inap-
plicable here, for it would point out the
Third Person in the Blessed Trinity,
whereas it is the Spirit of Christ Himself,
in distinction from His Flesh, which is
spoken of. And this Spirit is designated
by the gen. of quality, ay:wovvns, to shew
that it is not a human, but a divine Spirit
which is attributed herve to Christ,—a
Spirit to which holiness belongs as its
essence. The other interpretations cer-
tainly miss the mark, by overlooking the
kata odpka and Kata mvedua, the two sides
of the Person of Christ here intended to
be brought out. Such are that of Theo-
doret (51a THs UTd TOD Tavaylouv mv el mar os
evepyoumevns Suvduews), —Chrys. (amd rod
mvevpatos, dC ov Toy &yiacpndy edwkev),
&e. Calvin and Olshausen seem to wish
to include the notion of sanctifying
(ayiarpuds) in Gyiwotvn,—which however
true, is more than strictly belongs to the
words. See by all means, on the whole,
Umbreit’s important note, pp. 164—172.
e&} not ‘from and after’ (as Theo-
doret, Luther, Grotius, al.), nor = amd,
which could not be used here, but by, as
indicating the source, out of which the
demonstration proceeds. avacTagews
vekpov |] not = avaor. é« vexpav,—which,
besides the force done to the words, would
be a weakening of the strong expression of
the Apostle, who takes here summarily and
by anticipation the Resurrection of Jesus
as being, including, involving (éyé eipe 7
avdoragis, John xi. 25) the (whole) Resur-
rection of the dead. So that we must not
render as E. V. ‘the resurrection from the
dead, but the resurrection of the dead,
regarded as accomplished in that of Christ.
It was the full accomplishment of this,
which more than any thing declared Him
to be the Son of God: see John vy. 25—29.
Thus in these words lies wrapped up the
argument of ch. vi. 4 ff. *Ino. Xp- T-
kup. Hp. | Having given this description of
dl4
8—=ch. xii. 3.
xv. 15. 1 Cor.
IIPOL PQMAIOY®.
Popen * Xapw Kal ‘amoorolny ™
5.
, e ‘ ’
els od umaKony ** TLOTEWC
iii, 10. Gal. ? 20 y 6? 7
ii, 9. Eph. €&DV maow row EUVEOLVY Umio TOU ovowatoc avr ou, é€v otc Gev
iii, 2. ~@ BAe
t Acis i. 25. 7
1 Gor. ix, 2. care kal vucic “«Anrot "Inoov Xelorov, maha ToOIC
a = ae z %
Gal sony: quot EV Pouy “ayarnroic Geov, *KAnroic aylowc. D kAn-
ch. . 26.
ape vera, 17. 1 Pet. i. 22. weh. v.19, 2 Cor. vii.15. Heb. v.8. 1 Pet.i.2al. 2 Kings xxii. 36 only, ABCDG
constr., ch. Xvi. 26. 2 Cor. x. 5. 1 Pet. i. 22. X objective, = Acts Vi. 7. y Acts ix. 16 rel! KEN a b
2 ver. 1. w. gen., here only. (see note.) aw.gen., Matt. xii. J8. Acts xy. £5 (of Paul), ch. xvi. 6, 8, ¥.
1 Cor, x. 14. Phil. ii. 12 only. Ps. cxxvi. 2. b = Acts ix. 13 reff. edfgh
kimn
017
7. om ev pwun G schol-in-47(to ev pwun, ovte ev TH eénynoel, ovTE EV TW pNTW (On the
bvnmovevet). for ayarnt. Oeov, ev ayarn Oeov G am fuld! D!-lat Ambrst-ms: om eee
7 0. see
E 82. peo
; gomena.)
the Person and dignity of the Son of God, like. It was the general bestowal of grace,
very Man and very God, he now identifies which conditioned and introduced the
this divine Person with Jesus Curist, the
Lord and Master of Christians,—the his-
torical object of their faith, and (see words
following) the Appointer of himself to the
apostolic office. 5. 8V od] as in Gal.
i. 1; 1 Cor. i. 9, designating the Lord
Himself as the Agent in conferring the
grace and Apostleship. ehaPopey |
not ‘all Christians, —but we, the Apostle
himself, as he not unfrequently speaks.
No others need be here included in the
word. Those to whom he is writing cannot
be thus included, for they are specially
contrasted with the subject of €AdBouer by
the following duets. Nor can the aor.
é\aBopev refer to any general bestowal of
this kind, indicating, as it must, a definite
past event, viz. the reception of the Apos-
tleship by himself. To maintain (as Dr.
Peile, Annotations on the Epistles, vol. i.
Appendix) that the subject of eAdBomev
must be the same as the 7u@v which has
preceded, is to overlook, not only the con-
trast just noticed, and the habit of Paul to
use indiscriminately the singular or plural,
when speaking of himself,—but also the
Sormulary character of the expression,
‘Jesus Christ our Lord,’ in which the ‘we’
alluded to in ‘our’ is too faintly indicated
to become the subject of a following verb.
; xapiv| Hardly, as Augustine,
“gratiam cum omnibus fidelibus, aposto-
datum autem non cum omnibus communem
habet” (Olsh.): for he is surely speaking
of that peculiar xdaptis, by which he
wrought in his apostleship more than they
all; see reff. atrootoAny | Strictly,
apostleship, ‘ the office of an Apostle,’ see
reff. : not any mission, or power of sending
ministers, resident in the whole church,
which would be contrary to the usage of
the word. The existence of such a power
is not hereby denied, but this. place refers
solely to the office of Paul as an Apostle.
Keep the yap. K. amoor. separate, and
strictly consecutive, avoiding all nonsensical
figures of Hendiadys ,Hypallage, and the
special bestowal (kal, as so often, coupling
a specific portion to a whole) of apostle-
ship: cf. 1 Cor. xv. 10. eis] witha
view to,—*‘ in order to bring about.’
trakonv wiotews| The anarthrous cha-
racter above remarked (on evayy. Ocod,
ver. 1) must be here borne in mind, or we
shall fall into the mistake of supposing
b. mw. to mean ‘obedience produced by
faith” The key to the words is found in
ref. Acts, moAvs te bxAos Tay tepéwy
tryKovov 7H Tiotet, compared with Paul’s
own usage of joining an objective genitive
with dmakon, see 2 Cor. x. 5, eis thy
brakoyy Tod xpiorov. So that ricrews
is the faith; not = ‘the gospel which
is to be believed’ (as Fritzsche, citing
ch. x. 16), but the state of salvation, in
which men stand by faith. And so these
words form an introduction to the great
subject of the Mpistle. év wacty T. Ov. |
in order to bring about obedience to the
faith among all (the) nations. The Jews
do not here come into account. There is
no inclusion, and at the same time no ex-
press exclusion of them : but Paul was com-
missioned as the Apostle of the Gentiles,
and he here magnifies the great office en-
trusted to him. umép T. dv. adr. | on
behalf of His name, i.e. ‘for His glory :’
see reff. “In the name of Christ is summed
up what He had done and was, what the
Christian ever bore in mind, the zeal which
marked him, the name wherewith he was
named.” Jowett. See also Umbreit’s note.
The words are best taken as belonging to
the whole, from 5? of to €@vecw.
6. év ols... .] The whole to xpiorod
should be taken together: among whom
ye also are called of Jesus Christ; other-
wise, with a comma at duets, the assertion,
‘among whom are ye, is flat and un-
meaning. De Wette and Calvin would
take *Inood xp. as a gen. of possession,
because the call of believers is generally
referred to the FaruEeR: but sometimes the
Son is said to call likewise, see John y. 25;
6—8.
IPOS PQOMAIOYS. d15
see introduc-
c , L a ‘ Css > A ) = ‘ € ~ Veo
Xapic vmly Kat “eipnvn avo Veou Tatpog Huwy Katee inte
Kuplov "Incov Xplorov.
8 - \ ga - =
Howroy Hey " eUXaplorw Ty
Xptorov TEOL TAVTWY UUWY, OTL 1)
(Wisd. xviii. 2.) 2 Mace. i. 11 only.
d w. dat., Luke
xviii. 11.
John xi. 41.
e ae A: >, Acts xxvii
Dep “nov dia ‘Inoov eer
’ SE Jes f 15. 1 Cor. i.
TLOTLE ULWV KaTay- dal. Judith
viii. 25.
e Matt. xxvii. 46 bis }] Mk. (from Ps. xxi. 1.) John xx.
17,28. 1 Cor. i. 4. 2 Cor. xii. 21. Phil. i. 3. iv.19. Philem.4, Rev. ii. 7. iii. 12 (four times) only,
Psalms and Prophets passim.
8. om dia ino. xp. N'(ins corr’) e.
f Acts xiii. 5 reff.
rec (for mep:) umep (see note), with D3GL
rel Chr Thdrt Th! @e: txt ABCD! KX 0 17 Damasc.
1 Tim. i. 12:—and with dyarnro) Ocod
following so close upon it, the expression
can I think hardly be taken otherwise than
as called by Jesus Christ. éxAexrol av-
tov, Matt. xxiv. 31, cited by De W. is
hardly parallel. 7.| ‘This verse follows,
in the sense, close on ver. 1. ay. @.,
KAyT. ay.| Both these clauses refer to all
the Christians addressed: not (as Bengel)
the first to Jewish, the second to Gentile
believers. No such distinction would be
in place in an exordium which anticipates
the result of the Epistle—that Jew and
Gentile are one in guilt, and one in Christ.
am. 6. wat. hy. «K. Kup. “I. x.] Not,
as Erasmus, ‘from God, the Father of us
and of our Lord Jesus Christ, —but from
God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus
Christ. God is the Giver of Grace and
Peace,—Christ the Imparter.
8—17.] OPENING OF THE EPISTLE.
His thankfulness for the faith of the
Romans: remembrance of them in his
prayers: wish to visit them: hindrances
hitherto, but still earnest intention of
doing so, that he may further ground them
in that Gospel, of which he is not ashamed,
inasmuch as it is THE POWER OF GOD
TO ALL WHO BELIEVE. This leads to the
announcement (in a citation from the
Scripture) of one great subject of the
Epistle,— viz. : JUSTIFICATION BY F'alTH.
8.] This placing himself in intimate
connexion with his readers by mention of
and thankfulness for their faith or Chris-
tian graces, is the constant habit of Paul.
The three Epistles, Gal., 1 Tim., and Titus,
are the only exceptions: Olsh. adds 2 Cor.,
but in ch. i. 3—22 we have an equivalent :
see especially vv. 6, 7, 11, 14. pev |
The corresponding 5¢€ follows, ver. 13. ‘Ye
indeed are prospering in the faith: but I
still am anxious further to advance that
fruitfulness.’? There is no ére:ra to follow
to mpérov. 7S Oe@ pov] Spa pel
bons Siabeoews evxapioTel. ov yap ele,
TO OG, GAAG TO VEG pov’ b Kal of mpo-
pita: mover, Td Kowdy idtomoodmevos.
kal th Oavpaocrdoy ef of mpopytat; avTds
yap alts ouvex@s 5 Beds palverar moray
emt TaY SotrAwy, Oedv ’ABpadu kal "IoacdK
Kal lakwB idiaCdvtws Aéywy éautdv. Chrys.
Hom. iii. p. 436. 8a. *T. x. ] “ Velut
per Pontificem magnum: oportet enim
scire eum qui vult offerre sacrificium Deo,
quod per manus Pontificis debet offerre.”
Origen. So also Calvin, “ Hic habemus
exemplum, quomodo per Christum agenda
sunt gratiz, secundum Apostoli precep-
tum ad Heb. xiii. 15.” Olshausen says,
«This is no mere phrase, but a true ex-
pression of the deepest conviction. For
only by the Spirit of Christ dwelling in
men’s hearts are thanksgivings and prayer
acceptable to God.’ But perhaps here it
is better to take the words as expressing
an acknowledgment that the faith of the
Romans, fer which thanks were given,
was due to, and rested on the Lord Jesus
Christ: see ch. vii. 25, and rendering
there. mept| This prep. and. brép
both occur in this connexion, see 1 Cor. i.
4; Col. i. 3; 1 Thess. i. 2; 2 Thess. i. 3;
Eph. i. 16; Phil. i. 4:—and it is impos-
sible to say, in cases of their confusion
by the MSS., which may have been sub-
stituted for the other. The internal cri-
ticism which would adopt sep as being
the less usual, may be answered by the
probability that irép, being known to be
sometimes used by Paul, may have been
substituted as more in his manner for the
more usual epi. So that MS. authority
in such cases must be our guide; and
this authority is here decisive. ‘The differ-
ence in meaning would be, that tarép would
give more the idea that thanks were given
by Paul on their behalf, as if he were aid-
ing them in giving thanks, for such great
mercies : whereas ep{ would imply only
that they were the subject of his thanks,—
that he gave thanks concerning them.
4 wiotis bp.| “In ejusmodi gra-
tulationibus Paulus vel totum Christianis-
mum deseribit, Col. i. 3, sqq.,—vel partem
aliquam, 1 Cor.i.5. Itaque hoc loco fidem
commemorat, suo convenienterinstituto, vv.
12, 17.” Bengel. katayyéAdetat}| De
Wette notices the other side of the report,
as given by the Jews at Rome, Acts xxviii.
316
g 2 Cor. i. 23.
Phil. i. 8.
IOS PQOMAIOY®.
eAAerat € ev OAw TH Koony.
si
* waprug yao ee a totly 0
$ 5, ee
Meccene Nec, @ Nurpebw é Ev TW ‘ rvevparl ne ev TW sbayyeAyp
xxxi. 50 Oe l(c
Se , Acts TOU ULOU avutou, WC ™ 2SaXerrwe °° uvelav UUuwY hia
hactsvii-7 nay mavrote P emt Tov nee pov 10 Segucvoc, Vel
i Acts xvii. 16 r»
ng pa TWC non * Tote * evodwhncouar * ev TW ‘ OeAnmare Tou
< 2 Cor. Vill.
18. x. 14 al. | = Acts x, 28. Phil.i. 8. m 1 Thess. i. 2. ii. 13. v.17 only ¢. 2 Macc. xv. 7 al.
(-os. ch. ix. 2. 2 Tim. i. 3.) n Eph. i. 16. 1 Thess. i.2. Philem. 4. Ps. cx. 4. o as above (n).
Phil. i.3. 1 Thess. iii. 6. 2 Tim. i.3 only. p Eph. i. 16. 1 Thess.i. 2. Philem. 4 only. émt tay
detmvev, Diod. Sic. iv. 3. qceh. xi. 14. Phil. iii. 11. Acts xxvii. 12(w. opt ) only. r Phil. iv. 10
only. Thue. viii. 69. non, ch, xiii. 11. s] Cor. xvi. 2. 83 John 2 bis, only. Gen. xxxix. 3, 23.
2 Chron. xiii. 12. (-4d0s, Num. xiv. 41.
9. uaptup D!,
ws, tws G, gquomodo G-lat.
-dws, Prov. xxx. [see xxiv.] 29.)
for 1st wov, wor D'G b! o vulg syrr arm Thdrt, lat-ff.
t Heb. x.10. (Col. iv. 12.)
for
10. for ex mws, orws Lo 5. 71. 77. 93 lect-12.
22, to Paul himself. This praise was in
the Christian churches, and brought by
Christian brethren. év b\w TO Kdop |
A popular hyperbole, common every where,
and especially when speaking of general
diffusion through the Roman empire, the
‘orbis terrarum.’ The praise would be
heard in every city where there was a
Christian church,—intercourse with the
metropolis of the world being common to
all. 9.] “ Asseveratio pia, de re ne-
cessaria, et hominibus, remotis prasertim
et ignotis, occulta.” Bengel. There could
be no other witness to his practice in his
secret prayers, but God: and as the asser-
tion of a habit of incessantly praying for
the Roman Christians, whom he had never
seen, might seem to savour of an ex-
aggerated expression of affection, he so-
lemnly appeals to this only possible testi-
mony. To the Eph., Phil. (see however
Phil. i. 8), Col., Thess., he gives the same
assurance, but without the asseveration.
The thus calling God to witness is no un-
common practice with Paul: see reff. in
E. V. © Aatp.| The serving God in
his spirit was a guarantee that his profes-
sion was sincere, and that the oath just
taken was no mere form, but a solemn and
earnest appeal of his spirit. See also Phil.
iii. 3 (present text), and John iv. 24. ‘The
LXX use Aatpedw generally (mot so, but
only in a few places, e. g. Num. xvi. 9,
Ezek. xx. 32; it is mostly rendered by
Aeitoupyeiv; Aatpeve for the most part
rendering 73y) for the Heb. ny, which
mostly implies the service of the priests in
the temple: e. g. Num. iii. 31; iv. 12;
xviii. 2, &e. The Apostle means then,
that he is an intelligent, true priest of
his God, not in the temple, but in his
spirit, —not at the altar, but at the gos-
pel of His Son.” Umbreit. év TO
evay.| 7) Tod evayyeAlou mposOhKn Td eldos
dnAot THs Siakovias, Chrys. Hom. iii. p.
438. His peculiar method of Aarpela was
concerned with the gospel of the Son of
God. “Quidam accipiunt hance particu-
lam, quasi voluerit Paulus cultum illum,
quo se prosequi Deum dixerat, ex eo com-
mendare, quod Evangelii preescripto re-
spondeat: certum est autem, spiritualem
Dei cultum in Evangelio nobis precipi.
Sed prior interpretatio longe melius quad-
rat, nempe quod suum Deo obsequium
addicat in Evangelii preedicatione.” Cal-
vin. See evayyéAcov, Phil. iv. 15. as |
Not to be taken with ad:aAcirtws, but (see
reff.) depends on pdprus: my witness,
GHatiy er. mavrote belongs to
the following, not to the preceding words.
This latter construction would not be
without example, — év wayt) raipg abdiadel-
mrTws, 1 Mace. xii. 11, but this very exam-
ple shews that if so, its natural place would
be close to &diaAeimtws. The whole phrase
is a favourite one with Paul, see reff.
“ mavToTe Vice nominis accipio, ac si dic-
tum foret, ‘In omnibus meis orationibus,
seu quoties precibus Deum appello, adjungo
vestri mentionem.’” Calvin. at mpos-
evxat pov must be understood of his ordi-
nary stated prayers, just im our sense of
my prayers: “quoties ex professo et
quasi meditatus Deum orabat, illorum quo-
que habebat rationem inter alios.”’ Calv.
10. ef wws| if by any means.
No subject of deduevos is expressed, but it
is left to be gathered from this clause, as
in Simon’s entr eaty, Acts vili. 24, de7Onre
dusis imép enod .... Orws pndev emer On
em’ ut ay eiphkate, where dmws K.T.A. iS
not the contents of the prayer, but the end
aimed at by it. 75 tworté) before
long :—lit., ‘at last, some day or other,
eo8w0ijcopat | I shall be al-
lowed, prospered: see reff., and Deut.
xxviii. 29: and ef. Umbreit’s note. The
rendering, ‘I might have a prosperous
journey’ (Vulg. and E. V.),is etymologically
ABCDG
KL&ab
cdfgh
kimn
017
9—13.
IIPOS PQMAIOY®S.
317
0 ~ e\O ~ ‘ ‘aaa ll u? 06 4 AY ~ ra ~ a E
cov e\Uav moog vmac emiTo0w yao wWew vmac, iva w.int. 2 Cor.
- 2. ess.
\ = , [i eis ‘ ? ‘ ees rae
tt ‘peradw “ xaoiopa vp * wvevpaticoy * ae TO *arH- Hy* Bh
Pa eee areas
ory Ovac ULac,
{ ead ‘ ~ ’ > , U c ~ \ > ~
ULV ota THC EV avAnAote TLOTEWC UUWY TE KAL EMOV.
13 ou
d > ~ oF \ ’ mu” ~
mooeOeuny ee TOC UMAC, kat * exwAvOny ‘ax pt tov
~ -~- ’ ec - >
® devo, iva Tiva " KapTOV oY Kal Ev UALY KaDwWe Kal EV
i. 7 al. Paul only, exc.1 Pet. iv. 10+.
19. ver. 20 al.
Bch. xi 2h. 1 Cor. x.1. xii.1. 2 Cor. i. 8.
d = Eph. i. 9 (ch. iii. 25) onlyt. Exod, xl. 4.
xx. 6 reff.
Touro O& tot. * guvrapakAnOnvat ev
vy > OirAw S& Upmac “< ayvoetv, adeApot, © OTe woAAAKIC
z = Luke xxii. 32. ch. xvi. 25 al.
1 Thess. iv. 13.
g =and w. art, hereonly. (Acts vii. 3 reff.)
exviii. 20.)
see 2 Cor. ix.
14 reff.
vch. xii. 8 reff.
constr ,
1 Thess. ii. 8.
2 Mace. viii.
12. Xen.
Anab. iv. 5.
5
w =ch. v.15,
16, vi. 23.
xii. 6. 1 Cor.
x = Eph.i. 3. Col. iii. 16. y Acts iii. 19. vii.
Ps. 1.12 (14). a here only t.
ech. ii. 4. vi. 3. Wisd. xii. 10.
e Acts xvi. 6 reff. see Acts xxviii. 31. f Acts
h = John iv. 36. ch. vi. 21,
22. Phil. i. 22. iv.17. James iii. 18. Jer. xvii. 10.
12. rour ect, omg de, A latt(but G-lat has id est aut hoe enim est).
mapakAnOnvat, with B2(sic: see table) L: txt AB'CDGR.
aft miotews ins tns G.
13. for ov @eAw, ove cionat D!1G Ambrst.
rec oup-
om 2nd ev G.
for de, yap C 73 fuld: om k!. rec
kaprov bef twa (with none of our mss): om tiva L 42.115 Syr copt: txt ABCDGKN
rel vulg gr-ff lat-ff—for tiva, tt D!.
48. 109. 178 eth.
incorrect ; the passive of 68dw, ‘to shew
the way, ‘to bring into the way,’ must be
‘to be shewn the way,’ or ‘ brought into the
way. So Herod. vi. 73, as Te KAcouévet
eUwdd0n Td es Thy AnudpynTov mpiyyua.
év TO Ged. TOU Oeov| in the course of,—
by, the will of God. éd@eiv belongs to
evodwOhaouat, not to Sedmevos. 11.
émimo@@ | not ‘I vehemently desire: éni
does not intensify, but merely expresses
the direction of the 1é6os, see Herod. vy. 93,
and compare such expressions as ,«1) m™pos-
e@vToOs Nuas Tov avéewov, Acts xxvii. 7.
ta Ti pera8@ xdptopa mv.] That the
xd¢pioua here spoken of was no mere super-
natural power of working in the Spirit,
the whole context shews, as well as the
meaning of the word itself in reff. And
even if xdpioua, barely taken, could ever
(1 Cor. xii. 4, 9 are no examples, see
there) mean technically a supernatural
endowment of the Spirit, yet the epithet
mvevmatixdy, and the object of imparting
this xdpicua, confirmation in the faith,
would here preclude that meaning. Be-
sides, Paul did not value the mere bestowal
of these ‘ gifts’ so highly, as to make it the
subject of his earnest prayers incessantly.
The gift alluded to was magd«Anots, as De
Wette observes. mveup.., Spiritual :—
springing from the Spirit of God, and im-
parted to the spirit of man. eis TO
one. tp.| Knowing the trials to which
they were exposed, and being conscious of
the fulness of spiritual power for edifica-
tion (2 Cor. xiii. 10) given to him, he
longed to impart some of it to them, that
they might be confirmed. ‘The Apostle
does not say eis 7d ornplCew bu., for this
for oxw, exw G77.
om 2nd kat G bo
belongs to God; see ch. xvi. 25. He is
only the instrument: hence the passive.”
Philippi. 12.] eita emeid} Kal tovTO
ooddpa. poptikdy iv, dpa m&s avTd mapa-
mvOetrar Oia THS emaywyys. wa yap my
Aéywot, TL yap; gadrevducba Kal epi-
pepducda, Kal THs mapa cod Seducda yAwT-
tnys eis TO oTnvat BeBaiws, mpordaBav
dvatpet Thy To.adTHY avTl ppnow o}Tw AE ywv
(ver. 12). ws dy ef Breve, wh bromrevonte
bt KaTnyopav buoy ecimov, ov TavTn TH
youn epbeyiduny Td piua GAAG TL woTE
éotw, Srep HBovAnOny elmwety; TloAAas
bromevete OAlWeis Ud TOY SiwkdrTwY TEpt-
avtAovmevor’ ereGiunoa Tolyuy buas idetv,
iva mapakardéow, maddAov bE odxX iva Tapa-
Kadéow pdvov, GAN iva kal avTds Tapd-
KAnow Sééwuar. Chrys. Hom. ii. p. 440.
The inf. cupmapakAnOjva is parallel with
oTnpixOjvat, eué being understood: that
is, that I with you may be comforted
among you, each by the faith which is in
the other. That the gift he wished to
impart to them was mapaxAnots, is implied
in the gvvmapakA. See the same wish
expressed in different words ch. xv. 32, and
the partial realization of it, Acts xxviii. 15.
év &ddAnAots, which might otherwise
be ambiguous, is explained by bua@y te kal
é€uod to mean which we recognize in one
another: or as above and in A. V. R.
The expression “mutual faith,’ of the
E. V. should properly mean, faith which
each has in the other. —-twiotts is used in
the most general sense—/faith as the neces-
sary condition and working instrument of
all Christian exhortation, comfort, and con-
firmation ; producing these, and evidenced
by them. 13. ov O€d. 8. Dp. ay.] A
318
i Acts xxviii.
2, 4 ref.
k Luke xxiv.
25. Gal. iii.
7, 8. } Tim.
vi. 9. Tit. iii,
3 only, L.P.
Prov. xvii.
28.
1 ch. viii. 12.
~ ~ ,
roic Aowrotc EOvectv.
xv. 27. Matt. vi. 12. xviii. 24. Luke xiii. 4. Gal. v. 3 only +. Soph. Aj. 590.
nch.ix.5. Eph. vi. 21. Polyb. x. 44, 1. see ch. xii. 18.
(-ue@s, 1 Pet. v.2. -uta, Acts xvii. 11.)
ix. 26 (bis) | Mk. ch. vi. 21. 2 Tim.i.8 al. Job xxxiv.19 vat. Isa. i. 29 F only.
TIPO POMAIOY®S.
14 "R\Anoiv re Kat ' BapBapore
~ 1 ok , ee , PT albs:
copolc TE Kal * AvonTotc opetrérng etpul
p constr., Gal. iv. 13. pass., 1 Pet. iv. 6.
I.
>
‘
e
15 ™ otrwe "TO
, > A oO 0 \ e ~ ~ , e jo p , : '
Kat «ue mooUupov Kat vulv ToC Ev Poun eva yeAt-
,’ QA ,
casa. 1° ov yao 4 ETaIG YUVOLAL TO evayyéAtov" * Sbvamte
m = Rev. iii. 16.
o Matt, xxvi. 41 |] Mk. only. 2 Chron. xxix. St.
q Luke
r = Acts viii. lv refi.
15. for ro Kar cue, oem ewe G: quod in me promptum est vulg G-lat Sedul, Pel:
quod in me est promtus sum D-lat Ambr Ambrst Ruf Sedul,.
om Tots ev pwun G.
b! o am fuld! D!-lat G-lat: em G.
16. for to, em G: super G-lat: de Aug Vig.
ins ev bef vu D!
rec aft evayyeAoy ins Tov xpioTou,
with D?KL rel Thl (Ec: om ABCD'GR 17 vulg syrr copt arm Orig Eus Bas Cyr Chr
Pauline formula: see reff. kat éxwh.
&xp. 7. Setpo is best as a parenthesis, as
it is impossible that va can depend on
éxwavenv. So Demosth. p. 488. 7, éuol 3,
& tiySpes AO, Soe? Aewrivys (kal wot mpds
Aids pndtv dpyibhs ovdév yap pAatpoy
pa ce) h odt aveyvwxévar Tos SdAwvos
vdmous 7) ov cuvlevat. The reason of the
hindrance is given in ch. xv. 20—22: it
vas, his pidotimia to preach the gospel
where it had not been preached before,
rather than on the foundation of others.
xapmév| Not, ‘wages,’ or ‘result of
my apostolic labour,’ for such is not the
ordinary meaning of the word in the N.T.,
but fruit borne by you who have been
planted to bring forth fruit to God. This
fruit I should then gather and present to
God; ef. the figure in ch. xv. 16: see also
Phil. i. 22 and note. 14.| The con-
nexion seems to be this: He wishes to have
some fruit, some produce of expended la-
bour, among the Romans as among other
Gentiles. Till this was the case, he himself
was a debtor to every such people: which
situation of debfor he wished to change, by
paying the debt and conferring a benefit,
into that of one having money out at in-
terest there, and yielding a xagrés. The
debt which he owed to all nations was (ver.
15) the obligation laid on him to preach
the gospel to them; see 1 Cor. ix. 16.
“PAA. — BapB.— vod. — avorjr. |
These words must not be pressed as apply-
ing to any particular churches, or as if any
one of them designated the Romans them-
selyes,—or even as if copots belonged to
“EAAnow, and avofrors to BapBdapos. They
are used, apparently, merely as compre-
hending all Gentiles, whether considered
in regard of race or of intellect ; and are
placed here certainly not without a pro-
spective reference to the universality of
guilt, and need of the gospel, which he is
presently about to prove existed in the
Gentile world. Notice that he does not
call himself a debtor to the Jews—for they
can hardly be included in BapBdpors (see
Col. iii. 11). Though he had earnest de-
sires for them (ch. ix. 1—3; x. 1), and
every where preached to them first, this
was not his peculiar d@efAnua, see Gal. ii. 7,
where he describes himself as memiorevpe-
vos TO evayyéAtov TIS akpoBvaTias, Kabds
Tlérpos THs mepiToijs. 15. otTws |
«Est quasi.... illatio a toto ad partem
insignem.” Bengel. ‘As to all Gentiles,
so to you, who hold no mean place among
them.’ 16.| The od yap éraroyxv-
vopat seems to be suggested by the posi-
tion of the Romans in the world. *‘ Yea,
to you at Rome also: for, though your
city is mistress of the world, though your
emperors are worshipped as present deities,
though you are elated by your pomps and
luxuries and victories, yet I am _ not
ashamed of the apparently mean origin of
the gospel which I am to preach; for
(and here is the transition to his great
theme) it is,’ &e. So for the most part,
Chrysostom, Hom. iii. p. 444.
Svvapis yap 0. éoriv| The gospel, which
is the greatest example of the Power of
God, he strikingly calls that Power itself.
(Not, as Jowett, ‘a divine power,’ nor is
dixatoc. Geod below to be thus explained,
as he alleges.) So in 1 Cor. i. 24 he calls
Christ, the Power of God. But not only
is the gospel the great example of divine
Power; it is the field of agency of the
power of God, working in it, and inter-
penetrating it throughout. The bare
substantive dvvauis here (and 1 Cor. i. 24)
carries a superlative sense: the highest
and holiest vehicle of the divine Power,
the dvvauis Kar’ etoxhv. “It is weighty
for the difference between the Gospel and
the Law, that the Law is never called
God’s power, 15, but light, or teaching,
in which a man must walk, Ps. xxxvi. 10;
exix. 105; Prov. vi. 23; Isa. ii. 5.” Umbreit.
And the direction in which this power acts
14—17.
TIPOS PQMAIOY®. 319
Q en! 3s” ' \ ~ , ’
yao Qeov eat * etc SWTNOLAY TavtTl TW TIOTEVOVTL, Tou- s= ter. 5 reff.
t ch. iii. 5, 21,
2. x. Se
~ \ — ‘
dain TE TPWTOV Kal "EXAnv. 17* Sixatocvvn yao ' Qeourer: “Sco v1:
Thdrt Procop Damase Phot Tert Arnob Hil Ruf.
om mpwrovy BG Tert: ins ACDKLN 17 rel
tovdaiw Te, covde(sic) Nt: txt N-corr'.
Orig Chr Thdrt Damase Th] (ic Ruf Bede.
in the gospel is eis owtyptav—it is a
healing, saving power: for as Chrysostom
reminds us, there is a power of God eis
KéAaow, and eis am@Acrav, see Matt. x. 28.
But to whom is this gospel the power
of God tosave? wavtit@ motevovTt. The
universality implied in the wavti, the con-
dition necessitated in the morevoyTt, and
the dvvauis Geod acting eis cwTnpiay, are
the great subjects treated of in the former
part of this epistle. A// are proved to be
under sin, and so needing Giod’s righteous-
ness (ch. i. 18—iii. 20), and the entrance
into this righteousness is shewn to be by
faith (ch. iii. 21—v. 11). Then the 6v-
vauis Geov in freeing from the dominion of
sin and death, and as issuing in salvation, is
set forth (ch. v. 11—viii. 39). So that if
the subject of the Epistle is to be stated
in few words, these should be chosen: 76
evayyédtov, Svvapis Beod eis cwrTyptav
mavtt TO miotevovTt. This expresses it
better than merely ‘justification by faith,
which is in fact only a subordinate part of
the great theme, —only the condition neces-
sitated by man’s sinfulness for his enter-
ing the state of salvation: whereas the ar-
gument extends beyond this, to the death
unto sin and life unto God and carrying
forward of the sanctifying work of the
Spirit, from its first fruits even to its com-
pletion. *Tovd. mp@tov Kk. EAA.] This
is the Jewish expression for all mankind, as
"EAA. x. BapB. ver. 14 is the Greek one.
“EAA. here includes all Gentiles. mpa@tov
is not first in order of time, but princi-
pally (compare ch. ii. 9), spoken of na-
tional precedence, in the sense in which the
Jews were to our Lord of Z5:01, John i. 11.
Salvation was é« Tay “Iovdatwy, John iv.
92. See ch. ix. 5; xi. 24. Not that the
Jew has any preference under the gospel ;
only he inherits, and has a precedence.
ovdé yap émel 5) mpaTds eaTt, Kal mA€ov
AapBdver THs xdpiTos* H yap avi Swped
kal ToUT@ Kaxelve SidoTa’ AAA Tdkews
dott Tih pévov TO mp@tos. Chrys. Hom,
iii. p. 445. 17.| An explanation, how
the gospel is the power of God to salva-
tion, and how it is so to the believer :—
because init God’s righteousness (not His
attribute of righteousness,— the right-
eousness of God,’ but righteousness flowing
from, and acceptable to Him) is unfolded,
James i. 20.
2 Pet.i.J. (Micah vi. 5.)
om eis cwTnpiay G. for
and the more, the more we believe. I sub-
join De Wette’s note on dur. Geov. ‘The
Greek ix. and the Heb. 718 are taken
sometimes for ‘ virtue’ and ‘piety’ which
men possess or strive after, —sometimes
imputatively, for ‘freedom from blame’ or
‘justification.’ The latter meaning is most
usual with Paul: di. is that which is so in
the sight of God (ch. ii. 13), the result of
His justifying forensic Judgment, or of
‘ Imputation’ (ch.iv.5). It may certainly
be imagined, that a man might obtain jus-
tification by fulfilling the law : in that case
his righteousness is an idfa [dicaocdvn |
(ch. x. 3), a Sux. ee Tod vduov (Phil. ili. 9).
But it is impossible for him to obtain a
‘righteousness of his own,’ which at the
same time shall avail before God (ch. iii.
20; Gal. ii. 16). The Jews not only have
not fulfilled the law (ch. iii. 9—19), but
could not fulfil it (vii. 7 ff.): the Gentiles
likewise have rendered themselves ob-
noxious to the divine wrath (i. 24—382).
God has ordained that the whole race
should be included in disobedience. Now
if man is to become righteous from being
unrighteous,—this can only happen by
God’s grace,—because God declares him
righteous, assumes him to be righteous,
Sicarot (iii. 24; Gal. iii. 8) :—Oixauovy is not
only negative, ‘to acquit,” as p37 Exod.
xxiii. 7; Isa. v. 23; ch. ii. 13 [where how-
ever see my note], but also positive, ‘to
declare righteous :’? but never ‘to make
righteous’ by transformation, or imparting
of moral strength by which moral perfee-
tion may be attained. Justificatio must
be taken as the old protestant dogmatists
rightly took it, sensw forensi, i.e. impu-
tatively. God justifies for Christ’s sake
(ch. iii. 22 ff.) on condition of faith in Him
as Mediator: the result of His justifica-
tion is Sikatoovvn éx miatews, and as He
imparts it freely, it is dicaoovvy God (gen.
subj.) or é« Qeod, Phil. iii. 9: so Chrys.
&e. (Suc. Geod is ordinarily taken for dcx.
mapa Oeg, as Luth.: ‘die Geredtigfeit
die vor Gott gilt :? compare ch. ii. 18 ; iii.
20; Gal. iii. 11; but that this is at least
not necessary, see 2 Cor. v. 21). This
justification is certainly an objective act
of God: but it must also be subjectively
apprehended, as its condition is subjective.
It is the acquittal from guilt, and cheer-
320
u = Matt. xi.
2h. xvi. 17
al. Isa. Ivi.
1G
v HAB. ii, 4.
w = Luke xvii.
30. 1 Cor. ili.
2 Thess.
18 w
x John iii. 36. (ch. iii. 5. ix. 22.)
17. for yap, 5¢ A Clem.
IPOS PQMAIOY®S.
e \ ’ ? ,
arrat *'O 8& Oikatoe Ek mlotewc Cyoerat.
, ‘, ‘ <a ee: ~ > > >) ~ vy?
AmoxaXtrrerat yap *opy* Meov aw ovoavov ° emt
Eph.v.6. Rev. xix. 15.
ig
5-38 13 , , / | Yet? ' 106 /
auTW amokaAumretat EK TWLOTEWC €t¢ TWlOTLVY, Ka WC 9 hse
—
\
y = Acts xiii. 11 reff.
aft Sikaios ins wou (as rxx-A) C!; aft ex morews (as
ixx-B) syr Eus Jer: txt ABDGKLX rel Clem Chr Thdrt Iren-int Ambr.
fulness of conscience, attained through
faith in God's grace in Christ,—the very
frame of mind which would be proper to
a perfectly righteous man,—if such there
were,—the harmony of the spirit with
God,—peace with God. All interpretations
which overlook the fact of imputation (the
R.-Cath., that of Grotius, Baumgarten-
Crusius, &c.) are erroneous.” To say,
with Jowett, that all attempts to define
dikatoc. Geod are “the after-thoughts of
theology, which have no real place in the
interpretation of Scripture,” is in fact to
shut our eyes to the great doctrinal facts
of Christianity, and float off at once into
uncertainty about the very foundations of
the Apostle’s argument and our own faith :
of which uncertainty his note here is an
eminent example. év avT@ | in it,
‘ the gospel :’ not, in T@ morevovTt.
atroxakvmretat| generally used of making
known a thing hitherto concealed: but here
of that gradually more complete realization
of the state of justification before God by
faith in Christ, which is the continuing
and increasing gift of God to the believer
in the gospel. ex miotews| ‘ ek
points to the condition, or the subjective
ground. iors is faith in the sense of
trust, and that (a) a trustful assumption
of a truth in reference to knowledge =
conviction: (b) a trustful surrender of
the soul, as regards the feeling. Here it
is especially the latter of these: that trust
reposed in God’s grace in Christ, which
tranquillizes the soul and frees it from all
guilt,—and especially trust in the atoning
death of Jesus. Bound up with this (not
by the meaning of the words, but by the
idea of unconditional trust, which excludes
all reserve) is hewmility, consisting in the
abandonment of all merits of a man’s own,
and recognition of his own unworthiness
and need of redemption.” De Wette.
eis tlotiw| amd mlorews BpxeTa K. eis
motevovra Ajyet (Gicum.) seems the most
probable interpretation, making alovw
almost = rods miorevovtas, see ch. ili. 22:
but not entirely,—it is still the aspect,
the phase, of the man, which is receptive
of the Sucacoovvn Oeod, and to this it is re-
vealed. The other interpretations,—‘ for
the increase of faith’ (Meyer),—‘that faith
may be given to it’ (Fritzsche, Tholuck,
Krebs),—‘ proceeding from faith, and
leading to a higher degree of faith’
(Baumg.-Crus.),—do not seem so suitable
or forcible. It will be observed that é«
mw. els 7. is taken with amoxaAvmreta, not
with Oicaocvvn. The latter connexion
would do for é« z., but not for eis 7.
KaQas yéyp.| He shews that righteous-
ness by faith is no new idea, but found in
the prophets. The words (ref.) are cited
again in Gal. iii. 11; Heb. x. 38, in the
former place with the same purpose as here.
They are used in Habakkuk with reference
to credence given to the prophetic word :
but properly speaking, a/l faith is one, in
whatever word or act of God reposed: so
that the Apostle is free from any charge of
forcing the words to the present purpose.
The two ways of arranging them, 6 dixatos
—éx mictews Choerat, and 6 Slxaos éx
miarews—(Choerat, in fact amount to the
same: if the former, which is more agree-
able to the Heb., be taken, (oerat must
mean, ‘shall live on,’ endure in his &-
Kotoovvn, by means of faith, which would
assert that it was a dicaocdvn of faith,
as strongly as does the latter. See by
all means, on the quotation, Umbreit’s
note: and Delitzsch, der Proph. Habakuk,
p- 51 ff. This latter remarks (I quote
from Philippi), “The Apostle rests no
more on our text than it will bear. He
only places its assertion, that the life of
the just springs from his faith, in the
light of the N. T.”
Crap. I. 18—XI. 36.] Tur DocrrinaL
EXPOSITION OF THE ABOVE TRUTH: THAT
THE GOSPEL IS THE POWER OF GOD UNTO
SALVATION TO EVERY ONE THAT BELIEY-
etH. And herein, ch. i. 18—iii. 20,—inas-
much as this power of God consists in the
revelation of God’s righteousness in man by
faith, and in order to faith the first requi-
site is the recognition of man’s unworthi-
ness, and incapability to work a righteous-
ness for himself,—the Apostle begins by
proving that all, Gentiles and Jews, are
GutLry before God, as holding back the
truth in unrighteousness. And ¥1Rs7, ch. i.
18—32, OF THE GENTILES. 18.] He
first states the general fact, of all mankind;
but immediately passes off to the considera-
18, 19.
IITPOS POMAIOYS.
321
ch. xi. 26
ae Biol AP Nd: , > , ~ ‘ 7.1
Taocav acéBeay Kat aoukiav avOporwy TWVY THY aAdnDeray Mi eciibeix:
> ? , a , b , ‘ ‘ ~
év acucia KATEXYOVTWY, 19 Ouore TO “ yuworov TOU Oeov
15,18 only. Jer.v.6. (-Ans, ch. iv. 6.
b = Acts Xviil. 10, or 1 Cor. xv. 9,
18. ins twv bef avOpwrwyv D'G.
tion of the majority of mankind, the Gen-
tiles; reserving the Jews for exceptional
consideration afterwards. Grok. yap |
The statement of ver. 17 was, that the
RIGHTEOUSNESS of GoD is revealed. The
necessary condition of this revelation is, the
DESTRUCTION Of the righteousness of MAN
by the revelation of God’s anger against sin.
amoxahvmrrerat, not in the Gospel
(as Grot.): not in men’s consciences (as
Tholuck, ed. 1, Reiche): not 7m the mise-
rable state of the then world (as Kéllner) :
but (as implied indeed by the adjunct aa
odpavov,—that it is a providential, univer-
sally-to-be-seen revelation) in the PUNISH-
MENTS which, ver. 24, God has made to
follow upon sin, see also ch. ii. 2 (so De W.,
Meyer, Tholuck, ed. 5, &c.). So that aor.
is of an objective reality here, not of an
evangelic internal and subjective unfolding.
épyy 800 is anthropopathically,
but with the deepest truth, put for the
righteousness of God in punishment (see
ch. ii. 8; v. 9; Eph. ii. 3; Matt. iii. 7;
John iii. 36). It is the opposite, in the
divine attributes, to Love (De W.).
am ovp. (see above) belongs to amoxadt-
mreTat, not to Oeov, nor to dpyn Geov (7
am oup.). aoéBerav, godlessness ;
Gdiuctav, iniquity: but neither term is
exclusive of the other, nor to be formally
pressed to its limits. They overlap and
include each other bya large margin: the
specific difference being, that av€8. is more
the fountain (but at the same time par-
tially the result) of &:xfa,—which air. is
more the result (but at the same time par-
tially the fountain) of ac€Bera. a@dik. 1s
the state of the thoughts and feelings and
habits, induced originally by forgetfulness
of God, and in its turn inducing impieties
of all kinds. We may notice by the way,
that the word ac¢Bera forms an interesting
link to the Pastoral Epistles. avOp. Tav
TH GX. év G8uKiq Katexdvtwv | of men
who hold back the truth in iniquity:
who, possessing enough of the germs of reli-
gious and moral verity to preserve them
from abandonment, have checked the de-
velopment of this ¢rwth in their lives, in
the love and practice of sin. That this is
the meaning of karexéytwy here is plain
from this circumstance: that wherever
xatéxw in the N. T. signifies ‘ to hold,’ it
Von, LT
-Petv, 2 Pet. ii. 6.)
c = Acts i. 19 reff. (see note.) constr., see Winer, § 34. 2.
= 20) 2 Tim.
ii. 16. Tit.
ii.12, Jude
a = 2 Thess. ii. 6 (see note).
is emphatic, ‘to hold fast,’ or ‘to keep
to,’ or ‘to take or have complete possession
of :’ see for the first, Luke viii. 15; 1 Cor.
xi. 2; xv. 2; 1 Thess. v. 21; Heb. iii. 6,
14; x. 23: for the second, Luke xiv. 9
(every other place except the lowest being
excluded) : for the third, Matt. xxi. 38;
1 Cor. vii. 30. Now no such emphatic
sense will apply here. If the word is to
mean ‘holding,’ it must be only in the
loosest and least emphatic sense : ‘ having
a half and indistinct consciousness of,’
which does not at all correspond to the
katd, indicating vehemence of purpose, as
in katapirew, &e. But the meaning ‘keep-
ing back,’ ‘hindering the development of,
—while it has a direct example in Paul’s
own usage in ref., and in Luke iv. 42, and
indirect ones in [the spurious John v. 4]
Acts xxvii. 40; ch. vii. 6; Philem. 13,—
admirably suits the sense, that men had
(see vv. 19 ff.) knowledge of God sufficient,
if its legitimate work had been allowed, to
have kept them from such excesses of
enormity as they have committed, but that
this aAfOera they katetxov ev adiia, i.e.
crushed, quenched, in (as the element,
conditional medium in which) their state
and practice of unrighteousness. It is plain
that to take év adixta for adikws (as Theo-
phyl. and Reiche) is to miss the force of
the expression altogether—the pregnant éy,
‘in and by, implying that it is their
&Sucta,—the very absence of dixcaoodvy
for which the argument contends,—which
is the status wherein, and the instrument
whereby, they hold back the truth lit up
in their consciences. 19.]| Sidt1, be-
cause, may either give the reason why the
anger of God is revealed, and thus apply
to all that follows as far as ver. 32, being
taken up again at vv. 21, 24, 26, 28 (so
Meyer) : or may explain tTav.... KaTex.
(so Thol.): which latter seems most pro-
bable : the subauditum being, ‘ (this charge
I bring against them), because.’ For he
proves, first (ver. 20) that they had the
&ANHOera; then (vv. 21 ff.) that they held
it back. 7d yvwordv, that which is
known, the objective knowledge patent
and recognized in Creation :—so Chrys.,
Theodoret, Luther, Reiche, Meyer, De
Wette, al.:—not ‘that which may be
known’ (as Orig., Theophyl., e., Erasm.,
' ¥
322
d ah ii. 15.
ech. iii. 21.
xvi.26 John 20
i. 3) al. fr.
Jer. xi.
(x xxiii.) 6
only.
f Col. i. 15, 16.
1 Tim. i. 17.
Heb. xi. 27
only. Gen.
i. 2. Isa.
xlv.3. 2 Macc. ix. 5 only.
i Eph. ii. 10 only. Isa. xxix. 16.
only. Nam. xxiv. 2. Job x.4 only.
F. [not A.})
Viii. 6.
vi, 29, Mal.i. 11.
i ,
‘rompacw
, \ ne ,
Stvapic Kat ” Oeorne,
ch. ii. 1 only ¢.
Dan. y. 23. xi. 38 Theod.
19. for Siort, ors D'G Chr.
20. for aop., opata G-gr 115.
Beza, Grot., al.), which would assert what,
as simple matter of fact, was not the case,
that all which could be known of God
was gavepdy ev avtois. He speaks now
not of what they might have known of
God, but of what they did know. Thus
+) yvwor. T. Bcod will mean, that universal
objective knowledge of God as the Creator
which we find more or less in every nation
under heaven, and which, as matter of his-
torical fact, was proved to be in possession
of the great Gentile nations of antiquity.
hay. gor. év avtots}| is evident in
them, i.e. in their hearts: not, to them
(as Luth.),—nor, among them (as Erasm.,
Grot., &e.); for if it had been a thing
acknowledged among them, it would not
have been katexduevov. Every man has
in him this knowledge ; his senses convey
it to him (see next verse) with the phwno-
mena of nature. 6 6. y. &b.] gives
the reason why that which is known of
God is manifest in them, viz. because God
Himself so created the world as to leave
impressed on it this testimony to Him-
self. Notice, and keep to, the historic
aorist, epavépwoev, not ‘hath manifested
it’ (perf.), but manifested it, viz. at the
Creation. This is important for the right
understanding of aad Kr. Kdéou. ver. 20.
20.] For (justifying the clause
preceding) His invisible attributes (hence
the plur. applying to dévauis and bedrys
which follow), dd kticews xoop., from
the time of the creation, when the mani-
festation was made by God: not = ék
xtioews «. ‘by the creation of the world ;’
which would be tautological, rots ro-
hues: vootmeva following, besides that
xtiois Kéoov cannot = 7 KrTiots, in the
sense of ‘the creation,’ i. e. ‘ the creatures.’
Umbreit has here a long and important
note on O. T. prophecy in general, which
will be found well worth study. Tots
mop. voovp.| being understood (appre-
hended by the mind, see reff.) by means of
IPOS PQMAIOY2.
‘ ‘ € 2.27 >
Ta ype aopaTa auTo
, 1 - ¢
VOOULLEVEa caooarat, Grae
nhere only, Wisd. xviii. 9 oniy. (-vs, Acts xvii. 29.)
q =1 Cor. xy.9.
‘8
, , d? ? at A pi ‘ ‘ > et EL. t
paveoov EoTW EV aUTOIC oO Oedc yap avroic EPAVEOWOEV.
~ , A
v * amo
, ,
N krioewe KOomOU TOLC
bin Any , ~
“ atdtoe auTou
oe \ s s ‘ Pp ’ + ,
sic TO etvae avtouc avaToAoyn-
, , ‘ A > € a , ,
rouc, 2! 4 S.ore * yvovrec Tov " Qeov ovy we Qcdov * cd0facav
g = Matt. xxv. 34.
k = Matt. xxiv. 15. 2Tim.ii.7. Heb. xi.3. Prov. i. 2, 6.
m Jude 6 only t. Wisd. vii. 26 only. (-otns, Wisd. ii. 23
h = Mark x. 6. xiii. 19. 2 Pet. iii. 4.
l here
o ver. 1) reff. = 2 Cor.
r1 Cor. i. 21 ceff. s = 1 Cor.
ree yap bef Geos, with DSKL Ath, Thi Ge: txt
ABCD'GX m 17 Orig, Eus Ath, Chr Thdrt.
om adios L.
His works (of creation and sustenance,
—not here of moral government),—xa-
oparat, are perceived; not, ‘are plainly
seen,’—this is not the sense of Kata in
xadopdw, but rather that of looking down
on, taking a survey of, and so apprehending
or perceiving. A Te atd. avr. Suv. |
His cternal Power. ‘To this thie evi-
dence of Creation is plainest of all: Eter-
nal, and Almighty, have always been re-
cognized epithets of the Creator.
x. Oeadrys| and Divinity (not Godhead,
which would be @ed7ms). The fact that the
Creator is divine ;—is of a different nature
from ourselves, and accompanied by dis-
tinct attributes, and those of the highest
order,—which we call divine. eis TO
elvat avr. dvamod.| cis 7d with an inf.
never properly indicates only the resulé,
‘so that ? but is often wsed where the re-
sult, and the intention, are bound together
in the process of thought. This is done
by a very natural habit in speaking and
writing, of transferring one’s self to the
position of the argument, and regarding
that which contributed toa result, as worked
purposely for that result. And however
true it is, that in the doings of the Allwise,
all results are purposed,—to give the sense
‘in order that they might be inexcusable,’
would be manifestly contrary to the whole
spirit of the argument, which is bringing
out, not at present God’s sovereignty in
dealing with man, but man’s inexcusable-
ness in holding back the truth by unright-
cousness. €ts To, then, in this case, is
most nearly expressed by wherefore, or 80
that. See Winer, edn. 6, § 44.6. od 5id
Tooro TavTa memolnkey 5 Beds, ct kal TOUTO
eéBn. od yap iva adrods amodoylas aro-
orephon, didacKxadlay TocavTny eis mecoy
mpov0nker, GAN Wa adtdy emiyvaow" ayvw-
povhoavres 5t wdons éavtods ameotepycayv
amodoylas. Chrys. Hom. iv. p. 450.
21. Sidri| expands dvamrodoyhtouvs— with-
out excuse, because...’ yvovres |
20 —24.
nx
TIPOS PQMAIOYS.
323
t ’ , > a , , - ,
n “nuyagtstnsay, aXX “EnarawO)ycav ev roic “ diado- t Gers! 24
“ 9: ye \w? , ee eee 3, of , uh 2 only.
YLFLOlLC AVUTWYV, Kal eaxotiaOn No GOUVETOR AUTWY Kaoola. 1 Kings xiii.
Dy pr 4 Noa - O°: , 13. Jer. ii. 6.
pasKkovteg etvat copot * suwoayInoav 23 cal *nAAatav (eas oe
‘ , - b > , ~ ¢c? d c , ’ , ae ese
Thy oosav tou apJaprov Beov Sev “omotwpare © exdvog * Hoe Pe
f 0 ~? ff) v7 \g ~ Ser hy a \ xcili. 11).
pUaprou avUowTov Kal ° TETELVWY Kal TETPATOOWV KA Jamesii. 4
it Pas 24 k 5 4 k \ 1 ; jf A - % 5 7 pre 10,
EPTETWV. Lo [ Kat | Tapéowkev avrove o Moc ev fom Ps.
~ mn? , ~ n ~ > # > > ! (Matt. xxiv.
TALC exOupiaic TwY Kapouwv avtwy ec ° axaBaootav 20 | Mk.
uUKe XXII.
45. Rev. viii. 12) only.
y Acts xxiv. 9. xxv. 19 only, Gen. xxvi. 20.
15. Luke xiv. 34) only. Jer. x. 13.
2 Kings xxiv. 10.
x Matt. xv. 16] Mk. ver. 31. ch. x. 19 (from Deut. xxxii. 21) only.
2 Mace. xiv. 27, 32 only.
z= 1 Cor. i. 20 (Matt. v.
a Psa. cv. 20. 1 Cor. xv. 51, 52 reff.
b 1 Cor. ix. 25. xv.52, 1 Tim. i.17. 1 Pet. i. 4, 23. iii. 4 only +. Wisd. xii. 1. xviii. 4 only. (-ova, ch. ii. zs
c
c constr., Ps. 1. c.
Viii. 29 reff.
16 only.
i Acts as above (h). James iii. 7 only. Gen. i. 24.
vii. 42. constr., vv. 26, 28. ch. vi. 17. Eph.iv.19. Isa. xxxiii. 23.
dch. v. 14. vi. 5. viii. 3.
fl Cor. ix. 25. xv. 53, 54.
g Acts x. 12 reff. Deut. xiv. 19, 20.
Phil. ii. 7. Rev.ix.7 only. Deut. iv. 17, 18. ech.
1 Pet. i. 18, 23 onlyt. Wisd.ix. 15 al2. 2 Mace. vii.
h Acts x. 12. xi.6 only. Gen. xxxiv. 23.
k = [ch. iv. 22.] Phil. ii. 9. 1= Acts
Sir. iv. 19. m = 1 Thess.
n Sir. v. 2 vat. F. (not A.) o Paul (ch, vi. 1.
iv.5. 2 Pet. ii 18. Xen. Cyr. i. 6. 34.
2 Cor. xii. 21. Eph. iv. 19 ai5.) only, exc. Matt. xxiii. 27. Prov. vi. 16.
21. om 7 A.
Cyr Thdrt Thl.] ahra B.
[qvxapiotnsav, so ACDEX ec dk1lm n 17 Clem Orig Eus Ath
kapdia bef autwy D'G vulg.
23. nAAatavto K eg h k Orig, Eus Cyr Thdrt, Thl.
24. om xa: ABCN 17 vulg Orig Did Damase Aug Ambrst Pelag : ins DGKI rel syr
‘with the knowledge above stated!” This
participle testifies plainly that matter of
fact, and not of possibility, has been the
subject of the foregoing verses. From
this point, we take up what they MIGHT
HAVE DONE, but DID NOT. ovX ws
Gcdv é50é.] They did not give Him glory
(S0éd.¢w here principally of recognition by
worship) AS Gop, i. e. as the great Crea-
tor of all, distinct from and infinitely
superior to all His works. Bengel well
divides eSodfacav and yixapiotrncay—
“ Gratias agere debemus ob beneficia:
glorificare ob ipsas virtutes divinas.” They
did neither : in their religion, they deposed
God from His place as Creator,—in their
lives, they were ungrateful by the abuse of
His gifts. epararsdnoay | 517, vanus
Suit, is used of worshipping idols, 2 Kings
xvii. 15; Jer. ii. 5, and 535, vanitas, of an
idol, Dent. xxxii. 21; 1 Kings xvi. 26 al.:
and hence probably the word parade was
here chosen. Stadoyopots | their
thoughts: but generally in N.T. in a bad
sense: they became vain (idle, foolish)
in their speculations. éoxoticbn F
dovv. ait. kapd.| acvveros is not the re-
sult of éoxor.,—‘ became darkened so as to
lose its understanding, —but the converse,
—their heart («apdia of the whole inner
man,— the seat of knowledge and feeling)
being foolish (unintelligent, not retaining
God in its knowledge) beeame dark (lost
the little light it had, and wandered blindly
in the mazes of folly). 22. bdokovtes
elv. god.] Not, ‘because they professed
themselves wise,’ but while they professed
themselves wise— professing themselves
Y
to be wise. The words relate perhaps not
so much to the schools of philosophy,
as to the assumption of wisdom by the
Greeks in general, see 1 Cor. i. 22, of
which assumption their philosophers were
indeed eminent, but not the only examples.
23. mAAagav «.7.A.] quoted from
ref. Ps., only thy ddtav avtay, ‘their
glory,’ of the Psalm, is changed to ‘ God’s
glory,’ — viz. His Power and Majesty
visible in the Creation. év represents the
conditional element in which the change
subsisted. adOdprov and pbaprov
shew by contrast the folly of such a sub-
stitution: He who made and upholds all
things must. be incorruptible, and no cor-
ruptible thing can express His likeness.
dpormpatt eixdvos] the simili-
tude of the form—eixdvos generalizes it
to mean the human form,—it not being
any one particular man, but the form of
man (examples being abundant) to which
they degraded God,—and so of the other
creatures. Deities of the human form pre-
vailed in Greece—those of the bestial in
Egypt. Both methods of worship were
practised in Rome. 24—32.| Immo-
rality, and indeed bestiality, were the
sequel of idolatry. 24.] The wat after
5:6 may import, As they advanced in de-
parture from God, so God also on His
part gave them up, &c.;—His dealings
with them had a progression likewise.
mapédwKey| not merely permissive, but
judicial: God delivered them over. As
sin begets sin, and darkness of mind deeper
darkness, grace gives place to judgment,
and the divine wrath hardens men, and
2
324 IPOS PQMAIOY=. T
Pp cada Pe , ‘ , a= ’ ’ - 95r
De ets TOU arimaceoPat TA OWUATA AUTWY EV auUTOIC, oirivec
1 , ‘ 2 ~ ~ u? -~ ¥
aAcs¥ 41 § wernAAabav thy ‘adnOeav rov Oeov “Ev tw * Pevde Kat
r=Actsx.4l 4 ; , ee ee - ¥ ’ z « .
reff. éoeacOnoav Kal éAarosucay TH ° KTlOEL Taoa TOV
s here bis only. U 5
Esth.ii.20 a ! i 2 hy? Se RC. ‘ sare MeL.
vat.A.(not KTIOaVTA, OC EOTLY evAoyntoc LC TOUC aAlwvac, aunV.
F.) Easdr. i. 26 5 ‘ ~ d ‘s ’ ‘ ¢ 6 ‘ ae) 0 fe3 ' -
poles! ta TOUTO Tape Rey AURORE 0 UeOc &ig TAaVH aTimiac
re
al TE 799 ® OnrXAecat auT@y ‘ wernAAagav my » puotkny
inne ‘Epw. iv. 14 ;
1. fr. ow “ee thy! a bow, 2! “opolwe "te “Kal ot
a
v=2 oe ii. ‘xen ! * at 4 oa AN h "@ re - sg $ A
: ° i = a
ole © aposvec Padévrec thy ° puouny ‘ypuow tne © OnXcae
xliv. 20.
w here only t. X ver. 9. y=ch. viii. 39 reff. z =ch. xiv. 5 reff. a Mark
xiii. 19. Eph. iii. 9. Col. iii. 10. 1 Tim.iv. Sal. Deut. iv. 32. b ch. ix. 5 reff. ech. xi. 36.
Heb. xiii. 8. d ver. 24. e Col. iii. 5. 1 Thess.iv. fF onlyt. Job xvi. 4Symm. = Xen. Mem.
iii. 10. 8. fch.ix.2h. 1 Cor. xi.14. xv.43. 2 Cor. Vi. 8. xi. 21. 2 Tim. ii. 20 pane P. Jer, =x. VT.
g fem., here bisonly. Lev. xxvii. 4.
bis. 2 Pet. ii. 12 onlyt.
neut., Matt. xix.4 | Mk. Gal. iii.
(-s, Jude 10.) i here bis only.
only. ‘Thue. vii. 5. k = James iv.9. Rev. xi. 6
i. 8, 9 al. m ch, ii, 14,27, xi. 21, 24 (3ce). 1 Cor. xi. 14.
2 Pet.i. donlyt. Wisd. vii. 20 only. n here only.
xix.4]|Mk. Lukeii. 23. Gal. iii. 28. Rev. xii. 5, 13 only.
ii. 4. Judg. ix. 9 &c. F. propr., Matt. iv. 11, 22.
28 only. Gen. i. 27. vii- h here
1 Kingsi. 28. Wisd. xv. “7, 15. Sir. xviii. 8
1 = Acts xviii. 13. ch. iv. 18. xi, 24, Gal.
Gal. ii. 15. iv. 8. Eph. ii. 3. James iii. 7 bis.
see 1 Cor, vii. 3, 4. o here 3ce. Matt.
Jer. xx. 15. p= Matt. xxiii. 23. Rev.
Ath Chr Thdrt Th] ce. om o 8eos Cl(appy) Did Ath-mss. rec eautots, with
D3EGKL 17 rel Chr, Thdrt Damase Th! Ec: txt ABCD!N copt Chr,.
26. for xpnow, xtiow D': sensum D-lat. aft mapa pvow,add xpnow D'G vulg
arm Jer.
27. for te, 5e AD'G A117 vulg syr Clem Ath Chr Thdrt Damase Thl Aug Ruf,
Ambrst: om C a! b h o copt Orig Jer Ruf,: txt BD? K LX Syr wth Ge. oma Lk.
rec (1st) appeves, with ACDS3LN rel "Ath Chr Thdrt Thl: txt BD'G (c¢?) Athen
hurries them on to more fearful degrees of
depravity. évy tats ém0.| in the
lusts—not by nor through the lusts (as
Erasmus and E. V.) ;—the lusts of the heart
were the field of action, the department of
their being, in which this dishonour took
place. akaSapciav | more than mere
profligacy in the satisfaction of natural lust
(as Olsh.); for the Apostle uses cognate
words ariuacer Oar and ariuta here and in
ver. 26 :—bestiality ; impurity in the phy-
sical, not only in the social and religious
sense. Tov atipaleobar] the genitive
may imply either (1) the purpose of God’s
delivering them over to impurity, ‘ that
their bodies should be dishonoured,’ or (2)
the result of that delivering over, ‘so that
their bodies were dishonoured,’ or (3) the
nature of the axaSapota, as maOn ariulas
below, — ‘impurity, which consisted in
their bodies being dishonoured’ The se-
cond of these seems most accordant with
the usage of the Apostle and with the argu-
ment. arimdCerOat is most likely pas-
sive (Be Za, al. De W ette), as the middle
of &riud(@ in not found in use. And this
is confirmed by the old and probably
genuine reading avtots, which has been
altered to éavrots from im: wining that
‘they’ was the subject to darimdCerOat.
So that their bodies were dishonoured
among them. 28.| This verse casts
light on the rijv aAHO. ev adiucla Katexdv-
twy of ver. 18. The truth of God (the
true notion of Him as the Creator) which
they professed, they changed into (see on
év, ver. 23) @ lie (Wevd0s = 70, used of
idols, Jer. xvi. 19), thus counteracting its
legitimate agency and depriving it of all
power for good. ocPdafopat, of the
honour of respect and observance and
reverence,—hatpevw, of formal worship
with sacrifice and offering. Both verbs
belong to 7h ktiger; though veBdouat
would require an accusative, Aatpevw, the
nearest, takes the government. TH
xt.| the thing made, the creature-—a
general term for all objects of idolatrous
worship. mapa, beyond—which would
amount to the exclusion of the Creator.
The doxology expresses the horror
of the Apostle at this dishonour, and puts
their sin in a more striking light. But
we need not supply ei Kat obra: bBpioar, as
Chrys. evAoynTés is Blessed, kart’
etoxnv: the LXX put for it the perf. part.,
Ps. exvii. 24.
God : the participle, of man. 26. ray
aTip.,—see above, ver. 24,—stronger than
&riywa maby, as setting forth the status,
ariuta, to which the man belonged. Con-
trast 1 Thess. iv. 4, 7d éavtov okevos KTa-
oOar ev Tuy. xXpysw] wusum vene-
veum; see examples in Wetstein. This
abuse is spoken of first, as being the most
revolting to nature. “In peccatis argu-
endis seepe scapha debet scapha dici. Pu-
dorem praposterum ii fere postulant qui
The adjective is usually of
ABCDG —
KLNab
cedfgh
kimn
ol7
.
|
25—29.
IIPOS PQOQMAIOY®.
320
, , , — ’ , ) ~ , . , ”
9 2EexavOnoav ev ty ‘ oo&&ee avrwy etc aAXAnAoue, ° apoevec VTE My:
Sy) uO Ne ities ig
ey apotoly THY acy nhoouvyny
v? i a £0 ~ w , , ~ , ~ x2?
GVT(MLGULAY IV €0Et TIC wayne QUTWV EV EAUTOIC ajvo~
AapBavovrec. 7
zw > a’? , b , > ‘ e ‘
eye Ev ETLYVWOEL, TAaoeowKEV auTouc oO Ococ
co? ~ - ‘ ‘ ,
QOOKLOY VOUV, TOLELY Ta LN " kaQnKkovra,
, ee p? peony
pévouc | 740% *actkia, *
xii. 23. -uovetv. 1 Cor. vii. 36.)
v. 20. 2 Pet. ii. 18. Jude 1).
2 Mace. iv. 46. vi. 21. viii. 6 ouly.
1 Cor. iii. 13 reff.
p. 249. ach. iii. 20 reff.
5b, 6,7. 2Tim. iii. 8. Tit. i. 16.
XXii. 22only. Deut. xxi. 17. 2 Macc. vi. 4.
Vii. 21. f = Acts xx. 19 reff.
iii. 26 reff. i Mark vii. 22.
Ezek. xxii. 27.
Orig Eus He.
&-corr! Thi Ce.
Ath, Chr Thl de.
u 7 \ ‘
Ka TepyaCoucvon Kal THY
e
k ' il ry km '
Tovypia, meovecia, KaKla, 7:
u =ch. ii. 9 reff.
Ezek, xxxiii. 10.
g Luke xiii. 27.
Deut, xxix.
20. Diod.
Sic. xiv. 108.
Polyb. ix. 10.
10
r here only t.
\ ‘ ? ? ' ‘ ‘ Sir. xxiii. 6
Kal kalwoc OUK J cO0Kiuacay TOV Geov al.
ee s=1| Tim. i. 16.
€LC t = here (Rev.
Xvi. 15) only.
9 e x (Exod. xx.
TET nOWwW- 26.) Jos.
Sa Xvi.
(-4wv, 1 Cor.
v 2 Cor. vi. 13 only t. w = James
x Lyke vi. 34. xxiii. 4lal. Num. xxxiv. 14.
y =hereonlyt. Jos. Antt. ii. 7. 4. see ch. xiv. 22 reff.
z2=1Tim. iii. 4. so éxecv év aitiucs or de aitias, Thue. ii. 18. see Viger,
Hos. iv. 1.
Heb. vi. 8only. P.H. Prov. xxv.4.
c 1 Cor. ix. 27. 2 Cor. xiii.
Isa. i. 22 only. d Acts
e constr., Luke ii. 40. 2 Cor, vii. 4 only. 2 Macc.
Actsi. 18. Ps. xxvii. 5. h Acts
1 Eph. iv. 19. 2 Pet. ii. 3 al.
b ver. 24.
k 1 Cor. v. 8.
m = 1 Cor. xiv. 20 reff.
appeves (2nd) ACN! b! 17 Clem Orig Ath, Chr Thdrt: txt BDGL
ev appeot AN! 5. 17 Clem Orig Ath, Thdrt: txt BCDGL &-corr'
for eavt., avtots BK 35.
28. om o Geos A N'(ins corr!) 2 Nyss Ath Damase Hil-mss Vict-tun: Chr has it bef
QuTous.
29. rec aft aducia ins ropveia, with L rel syrr Thdrt Thl Ge Ennod, and D'KG vulg
Lucif Ruf Ambrst aft caxca, omg wovnpia: om ABCK® 17 copt eth Ephr Bas Chr Isid
Max Gennad Damase Aug Ruf-comm.
kaka bef mAcoveé. AN Ephr Aug: kak.
mov. tA. C (d) 17 copt xth Isid Max Damase: kak. mopvea mrcov. DIG 2. 46. 71. 92
(aft mopy. ins wovnp. D3): txt BK(omg movyp.) L rel syr Bas Chr Thdrt Thl Cc,
pudicitia carent ... Gravitas et ardor stili
judicialis, proprietate verborum non violat
verecundiam.” Bengel. 27.) THY
aoxnu, perhaps, as De W., ‘the (well-
known, too frequent) ztxdecency,’ —< cui
ipsa corporis .. . conformatio reclamat,’
Bengel: but more probably the article is
only generic, as in 2 Pet. i. 5—8 re-
peatedly, TmHv avtiptobiav| The
Apostle treats this atiuta into which they
fell, as a consequence of, a retribution for,
their departure from God into idolatry,
with which 7m fact it was closely connected.
This shame, and not its consequences,
which are not herve treated of, is the ayt-
pucbia of their mAdyy, their aberration
from the knowledge of God, which they
received. This is further shewn by 7v
de: in the past tense. i yap Kal mh yé-
evva tv, pnde KdéAacls HrelAnto, TovTO
mdons KoAdoEws xXEtpoyv jv. ef SE HSovra,
Thy mposOhkny por A€yes THS Tiuwplas.
Chrys. Hom. vy. p. 457. €v €auTois,
in their own persons, viz. by their de-
gradation even below the beasts.
28.] The play on doxmatw and addimos
can hardly be expressed in any other lan-
guage. ‘Non probaverunt’ and ‘repro-
bum’ of the Vulgate does not give it.
Because they reprobated the knowledge
_of God, God gave them over to a repro-
bate mind, is indeed a very inadequate,
but as far as the form of the two words is
concerned, an accurate representation of it.
(Mr. Conybeare gives it, —“ Asthey thought
fit to cast out the acknowledgment of God,
God gave them over to an outcast mind.”)
For add«iuos is not ‘judicii expers’ (as
Beza, Tholuck, &e.), but reprobate, *e-
jected by God. God withdrew from them
His preventing grace and left them to the
evil which they had chosen. The active
sense of &3dx:uos, besides being altogether
unexampled, would, in the depth of its
meaning, be inconsistent with the assertion
of the passage. God did not give them up
to a mind which had lost the faculty of
discerning, but to a mind judicially aban-
doned to that depravity which, being well
able to exercise the doxuacia required,
not only does not do so, but in the head-
long current of its abandonment to evil,
sympathizes with and encourages (ver. 32)
its practice in others. It is the ‘ video
meliora proboque,’ which makes the ‘ dete-
riora sequor’ so peculiarly criminal.
ovk edoxluacay éxew is not = édoxiu. od
Zxew (as Dr. Burton): the latter would
express more a deliberate act of the judg-
ment ending in rejection of God, whereas
the text charges them with not having ex-
ercised that judgment which would, if exer-
cised, have led to the retention of God in
their knowledge. éxetv ev émryv.| So
Job xxi. 14,—“ they say to God, Depart
from us: for we desire not the knowledge
of thy ways,” and xxii. 15—17.
29—81.] memAnpwpévovs belongs to the-
326 POS PQMAIOY®. I. 30—82.
ABCDG
n ‘ opq , oO , opr a , s ,
ee fteaTOUC pQovou, povou, Epwooc, doXou, KakonUeiac, KLxab
n = Matt.
.14. James ¢ , 30
ay.14- James © Ui Quorsrac,
Ezek. xxxvii. xy
“katadaXouc, * Meooruyeic, “ UBotorac,
2, xz? , a? ‘ se eee. x a
1. Nah.il0 ~ UmeOnpavouc, aXalovae, EpPEevoeTag KaKWV, yovEevoly
Phil. i.15. 1 Tim. vi. 4.
only.
o [Gal. v. 20, 21.] sip 2 i 3
1 Pet. ii. Lenly. Wisd vi. 23 (25).
3. James iv. 5.
s here onlyt. 3 Mace. iii. 22. vii. 3.
there onlyt. (-(Ce.v, Ps. xl. 7. -copds, 2 Cor. xii. 20.)
1 Mace. viii. 16 only.
Kakxonfeca, 70 ETt TO XEtpov UToONapPavery Gravta, Aristot. Rhet. ii.
Matt. xxvii. 18 | Mk. Tit. iii.
as above (op).
f . r1 Cor. i. 11 reff.
where only +. (-Aca, 2 Cor. xii. 20. -Aetv, James
iv. 11.) v here only ft. w1Tim.i. 13 only. Prov. vi.17 al. (-7ora, Jer. xxvii. [1.13]. -TeKos,
Prov. xx. 1.) x 2 Tim. iii. 2. y a> above (x). Lukei. 61. James iy. 6. 1 Pet. v. 5 only.
Ps. cxviii. 21,51. (-véa, Mark vii. 22.) zasabove (x) only. Job xxviii. 8. Prov. xxi. 24. Hab. ii.5
only. a here only t.
govey G D!-lat Lucif Ennod: epidos bef povou A.
[vv 27—30 are in a difft hand from the rest of D.]
80. kakoAadous D!.
subject of orety, understood. The
reading mopvela appears to have arisen out
of wovnpia, and is placed by some MSS.
after that word, by some after kakig, omit-
ting mov. The Apostle can hardly have
written it here, treating as he does all
these immoralities of the heart and con-
science as results of, and flowing from,
the licentious practices of idolatry above
specified. Accurate distinctions of
ethical meaning can hardly be found for
all these words. Without requiring such,
or insisting on each excluding the rest, I
have collected the most interesting notices
respecting them. Umbreit has illustrated
their LX X usage and Hebrew equivalents.
adixia| Perhaps a general term,
comprehending all that follow: such would
be according to the usage of the Epistle:
but perhaps to be confined to the stricter
import of injustice; of which on the part
of the Romans, Wetst. gives abundant
testimonies. movnptg | Ammonius in-
terprets Td movnpdv, Td Spaorixdy Kakov,—
used therefore more of the tempter and
seducer to evil. ameovetia | covet-
ousness (not as 1 Thess. iv. 6, see there),
of which the whole provincial government
and civil life of the Romans at the time
was full. ‘Quando | major avaritie patuit
sinus ?” exclaims Juvenal, soon after this.
Sat. i. 87. kaxig] more the passive
side of evil—the capability of and proclivity
to evil,—the opposite to apery :—so Arist.
Eth. Nic. ii. 3. 6, bméxertar &pa 7 aperh
elvat....T@Yv BeATioTwY TpaKTiKh’ 7 Be
Karla, TovvavTtov. 8ovov and ddvov
are probably put together from similarity
of sound. So Eurip. Troad. 770 ff., 6 Tuv-
Sdpesov Epvos, otiror’ ef Ards | ToAAGY SE
marepwv pnul a exmepurévat, | "AAdaTopos
pev mparov, elta 5é gPOdvov, | pdvov Te,
Oavdrov 0, doa TE yh Tpéper Kad.
Kkakoneias | see reff. ibvp. secret ma-
ligners,—katad. open slanderers. ‘The
distinction attempted to be set up by
Suidas and others, between Oeouiohs, bad
Ocov picovmevos, and Ocoulons, 6 mica@y Toy
om SoAov A Bas.
@eév, has been applied to @coaruyets also,
which has therefore been written @eocrd-
yes. But the distinction is untenable ;
all compound adjectives in 7s being oxyton.
Oecoorvyys is never found in an active
sense, ‘hater of God, but always in a
passive, hated by God (cf. Eur. Troad.
1205, 7 Qcootuyis ‘EAévn: Cycl. 395, 7a
Oeootuyet Gov paryelpw: ib. 598: so Beo-
pAts, Demosth. 1486 ult.: evruxertarny
macey méhewy Thy buetépay voul(w Kal
OcopiAcotarny: and Asch. Eum. 831) ;
and such is apparently the sense here.
The order of crimes enumerated would be
broken, .and one of a totally different kind
inserted between karaAdAous and bBpioras,
if Ocoor. is to signify ‘haters of God.’
But on the other supposition,—if any
crime was known more than another as
‘hated by the gods, it was that of ‘dela-
tores, abandoned persons who cireum-
vented and ruined others by a system
of malignant espionage and false informa-
tion. And the crime was one which the
readers of this part of Roman history know
to have been the pest of the state; see
Tacitus, Ann. vi. 7, where he calls the de-
latores ‘ Principiquidem grati, et Deo exosi.’
So also Philo, ap. Damascen. (quoted by
Wetst.) didBoro Kal elas amowéurror
Xapitos, of Thy adtiy exelyw StaBodrArchy
vooovvTes Kakotexviav, Yeooruyeis TE Kal
Ocoutoets mdvTn. It does not follow that
the delatores only are intended, but the
expression may be used to include all those
abandoned persons who were known as
Diis exosi, who were employed in pursuits
hateful and injurious to their kind. So
Wetst., Meyer, Riickert, Fritzsche, De
Wette:—the majority of Commentators
incline to the active sense,—so Theodoret,
(2e., Erasm., Luther, Calv., Beza, Estius,
Grot., Tholuck, Reiche, &e. tBprorras |
opposed by Xenoph. Mem. i. and Apol.
Socr. to sdppwv, A discreet and modest
man :’ but here perhaps, as said by Paul of
himself, ref. 1 Tim., ‘qui contumelia afficit,’
‘an insulting person.’ trepydavovs |
edfgh
kimn
ol7
Ty 1.
xt
’ /
31 © aguverouc,
32.2
° ~
atreOeic,
f > ,
aveA\enuovac,
ee e ‘ -~ ,
yvovrec, OTt Olt Ta TOLaAUTAa T PAGGOVTEC
a /
flolv,
,
ToC 7 OAOOOUCLY.
IIPOX PQMAIOY®.
ad? ,
aouvOzrove,
wv 7 \ hi , ~ ~ k »
oirwec TO ™ Stkaiwna tov Oeov “* emt-
327
b Luke i. 17.
Acts xxvi. 12.
2 Tim. iii. 2.
Tit.i. 6. iii. 3
only. L.P.
Deut. xxi. 38.
(-Getv, -Gecu,
ch. xi. 30.)
Pc) ,
aoTopyouc,
n n ,
acglot Oavarov
> , aN - > \ ‘oo ~
Ou POVOY AUTa TOLOVOLYV, aAXa Kai oUVvEVOOKOUGL”Y c ver. 2] reff.
d here only
Jer. iii. 8, 10,
Jl only.
Demosth. p.
a Uy - c
II. 1 Avo P avaToAoynroc el, W avOpwre Tac oO " kol- 383. 6.
onlyt. Aéschin. p. 47, 29.
h Job xxxiv. 27. i
xiii. 12 reff.
xxiii. 29 reff o 1 Cor. vii. 12, 13 reff,
f here only.
i = Lukei. 6. ch. ii. 26. viii. 4.
m = of persons, ch. xiii, 46. Matt, x. 10 al.
e 2 Tim. iii. 3
Prov. Vv. 9. xi. 17. g = Acts x. 4] reff.
Heb. ix. 1,10. Exod, xv. 25. Cor
Deut. xxv. 2. n Acts
p ch. i. 20 ouly t. q =ch. xiv. 3, 4 reff.
81. rec aft agropyous ins agmovdous (gloss in marg to explain acvvéerovs), with CD§
K LN? rel vulg syrr Chr(omg acvvetous) Thdrt ; pref, 17.76 Thl; bef acvvderouvs D3:
om ABD'GN'! fuld! copt Ephr, Damase Lucif.
82. emyvevres L, 17: emvyiwwoxovtes B 80: yvovtes Thi: eSores 116 Chr: add
ovk evonoay D Bas: ove eyywoay G 8-pe: ov cuvnkay 15: non intellexerunt, or the
like, latt.
Ambrst.
ov povoy yap (see above) D': ov mw. Se 46 Bas: kat ov mw. vulg arm
mo.ouvres and cuvevdoxovytes B: ov pov. ot morovyTes avTa aA. Kat ot
ouvevdoxouvtes some mentd by Isid vulg(not am!) D?-lat G-lat arm (Clem-rom) Ephr,
Bas.
€or) d& bwepnpavia Katappdyyntis Tis TARY
aitod Tav &AAwy, Theophr. Char. 34. It
may be observed that Aristotle, Rhet. ii.
16, mentions bBpioral and sbrephpavoi ‘as
examples of TG wAovT@ & ererat HON.
Gdafdvas] see reff. Sone? 5¢ nal aralav
eivat 6 Opacis kal mpostrointixds avpelas,
Aristot. Eth. Nic. iii. 10. Sore? 6) 6 pey
ahalav mposmontinds Tov evddtwv elvat,
kal ph brapxdvrwy, rat perCovev 7) bmdpxet
.... [evera Sdtns nod Tyrjs|.... Kal yap
7) bmrepBoard Kat 7 Atav EAAcWWs GAaCoviKdy,
Ibid. iv. 13. €dpevp. kak. | ‘ Sejanus
omnium facinorum repertor habebatur,’
Tacit. Ann. iv. 11:—‘scelerumque inventor
Ulixes, Virg. Mn. ii. 161: ocraciapxau,
pirompaymoves, Kaka@y ebpetal, rapakimdAr-
des, Philo in Flacc. § 4, vol. ii. p. 520 :—
maons kakias ebpetys (of Antiochus Epiph.),
2 Mace. vii. 31. aovuverous, destitute
of (moral) understanding, see Col. i. 9, and
reff. Here perhaps suggested by the simi-
larity of sound to agvv@érous, without
good faith, obk euucvoyvtas tals cvv07-
kats, Suid. and Hesych. In the same
sense, evourOereiy and aouvOereiy are Op-
posed by Chrysippus and Plutarch (see
Wetst.). aotTdépyous | ui) ayarav-
tas twa, Hesych. And Athenzeus, speak-
ing of of Kadobpevor dpyiBes pedeaypldes,
—éatl 5& Goropyov mpos TX Exyova Td
bpveov, Kal dAvywpe? TOV vewTépwv, Xiv.
p- 655 c. “In hae urbe nemo liberos
tollit, quia, quisquis suos heredes habet,
nec ad ccenas nec ad spectacula admittitur.”
Petronius, 116. (Wetst.) 32.] The
Apostle advances to the highest grade of
moral abandonment,—the knowledge of
God’s sentence against such crimes, united
with the contented practice of them, and
encouragement of them in others. TO
Sixatwpa 7. 6.| the sentence of God, un-
mistakeably pronounced in the conscience.
Sti k.7.A.] viz. that they who do
such things are worthy of death; this zs
the sentence, and must not be enclosed in
a parenthesis, as in Wetstein, Griesbach,
and Scholz. Qavarov, what sort of
death? Probably a general term for the
fatal consequence of sin; that such courses
lead to ruin. The word can hardly be
pressed to its exact meaning: for many of
the crimes mentioned could never be visited
with judicial capital punishment in this
world (as Grot.): nor could the heathen
have any definite idea of eternal, spiritual
death, as the penalty attached to sin
(Calov.),—nor again, any idea of the con-
nexion between sin and natural death.
«Life and Death,” remarks Umbreit, “are
ever set over against one another in the
O. T. as well as in the N.T., the one as
including all good that can befall us, the
other, all evil.” p. 246. The deserip-
tion here given by the Apostle of the moral
state of the heathen world should by all
means be compared with that in Thucyd.
iii. 82—84, of the moral state of Greece in
the Peloponnesian war: and a passage
in Wisd. xiv. 22—31, the opening of
which is remarkably similar to our text :
cir ovK Hpkece TH TAGVGTOGL mepl THY To
Gcod yv@ouw, GAAG...., Ver. 22, and
again ver. 27, 4 yap T&v avevipov cidé-
Awy Cpnoketa TavTds GPX} Kakov Kal aitla
kal wépas eotly.
II. 1—29.] Secondly, THE SAME, that
all are guilty before God, I8 PROVED OF
THE JEWS ALSO. And first, vv. 1—11, no
man (the practice of the Jews being hinted
328
IIPOS POMAIOYS.
II.
, * \ ’ nN vo N t
sh ecm OD "ev # 10 8 he aete tov * ERepats oeauTov Karta- a
xiii. 8. c y \
Greedy. 0: iepivetc” Ta yep auTa mpacoec os Kpivey. 2 oidapuev oe As
vi.1. x. 24, ih %
eee OTt TO Kua tov Ocov éotiv ‘ Kata * adneav E7TL TOUVG O17
= Matt.
: Seat ra ro.avra mpasoovrac. a “ Aoyiy be TOUTO, o avOpwre
(John viii. €
2s. Seah 10) 1 Kolwy Touc Ta TolauTa ToacoovTac Kal TOLWWY auTa,
S ie Ee tr ferred a4 tee Vee Ned » @ Oe Bien - Z Now
nt Markxii, © OTL OU expeven TO Kptwa Tov Veouv 5 *H Tov ~ wAouTOU
40. Luke ~ b , > ~ \ ~ ai 2 ~ \ -
xx. 47. ch. 4 x y ka TI
iii, 8. xii. 2 us oe oe auTouvu’” Kal Peas ty Ox t ig
ar vith (li) * paxgoOuniag | ie 8 ayvouy "oruTo | Yonorov
10. ‘ \ \ k
clipe 6p , Tou Qeov ELC eT avotav Of aye, Kata oe THY oKAn- +1 TE
w = Acts xiii.
1) reff. x constr., (ch. xiv. 14) 2 Cor. x, 7,11. Heb. xi.19. 1 Mace. vi. 9. y = Luke xxi. 36. Aer
2 Cor. xi. 33. 1 Thess. v. 3 (Acts xvi. 27 reff. xix. 6) only. L.P.H. 2 Mace. vii. 35. z= ch. ix. 23. ABDG
xi. 83. Eph.i.7,18. ii. 7al.(Paul.) tpuggs tro wAovTou THs coPtas, Plato, Euthyphr. p. 12. (= mAnbos, KL ae
LXX. Ps. avid 16 al.) a2 Cor. vi.6. Gal. v. 22. Db as above (a). a iii. 12. xi. 22 (3ce). Ra
Eph. ii. 7 al2. P. Ps. xxiv.7. (-teveoGar, 1 Cor. xiii. 4.) ce (=) ch. iii. 25 onlyt. (1 Mace. xii. 26 only. cdfgh
Jos. Antt. vi. 5. 1.) d see Eph. iv. 2. ech. ix. 22. 1 Tim. i.16al. Prov. xxv. 15. eis kIimn
1 Cor. xiii.4, -jws, Acts xxvi. 3.) f Matt. xviii. 10. 1 Cor. xi. 22 al. Prov. xiii. 13. ch. 017
i. 13 reff. h1 Cor. xv. 33 reff. Ps. xxxiii. 8. constr, ch. i. 19, 20. i = ch. viii. 14, Gal. v.
18. 2 Tim. iii. 6. Polyb. i. 15. 13.
k here only.
= Dent. ix. D7. see Matt. xix. 8.
Cuap. II. 1. ins xpiware bef kpivecs C1 m 73. 80. 93. 179 syr-w-ast copt Jer.
2. for de, yap CN m 17. 80. 122.
179 vulg D-lat copt arm Chr Pelag: txt ABDGKL
rel Thdrt Damase Thl Gc Tert: om 23 wth.
8. for rovto, TouTw A.
at) must condemn another, for all alike are
guilty. 1.] The address passes gra-
dually to the Jews. They were the people
who judged—who pronounced all Gentiles
to be born in sin and under condemnation:
—doubtless there were also proud and cen-
sorious men among the Gentiles, to whom
the rebuke might apply, but these are
hardly in the Apostle’s mind, This i is ev i-
dent by comparing Ta yap a’ta mpdooeis
6 Kpivev with vv. 21—23, where the same
charge is implied in a direct address to
the Jew. S16, on account of this
dixalwua Geod decreeing death against the
doers of these things—rFor thou doest them
thyself. Therefore thy setting thyself up
as a judge, is unjustifiable. Tas 6
Kpivey| The Jew is not yet named, but
hinted at (see above) : not in order to con-
ciliate the Jews (Riickert), but on account
of the as yet purposely general form of
the argument. This verse is in fact the
major of a syllogism, the minor of which
follows, vv. 17—20, where the position
here declared to be unjustifiable, is as-
ser ted to be assumed by the Jew.
évo.. - | For Wherein (not ‘in that’),
as E. V.—i.e. ‘in the matter in which?
2.| of8. 8é, < atqui scimus ?>—now
we know. kata ad.| according to
trath, as KE. V., De Wette :—not, ‘truly,’
‘revera’ (as Raphel, &e.)—for ofSauer,
on which the emphasis is, implies certain
knowledge. Nor does rat& aa. belong to
Kpiwa, ‘judgment according lo truth’ (as
Olsh.),—but_ to eorly, is, (proceeds) ac-
cording to justice (Jolin viii. 16).
8.] Here he approximates nearer to the
Jews. They considered that because they
were the children of Abraham they should
be saved, see Matt. iii. 7, 9. TOUTO,
viz. 671 od exo., following. ov has the
emphasis on it, thou thyself, —‘ thou above
all others. 4.] 4, or (introducing
a new error or objection, see ch. iii. 29;
vi. 3; xi. 2), ‘inasmuch as God spares
thee day by day (see Eccles. viii. 11), dost
thou set light by His long-suffering, ig-
norant that His intent init is to lead thee
to repentance ?’ mAovTov,—a favourite
word with the Apostle (see reff.),—the ful-
ness, ‘ abundance.’ xpynort., as shewn
by His dvoxy and paxpod. (retf.)
ayvoev, not knowing,—being blind to the
truth, that... Grot., Thol., al. would ren-
der it ‘not considering :’? but as De Wette
remarks, it is a wilful and guilty ignorance,
not merely an inconsiderateness, which is
blamed in the question. ayeu, is lead-
ing thee: this is its intent and legitimate
course, which thy blindness will frustrate.
‘Malo deducit quam invitat; quia illud
plus quiddam significat. Neque tamen pro
adigere accipio, sed pro manu ducere.’
Calvin. 5.| Iam inclined with Lach-
mann to regard the question as continued.
If not, the responsive contrast to the ques-
tion in ver. 4 would begin more emphati-
cally than with kara 5€...; it would be
ov b€ kata... . or OnoavplCers 5€ ceavTa
MQTOs cvslete
in the digressive clauses following, and no-
where comes pointedly to an end. I have
therefore not placed a mark of interroga-
But the enquiry loses itself
2—7.
, , AVS) hab) 4 ,
etait ooOvU Kal pt gatas apa
IIPOS PQMAIOYS.
029
OnoavoiZec ceavrep lhereonlyt. |
"ooyiv év vee ° ooyne kal "amoxahinbewe “Sxatoxproiac Cats me ts
~ nhabs., Luke
TOU Oeov, oc arodiae | Kaori “kata Ta epya aurou,, rane
Troe piv Kal’ *vronoriy ‘épyou ‘ayaboo “ ddgav Kat oer, vi.17
eph. ii. 3.
p=1Cor.i.7. 2 Thess. i. 7 al.
2 Mace. xii. 41.)
xxi. 19. ch. v. 3,4. Heb. xii. 1 al.
36 reff. sing., ch, xiii. 3.
5. for amoxadupews, avtatodocews A eth Ces-arel.
D3KLN? 17 rel syr eth Orig
q hereonlyt. Hos. vi. 5 (for Ew) Incert. in Hexapl. (-Kpétns,
r= Matt. xvi. 27. Rev. xxii.12. Proy. xxiv. 12.
Ezra x. 2. see James i. 4.
u—ch.v. 2. viii. 18, ix. 23 al,
s = Luke
constr., 1 Thess. i. 3. t Acts Ix.
ins kat bef dicaoxpioras
3 Eus Ephr Bas Chr Thdrtsene; Ts 3. 33. 35. 108. 121:
om ABD'!GN! vulg Syr copt goth Orig, Damase (ec Iren-int Cypr Lucif.
tion at &yer or at Oe00, as Lachm. does,—
but have left the construction to explain
itself. kata] not, ‘in proportion to’
(Meyer), but as E. V. after, ‘in conso-
nance with, ‘secundum, —describing the
state out of which the action springs: see
ver. 7, Kad’ sropovhy. aperay. | not
admitting that weravola to which God is
leading thee. év hepa, not for, nor
= cis jueépay, nor should it be rendered
‘against the day,’ as E. V. I need hardly
remind any accurate scholar, that such an
interpretation as ‘ev for eis’ is nowhere
to be tolerated. It belongs to apyhv,—
wrath in the day of wrath, ‘wrath which
shall come upon thee in that day,’—not
to @ncaupi¢ers, imagining which has led to
the mistake. The qucp. opyis is the day
of judgment, viewed in its relation to sin-
ners: seé reff. amoKah. Sixavoxp. |
the manifestation (public enforcement, it
having been before latent though deter-
mined) of God’s righteous judgment.
The reading dor. Kat Sicaoxp. would
mean, ‘the appearance (reft.) of God,
and his righteous judgment,’—not refer-
ring merely to the detection of men’s
hearts, as Origen, Theophyl., Riickert.
But the reading is not strongly upheld,
nor is it according to the mode of speak-
ing in the argument—see ch. i. 17, 18.
6, 7.] This retribution must be
carefully kept in its place in the argu-
ment. The Apostle is here speaking ge-
nerally, of the general system of God in
governing the world,—the judging accord-
ing to each man’s works—punishing the
evil, and rewarding the righteous. No
question at present arises, how this righte-
ousness in God’s sight zs to be obtained—
but the truth is only stated broadly at
present, to be further specified by and by,
when it is clearly shewn that by épya véuou
no flesh can be justified before God. The
neglect to observe this has occasioned two
mistakes: (1) an idea that by this passage
it is proved that not faith only, but works
also in some measure, justify before God
(so Toletus in Pool’s Syn.), and (2) an idea
(Tholuck Ist edn. and Kéllner) that by
épyou ayaGod here is meant faith in Christ.
However true it be, so much is certainly
not meant here, but merely the fact, that
every where, and in all, God punishes evil,
and rewards good. 7, 8. Tots pev Kad?
tw..... dpyi k. @upds] To those who
‘by endurance in good works seek for
glory and honour and immortality (will
He render) eternal life: but to those who
are (men) of self-seeking, and disobey
the truth, but obey iniquity (shall accrue)
anger and wrath, &c. The verb 4d7o-
dHce1, ver. 6, should have two accusatives,
representing the two sides of the final retri-
bution,—(wir aidéy. and dpyhv, &e. But
the second of these is changed to a no-
minative and connected with éo7a: under-
stood, and made the first member of the
following sentence, dééa 5€ «.7.A. being op-
posed to it. Thus also two datives belong
to amoddcet, viz. Tois .. es ee ae
and trois... adixia. To Garaiane belong
56. K. Ti. K. ape. as its accusatives, and
Kal? trou. py. ay. as its adverb. This, as
De Wette remarks, is the only admissible
construction: (in opposition to (a) (eum.
and Beza,-who divide épy. ay. from Kal?
brom. (tis quidem qui secundum patientem
expectationem querunt boni operis glo-
riam),—(B) Bengel, Knapp, Fritzsche,
Olsh., and Krehl, who take trots....
ayaov as meaning ‘ those who endure in
good works’ (as (ic. does tots Kab? drop.
those who endure, absol.), and ddéav....
(ntovow, as in apposition with it,—(y)
Photius (in @ecum.), Luther, and Estius,
who take! at, @7ots, <i’. s,s (nrotow Cady
aidy. »—ddtav k.T.A.,— (5) Reiche, who
takes rots hev,—* to the one, ’—alone, | and
makes ra daou. parallel to cara Ta Epya,
representing the rule Of judgment, taking
the rest as (>). €pyov, sing. of moral
habitude in the whole, the general course
of life and action (see reff.). Sdéav,
absolute imparted glory like His own, see
Matt. xiii. 43; John xvii, 22 :—tupny, re-
s
330
v=—1Cor.xv. Tt v Kal
42, &e. a
2 Tim. i. 10
(Eph. vi. 24)
i apPapciav
a ed epifeine kat
only ft. ? '
(Wied. ii. 28. Of TY * aducta,
bare 19 ,
only
w=Matt.vi. VOKWOLG,
33. Col. iii. / n
lal. Ps. Comévou TO ”" KaKOV,
XXxiii. 14.
x = John xviii. 37. ch. iii. 26. iv. 12,14. Gal. iii 7 al.
IIPOX PQMAIOYS.
“ nrovew Cwyv atwrov"
7 ameMovat pev TH
‘opyn kat * ee one Orufrc Kat 9
et Tacav poynv avOpwrou TOU
II.
8 roi 8&
* adnOeia, » meiPopévors
OTe-
" KarTEepya-
*Tovdatov Te TOWTOV kat EAAnvoc*
y 2 Cor. xii. 20. Gal. v.20. Phil. i. 17. ii. 3
James iii. 14, 16 only t. z=ch, x. 21. Deut. xxi. 20. a =1Johni. 6al. b = Acts
v. 3! reff. cch.i. 18 al. d ver. 6. e Eph. iv. 21. f Ps. 1xxvii. 49. g = Rev. xv.1.
Qzek. v. 15. h = 2 Thess. i. 6. ich. viii.35, 2Cor. vi. 4. Isa. viii. 22. xxx. 6. jas
above (h). 2Cor xii.10 only. (-petoGar, 2 Cor. iv. 8.) Kk = Acts xiii. 11 reff. 1 Acts ii. 43 reff.
Luke ix. 56 v. r.
Ixvii. 31 (29) Ald.
llonly. Ocut. xxx. 15.
Num. xix. 11, 13.
8. epn eras Af: epedias B'D3G:
m = ch. i, 27. vii. 13, 15, 17, 18.
n John xviii. 28. ch. vii. 21. xii, 21 (bis). xiii. ’4 (bis). xvi. 19.
epiOias D'.
rel 17 syr Orig Ephr Chr Thdrt Damase Thl Gc Ruf,.
1 Cor. v. 3. 1 Pet.iv.3. Pas.
1 Cor, xiii. 5. 3 John
om wey BD!GN! Thl: ins ADSK LN?
rec Ouuos Kat opyn, with
D°KL 17 rel syr Thdrt Ee: txt ABD'GN m vulg Syr arm Orig Ephr Damase Thi.
9. covdaiw and eAAnve Gm 1. 109 D!-lat.
cognition, relative precedence, see Matt.
x. 32; xxv. 34:—aOapotav, incorrupti-
bility : so the aim of the Christian athlete
is described, 1 Cor. ix. 25, as being to obtain
orepavoy &pbapror. 8. rots Se e&
€pilcias] as in reff., to be supplied by
otow, those who pee in, act from, are
situated in and do their deeds from—epilela
as a status, as of €& spoken of place.
épileta,—not from épis, from which it is
distinguished 2 Cor. xii. 20; Gal. v. 20,
but from épi@os, a hired workman, whence
€piWetw or -ouat, properly ‘to work for
hire,’ but met. and generally, ‘ ambitum
exercere, used principally of official per-
sons, who seek their own purposes in the
exercise of their office, and (according to
the analogy of madela from matdeto,
dovreta from dSovAedw, GAaovela from
araCovetouat) epiOela, * ambitus, ‘self-
seeking, ‘greed. It stands opposed to
Umomov)) Epyov ayalod, which requires self-
denial and forbearance. There seems to
be no reason why this, the proper mean-
ing, should not here apply, without seek-
ing for a more far-fetched one, as ‘ the
party spirit of the Jews,’ Riickert. The
mistake of rendering it ‘ contentiousness,’
and imagining a derivation from épis pre-
vailed universally (Orig., Chrys., Theodo-
ret, Theophyl., cum., Hesych., ipibevero,
€prdoveixer Vulg., Erasm., Grot., &c., and
even the more recent English Commen-
tators, Bloomf., Slade, and Peile, tots é&
épiOelas, i.e. Tots éptCover) according to De
Wette, down to Riickert, who first sug-
gested the true derivation. It appears to
have arisen from éepe0i(w being somewhat
similar in sound. Aristotle uses it in the
sense of ‘ambitus,’ canvassing for office, in
Polit. v. 3,—metaBddrAdovor SE af wodtrezat
Kod tvev ordoews Sid. Te THS EpiOelas, Hsmep
év ‘Hpaly é& aiperav yap 5a Tovro eroln-
cay KAnpwrds, drt podvTo Tovs épiMevome-
vous. Fritzsche, who has an excursus on
the word, renders of é& ép10.,—‘ malitiost
Jraudum machinatores’ Ignatius, ad
Philad. § 8, p. 704, opposes ép.6. to
Xpiorouabia. On the whole, self-seeking
seems best to lay hold of the idea of the
word: see note on Phil. i. 16, 17.
ére.8. p. TH GA.| Hindering (see ch. i. 18)
the truth which they possess from working,
by self-abandonment to iniquity.
épy? kK. Gupds] According to this arrange-
ment (see var. readd.) the former word
denotes the abiding, settled mind of God
towards them () épyh T. Ocod péever er
avtév, John iii. 86),—and the latter, the
outbreak of that anger at the great day of
retribution. So the grammarians: @uuds
bev eott mpdskatpos (excandescentia, as
Yicero)" dpy} 5& moAuxpévios pynotkakia,
Ammon. See the same further brought ont
by Tittmann, Syn. i. p. 131. 9. Odi.
Kk. otev.| An expression from the LXX
(see refi.) : the former signifying more the
outward weight of objective infliction,—the
latter the subjective feeling of the pressure.
It is possible, in the case of the suffering
Christian, for the former to exist without
the latter: so 2 Cor. iv. 8, év maytt @A:-
Bopevot, GAN od orTevoxwpovmevor. But
here the objective weight of infliction and
the subjective weight of anguish, are co-
existent. éml wacav wp. av@.] pro-
bably a periphrasis for the sake of emphasis
and solemnity. Had it been (as Fritzsche
and Meyer) to indicate that the soul is the
suffering part of the man (nearly so Olsh.),
it should have been as De W. observes,
em) wWuxty mavros avOp., or emt racav
Wuxi avOpérwy (see reff.). KaTepy. |
KkatepydCoua and épydCouat seem to have
but this slight difference,—that kar epyd(o-
feat, answering rather to our ‘commit,’ is
more naturally used of evi/, as manifested
and judged of by separate acts among
8—13.
2 886a St Kat Ty Kat P cio mavri 7
"50 ayabev, ‘Toudaiw te movwrov Kal “EAs 1 ov yap
IIPOX POMAIOYS.
dol
= Y £9
*epyaConery 9 ihe aa
Us viii. 6. [x.
15 (from Isa.
Xr yi Aa 12 ,’ , lii. ae
oe = q = Matt. vii.
éoTLv aiid ans Hila F Tapa TW Ew" Ocot yap “avo q 23. eet
G 10 al.
Bee muapror, dvouwe Kat Beat iat vyrat, Kal Voor ‘ev Seyyiy'?
Oa Ww Oy 13 er Matt. xix. ae
aX ¢ Luke vi. 4
von Naproy, ta vowou Kot yoorvTav ov yao Ol chi vil, 1 bie.
xii. 21. xiii. 3,4. Philem.14al. 2 Kings xiv.17. see Joha v.29. 1 Pet. iii. 11. s Eph. vi. ¥.
Col. iii. 25. Jamesii. 1 onlyt. (-2Tns, Acts x. 24. -mrTetv, James ii. 9.) t here bis only t-
2 Mace. viii. 17 only; but not =. (-os, 1 Cor. ix 21.) u = Matt. xviii.14. 1 Cor.i.18. 2 Cor.
ii. 15. iv.3. 2 Thess. ii. 10. Ley, xxiii. 30.- v=here only. (Gal. iii. 11. v. 4.) w = Acts
Xvii. 31. ver. 16. ch. iii.6 al. Ps. xev. 13.
10. Tw epyat. ro ayaboy bef mayt: G.
11. om tw D!.
men, whereas épyd(oua:, answering to our
‘work,’ is used indifferently of both good
andevil. That this is not always kept to,
see reff., especially ch. vii. 18, and Plat.
Legg. iii. p. 686, end, in both which places,
however, definite acts are spoken of. The
pres. part. denotes the status or habit of
the man. *lovd. 7. mpa@tov | Because
the Jew has so much greater advantages,
and better opportunities of knowing the
divine will: and, therefore, pre-eminent
responsibility. 10. eipyvq| Here in
its highest and most glorious sense, see
reff. 11.] This remark serves as the
transition to what follows, not merely as
the confirmation of what went before. As
to what preceded, it asserts that though
the Jew has had great advantages, he shall
be justly judged for his use of them, not
treated as a favourite of Heaven: as to
what follows, it introduces a comparison
between him and the Gentile to shew
how fairly he will be, for those greater
advantages, regarded as mp@ros in re-
sponsibility. And thus we gradually (see
note on ver. 1) pass to the direct com-
parison between him and the Gentile,
and consideration of his state. x
12—16.] The justice of a GENERAL judg-
ment of ALL, but according to the advan-
tages of each. 12. Scour y. ave-
ws ....] For as many as have sinned
without (the) law (of Moses): shall aiso
perish without (the) law (of Moses): i. e.
it shall not appear against them in judg-
ment. Whether that will ameliorate their
case, isnot even hinted,—but only the fact,
as consonant with God’s justice, stated.
That this is the meaning of ayduws is clear
from 1 Cor. ix. 21. That even these have
sinned against @ véuos, is presently (ver.
14) shewn. Chrys. says (Hom. vi. p- 466),
eae tf bev yap “EAAnY avouws xpiverau
Td de dvd pws évTaula ov Td XadewSTEpOV,
GAAG TO Hucpdtepoy Aeyer’ (this is perhaps
saying too much, see above) TOUTETTIV,
ovK EXEL KaTNyopovyT a Tov vouoy. Td yap
avduws Todt eat, xwpls THs et éxelvou
kataxplocws, pnoly, awd Tav Tis pioews
Aoyiopav KaTadind¢erar pudvwv. 6 5é “lov-
datos, evyduws, ToUTEOTL, meTaA THS PUTEws
kal Tod vduov KaTnyopovvTos’ bam yap
mAclovos amhAavoey emipedAclas, ToTovTH
melCova Sdoer Slenv. kat (De W.)
serves to range daoA., as well as japr.
under the common condition ayéues: As
many as without the law have sinned,
without the law shall also perish.
a&toXovvTat, the result of the judgment
on them, rather than xpsdqcovrat, its pro-
cess, because the absence of the law would
thus seem as if it were the rule by which
they are to be judged,—whereas it is only
an accident of that judgment, which de-
pends on other considerations. év
vope, under (in, as a status) the (Mosaic)
law; not ‘a law,’ which would make the
sentence a truism: it is on that very
undeniable assumption, ‘that all who have
had a law given shall be judged by that
law,’ that the Apostle constructs his ar-
gument, asserting it with regard to the
Mosaic law in the case of the Jews, and
proving that the Gentiles have had a law
given to them in the testimony of their
consciences. As to the omission of the
article, no inference can be drawn, as the
word follows a preposition: see ver. 23,
where éy véum unquestionably means ‘ in
the law of Moses.’ Besides, these verses
are no general assertions concerning men
who have, and men who have not, a law re-
vealed (for all have one), but a statement
of the case as concerning Jews and Gen-
tiles. vépos, throughout, signifies the
law of Moses, even though anarthrous, in
every place, except where the absence of the
article corresponds to a logical indefinite-
ness, as e.g. Eavtots eiow vdmos, ver. 14:
and even there not‘ @ law :’ see note. And
I hope to shew that it is never thus anar-
thrously used as = 6 vdwos, except where
usage will account for such omission of the
article. d1a vop. «pO. | Now, shall be
judged by the law: for that will furnish
the measure and rule by which judgment
.
332
x James i. 22,
23, 24 only.
IPOS POQMAIOY:.
5 ‘ oe -
“akpoatat vomov oiKatot ” mapa TW Dew, aAXr ot
if.
z ‘
busca
re 3 , Z ,
oat vo, VOHOV * Stxaceogoveat. 14 Grav yap eOvn Ta Ba vowov
y 1 Cor. iii. v bee <
Gal. jal.
_ Caali.at al exovra puoe © ra TOU vOWoU TOW, oUTOL vomoY an
bove (x), +
Grist eXovres EaUTOIS Ses voHoC, Lae olrwvec * evesikvuvTat TO
(Anta eoe
28) only
hse fh Eoyouv TOU vopou *-ypamrov gv Taic kapdiarg auTov,
2 2 Bin (ast cuLpapTUoOvENC aUTwY THC ‘cuverdnoewe Kat “ peracd
xiii. 39. c
iii. 20 al23.) only, exc. Luke xviii. 14. James ii. 21, 24,25. Ps. exlii. 2
only. (ch, i. 26 rett.) c constr., ch. viii. 5,
x. 41 reff.
(2 Tim. iv. 14 [see note there] al2.
g here only. 2 Chron. xxxvi. 22.
i. 1U reff. (Eccles. x. 20.) Wied. xvii. 11 only.
e = ch. ix. 17 (from Exod. ix. 16), a
Heb vi. 10, 11) only. P.H.
Esdr. ii, 2. 2 Mace. xi. 16 only.
b Gal. ii. 15. iv. 8. Eph. ii. 3
Matt. xvi. 23. Luke ii. 49. Thue, viii. 31. d = Acts
2 Cor. viii. 24. Eph. ii.7. 1 Tim. i. 16
(Gen. 1. 15, 17.) f see ver. 7 reff.
heh, Vili. 16. ix. 1 only t. i 2 Cor.
k Acts xv. 9 refi.
18. rec ins Tov bef 1st vouov, with KL 17 rel Mcion-e Chr Thdrt Phot : om ABDGX
Damasc.
ot, aAAa G.
Phot: om ABD'!GS Damasce.
14. for yap, 5¢ G eth arm Orig,(om,).
om tw BD! k!: ins AD'GKLN® rel Mcion-e Chr Thdrt.
rec ins tov bef 2nd vopov, with D3KL 17 rel Mcion-e Chr Thdrt
aft SicawOnoovrat ins mapa bew G.
for aAr
ins ta bef e6vn G k. rec Ton
(grammatical corrn), with D* rel Chr Thdrt: woe: KL a 17: moovow D'G: txt ABR
Clem Orig, Daimasce.
15. Bear porte : evdiny. GR.
for ovrot, ot Totouvra G vulg D-lat Orig, Hil Pelag Fulg.
TNS pUreenireas bef avtwy DG Aug :
aQuTols
7. ovy. tol! Chr Jer Ruf: avtos 7. o. avtwy vulg Pelag Ambrst: txt ABKLN 17 rel.
will proceed. 13.] This is to explain to
the Jew the fact, that not his mere hearing
of the law read in the synagogue (= his
being by birth and privilege a Jew) will
justify him before God, but (still keeping to
general principles and not touching as yet
on the impossibilily of being thus justified)
the doing of the law. Tov has been ap-
parently inserted in both cases in the later
MSS. from seeing that véuos was indispu-
tably the law of Moses, and stumbling at
the unusual expression of axpoaral vduov.
But the of in both cases is generic, and
akpoarhs-vdéuou, mointys-vouov (almost as
one word in each case), ‘a hearer-of-the-
law, a ‘doer-of-the-law.” So that the
correct English for of akpoaral vduou is
hearers of the law, and for of rorqtal vduov,
doers of the law. It is obvious, that
with the omission of the rod in both places,
the whole elaborate and ingenious criticism
built by Bp. Middleton on its use, falls to
the ground. (See Middleton, Gr. Art. in
loc.) His dictum, that such an expression
as of &kpoara) véuov is inadmissible, will
hardly in our day be considered as deciding
the matter. 14.] €@vn, the Gen-
tiles; see ch. iii. 29; xi. 13; xv. 10, 12.
In this place, €@vn Ta ph vdu. Exovta is
the only way in which the sense required
could be expressed, for ra €0vn Ta ph v.
éx., would mean ‘ those Gentiles who have
not the law,’ as also would é6vn wh vduov
éx., whereas the meaning clearly is, the
Gentiles not having the law.
vopov|] Again, ‘the law,’ viz. of Moses.
A law, they have; see below.
dvcet, by nature,—rois puoixois emdueva
Aoy:opots, Schol. in Matthai. To
.
Tov vopov m.| do things pertaining
to the law, e. g. abstain from stealing, or
killing, or adultery. But it by no means
follows that the Apostle means that the
Gentiles could fulfil the law, do the things,
i.e. all the things enjoined by the law (as
De Wette) : he argues that a conscientious
Gentile, who knows not the law, does,
when he acts in accordance with require-
ments of the law, so far set up the (see
below on the art.) law to himself. Te
Tov vduov is interpreted by Beza, Wetst.,
and Elsner, ‘that which the law does, i.e.
make sanctions and prohibitions: but this
can hardly be. The Apostle does not
deny certain virtues to the Gentiles, but
maintains the inefficiency of those, and all
other virtues, towards man’s salvation.
€avTois eiotv vopos| are to themselves
(so far) the law, not ‘a law,’ for a law
may be just or unjust, God’s law or man’s
law: there is but one law of God, partly
written in men’s consciences, more plainly
manifested in the law of Moses, and fully
revealed in Jesus Christ. The art. could
not have been here used without stultifying
the sentence by distributing the predicate,
making the conscientious heathen to be to
himself the whole of the law, instead of
‘the law, so far as he did the works of the
law’ Cf. Aristot. Eth. iv. 14, 6 5& xaplecs
k. €AevOepios ows Eker oloy vduos dy
EavT@. 15.| évdelxv., by their con-
duct shew forth,—give an example of.
TO Epy. Tod vopov = Ta Tod vduou
above: but sing. as applying to each of the
particular cases supposed in the érav....
moa@ow. If it had here been ra épya Tob
véuov, it might have been understood to
4
ABDG
KLRab
edfgh
kimn-
ol7 —
14—17.
,’ ~ ~
atAnrwy tor ' Noytopov " KaTnyooouvTwy Kal ° amo-
? e , =
16 ey nme °n
AoyouLevwv.
nabs., Luke xxi. 14. Acts xxvi. 1(xix. 33 reff.).L.P. Jer. xii. 1.
i q Matt. vi. 4 al.
rch. xvi. 25.
Gen. iv. 17, 25.
Kxiv. 50. p ver. 12 reff.
24. 2Cor.iv. 2. Isa. xxii. 9.
2 Thess. ii. 14. s here only.
25.) Micah iii. 11. w. dat., 1 Macc. yiii. 12.
Stadroyicneyv G.
16. rec (for 4) ore, with DGKLN 17 rel vulg syr Ath
tol Syr copt Cyr Damasce(év 7) Ambr Aug Ambrst.
ino. Orig:
Tov kupiou nuwy D G-lat Ambr.
IPOS PQMAIOY®S.
p ~¢ ‘ Sg
KOLVEL oO Qeoe Ta KouTTa
ri) > 7 N So ees th , r 8 Sp ee ~
v ay OWT WY, KaTa TO evayye tov f40v ta Inoov
- 17 , 8 ‘ i, 8 = s? / \o Fae 4
XeloTOU. €l O&F GU ovoatoc erovomacn Kal eT avaTauy
om ing. Tert: 5.2 w xv is written by N-corr! over an erasure.
333
12 Cor. x. 5
only. Prov.
S. wi. iS. Jer.
xi. 19.
m = John v. 45
al. Paal,
Acts xxiv. 13
als. Epp.,
here only t.
1 Mace, vii. 6.
oconstr., 2 Cor.j.4. Matt.
Deut. xxix. 29. constr., 1 Cor, iv. 5. xiv.
2 Tim. ii. 8 only. see 2 Cor. iv. 3. 1 Thess. i. 5.
t = here (Luke x. 6) only. (Num. xi.
Chr Thdrt ec Ruf,: txt AB
xp. bef ino. BIR! ?) : ev xpioTw
add
17. ree for et Se, de (see note), with D*L rel syr Chr Thdrt @e: txt ABD'KN d?
mean the whole works of the law, which
the indefinite dtay prevents above.
ypamtov év tT. «. avt.| Alluding to the
tables of stone on which the law was
written: see a similar figure 2 Cor. ili. 3.
ovppapt. avr. tT. cvverd.| This is
a new argument, not a mere continuation
of the @dSerzis above. Besides their giving
this example by actions consonant with the
law, their own conscience, reflecting on
the thing done, bears witness to it as good.
cupp., not merely = papt., as Grot.,
Thol., nor = una testatur, viz. as well as
their practice,—but confirming by its
testimony, the ovr signifying the agree-
ment of the witness with the deed, as con
in contestari, confirmare :—perhaps also
the ovy may be partly induced by the cvv
in cuvetdhioews,—referring to the reflective
process, in which a man confers, so to
speak, with himself. kat pet. GAA.
k.7.A.] and their thoughts (judgments or
reflections, the self-judging voices of the
conscience, which being corrupted by sin-
ful desires are often divided) among one
another (i. e. thought against thought in
inner strife) accusing, or perhaps excusing
(these two participles are absolute, de-
scribing the office of these judgments,—
and nothing need be supplied, as ‘ them,’ or
‘their deeds’). Notice the similarity of
this strife of conscience, and its testimony,
as here described, to the higher and more
detailed form of the same conflict in the
Christian man, ch. vii. 16. 16.| Zo
what has this verse reference? Hardly to
that just preceding, which surely speaks of
a process going on in this life (so however
Chrys. takes it. See also a fine passage in
Bourdaloue’s Sermons, Vol. i. Serm. ii. p.
27, ed. Paris, 1854) : nor, as commonly as-
sumed, to «piOjjoovra (ver. 12), which only
terminates one in a series of clauses con-
nected by yap :—but to the great affirma-
tion of the passage, concluding with ver.
10. To this itis bound, it appears to me,
by the 7a xputra ray avOpdérwv, answering
to macav Wuxhv avOpaérov, ver. 9. This
affirmation is the /as¢ sentence which has
been in the dogmatic form :—after it we
have a series of quasi-parenthetic clauses
ov ydp—ibao. yap—ov ydp—érav yap;
i.e., the reasons, necessitated by the start-
ling assertion, are cone after another given,
and, that having been done, the time is
specified when the great retribution shall
take place. kata TO evayy. pou] See
reff. according to (not belonging to
kpwet as the rule of judgment, but to the
whole declaration, ‘as taught in,’ ‘as form-
ing part of’) the Gospel entrusted to me
to teach. 81a “Ino. xp.] by- Jesus
Christ, viz. as the Judge—see John y. 22:
—belongs to kpwei. See also Acts xvii.
31. 17—24.| The pride of the Jews
in their law and their God contrasted
with their disobedience to God and the
law. 17. ei 8€] This has been in the
later MSS. changed into id¢, apparently to
avoid the anacoluthon, or perhaps merely
by mistake originally. | The anacoluthon,
however, is more apparent than real. It is
only produced by the resumption of thie
thread of the sentence with ody, ver. 21.
Omit (in the sense) only that word, and all
proceeds regularly—‘ But if thow art de-
nominated a Jew, and ge... ., thou that
teachest thy neighbour, dost thou not teach
thyself ?? &c. The et 8€ ov carries on the
apostrophe from ver. 5, since when it has
been broken off by reference to the great
day of retribution and its rule of judg-
ment; the ov identifies the person ad-
dressed here as the same indicated by the
gov and ceavt@ there, and by @ av@pweme
in ver. 1. Thus the Apostle by degrees sefs
in his place as a Jew the somewhat inde-
finite object of his remonstrances hitherto,
—and reasons with him as such. étrov. |
No stress on ér-,—art named, ‘denomi-
nated,’—‘ hast the name put on thee ;’ see
reff, émavam.| Used of false trust,
334
ITPOS PQMAIOY=S
A:
S18
, ‘iu - ’ \ , ‘ /
u Paul (er: you Kat “Kavyaca “ev Dew |? Kat “ywwwoxee ‘70 OEAnua
2 Cor. x. 15 \ oxy 5 , ‘ 8 , a , ’ -
nl.jonly, exe. KOE okmacec ra lapépovta, “KaTnxyoumevocg ek TOU
ames 1. Y. ,
iv ‘ b U 7 \ € ‘ 7 =
ye gt vomeU, 19° -émroac te oeavtov © odnyov elvat TUPAwY,
v Acts xxii. 14 ~ ~ dad? ,
reff pus meni BV “ oxoret, ae * mardeur ny ‘ agpéven, dacKaXov
w ellips., here
only. see ch.
® ypnriwy, Exovra my
adnOetag é ev TW von"
z = 1 Cor. xv.
“s Dan. vii. Ne
Eywy
a Duke i i. 4.
Acts xviii. 26. xxi. 21, 24.
i. 16 reff. d Lukei.7%. 1 Thess. v. 4.
only. Hos. v. 2. Sir. xxxvii. 19 only.
xii. 6,11. Eph. v.17. 1 Pet. ii. 16 only.
(-ovabat, Gal. iv. 19.)
1 = here (Rev. xxi. 8) only.
Job v. 3.
Exod. v. 21.
vulg G-lat Syr Clem Damase Thl.
* nop gusty THE
21 6
ov eaones 5 E O knpvoowy
,
‘an ory evELy MOLY EVELC 3
1 Cor. xiv. 19. Gal. vi. 6 only t.
1 John i, 6.
f Luke xi. 40. xii. 20.
i = Lokei,77. xi. 52 al.
emavamavet K 17(sic).
‘ yreosewe Kal TC
ovv diddoKkwy & ETEOOV oeauTov
€
k s t , 99
n KAgmtew KAETTEC 3 ~“O
im
A
' B8cAvecdmEvoeg Ta
b constr. w. inf., 2 Cor. x. 7.
see Matt.iv. 16. Isa. ix. 2.
1 Cor. xv. 36.
g = 1 Cor. iii. 1 reff.
Mal. ii. 7.
© Acts
e Heb. xii. 9
2 Cor. xi. 16 bis, 19
h 2 Tim iii, 5 onlyt.
k constr., Acts xxi. 4, 21.
rec ins Tw bef voue,
with D8KL 17 rel Thdrt Thl Gc: om ABD'!& Clem Did Chr-comm (and mss) Damase.
20. om didack. vnmiwy A.
21. ins roy bef erepov Ln 1. 30. 38. 93.
see reff. The 74 of the ree. has been in-
serted in the later MSS. before véue, be-
cause it here clearly applied to the ‘law of
Moses,’ and the absence of the article gave
offence. It is omitted, because ‘ the law’
is not here distributed—it is not the law
itself in its entirety, which is meant, but
the fact of having or of knowing the law :—
the strict way of expressing it would per-
haps be, ‘in the fact of possessing a law,’
which condensed into our less accurate
English, would be in one word, in the
law: viz. ‘which thou possessest.’
Kavx. év 0.] viz. ‘as thy Covenant God :’
“as being peculiarly thine.’ 18. -yev.
TO OX. | “eds having been just mentioned,
it is left to be inferred that @€Anua refers
to Him. Soxip. tT. Sad.) provest
(in the sense of sifting and coming to a
conclusion on) things which differ, —
évavtia GAAHAots, Sikatoovynyv Kx. adiKlay,
«.7.A. Theod. xplvets ri Se? mpata x. rh
wh be? mpakoau, Theophylact. The Vulg.
‘probas utiliora,’ and E. V. ‘ approvest the
things that are more excellent, is some-
what flat in meaning, and not so applicable.
KaTnx. é«k Tov vopn.| being (ha-
bitually, not in youth only,—force of pres.)
instructed (not merely catechetically but
didactically, in the synagogues, &c.) out of
the law (Tod véuov, though after a prepo-
sition—because the law is distributed—it
is the book of the law, the law itself, out
of which the rathxnots takes place).
19. mérrovbas, sometimes with éavr@ or
ep éavt@ (see Luke xviii. 9), and some-
times with 67: (Luke, ib.; Gal. v.10; Phil.
ii. 24; Heb. xiii. 18),—regardest thyself
as,—art confident in thyself as being.
é8yyov tupd.] We can hardly say
with Olsh., that the Apostle undoubtedly
refers to the saying of our Lord, Matt. xv.
14,—but rather that both that saying and
this were allusive to a title ‘leaders of the
blind’ given to themselves by the Pha-
risees, with which Paul as a Pharisee would
be familiar. Similarly, the following titles
may have been well- known and formal ex-
pressions of Jewish pride with reference to
those who were without the covenant.
20.| péphwory, not the mere apparent
likeness (Theophylact, &c.), but the veal
representation. The law, as far as it went,
was a reflexion of the holiness and cha-
-racter of God. Hardly so much is here
meant (Olsh.), as that the law contained a
foreshadowing of Christ,—for the Apostle
is speaking now more of moral truth and
knowledge, by which a rule of judgment is
set up, sufficient to condemn the Jew as
well as the Gentile. But after all, this
clause (€xovta . . . vdum) is not to be
pressed as declaring a fact, but taken sub-
jectively with regard to the Jew, after mézo:-
@as, and understood of his estimate of the
law. év TG vopw, because the book of
the law, the whole law, is denoted.
22. 6 BSeX. 7. €18. tepoovdcis| The con-
trast here must be maintained ; which it
will not be if we understand fepoovaAets
of robbing the temple of God of offerings
destined for him (Jos. Antt. xviii. 3, 4).
And 7a e¥Swda leads into the kind of rob-
bery which is meant. Thou who abhor-
rest idols, dost thou rob their temples?
That it was necessary to vindicate Jews
from such a charge, appears from Acts
xix. 37: and Jos. Antt. iv. 8. 10 gives as
a law, by ovday fepa Eevind, und dy erwvo-
Maomévoy H Tin eg peep tae AapBavev.
ABDK
LNrabe
dfghk
lmno
17
G n repi-
TOM .+
ABDG
KLNab v
edfgh
kimn
017
18—27.
™ cdwAra ” tepoaurAste 5
Pp 7 - 7 ‘ » q > 7 :
TapaBacewe TOV vOUOV TOV Neov arimacerc 3
vv ~ ~ ’ c ~ ~ > ~ A
Ovoua TOU Ocov Ot vuac * BAaopnuetrat ey row EOveotvy,
“ \ > s > - yA
TEpiToun pev yao wperet, €av
a\ u , ' 2 e
O€ maoaBarnc vouov ye, Nn
v? ' w , 96 2s s f. % 5.
TEOLTOMN GOV AaKOOPvOTLA — YEYOVEV. av ovy H akKpo~
x 8 , ~ , y 7, ’ \ e
iKatwhaTa TOU VOLOU Y puvAacon, ovxt 7
Ae , 95
KaUWC ytyeamrat. i
>N
\ ey t , =
vowov TOaGONC €av
’ ‘
Buorta Ta
IIPOS POMAIOY=.
335
92a ? , ~ Q -
23 Oc ° ev vow ° Kavyacal, Sta THE Mw. att., Acts
xv. 20.
1 Cor. xii. 2.
1 Thess. i. 9.
1 Johny. 21.
2 Chron,
XVii. 3.
n here only t-
(-Aos, Acts
xix.37.-Ala,
2 Mace. xiii.
6.)
24 TO yao
o ver. 17.
p w. gen, here
only. 2Mace.
xv. 10. abs.,
\ ch. iv. 15 reff.
Din t Pb ta ASrages ‘ , 2
axpopuotia aurov * eg TEpLTOMNY . AoyaInoerat ol cap erinivee
25.)
Dee cd , > ’ ‘ , -
Kowel n “ek “ pucews i akooPuaria Tov vonov © TeXovaGa 4 Acisv. al
rIsa.lii.5. Tit. ii. 6. s absol., = John vi. 63 only. Hab. ii. 18. Xen. Anab. v. 1. 12. t here
only. see John vii. 19. u here bis. Gal. ii. 18. James ii. 9, ll only t. Symm., P3. xvi. 4; Ezek.
Xvili. 10. veh. iv.9—!2 al. Paul only, exc. Acts xi. 3. Gen. xvil. Ll. w = Matt.
iv. 3 L. Johnii. 9. x. 16. x ch. i. 32 reff. act., = Acts xvi. 4 reff. Exod. xv. 2.
zindef. pron., Luke xxiii. 51. John viii. 44.
3. 3. b. a = ch. ix. 8 reff.
d = Gal. ii. 15. (ch. i. 26 reff.)
25. om yap d m vulg D-lat eth arm lat-ff.
axpoftoria(but corrd) R&R!
26. for ra Sixawpara, Sucawua G-gr G?-lat harl!.
vulg D-lat ; custodias Aug.
Eph. v. 12.
b see ch. xiv. 22. James iv. }1, 12.
e = James ii. 8. Gal. v. 16.
Winer, edn. 6, § 22.
y
1 Pet. iii. 14. Jude 24 al.
c here ouly.
for mpacons, pudAacons D!; odserves
gvaacoet L Damase.
ovx BX 44 Damase: txt DGKL 17 rel Chr Thdrt Thl Ge. (A uncert.)
27. om 7 ex gue. axpoB. G.
23.] év vope, see above (ver. 17)
for the omission of the art.—but it is not
51d rapaBdoews vduov, because a mapaBacis
is Tod vduov, the law being broken as a
whole (see James ii. 10: and on mapa-
Barns vduov below, ver. 25). And tijs
map. T. vdu., is thy breaking of the law.
This question comprehends the pre-
vious ones. 24.] ‘For what is written
in the prophet Isaiah, is no less true now
of you:’ ‘the fact is so, as it is written.’
25—29.] Inasmuch as CIRCUM-
CISION was the especial sign of the cove-
nant, and as such, a distinction on which
the Jewish pride dwelt with peculiar satis-
faction: the Apostle sets forth, that cir-
cumcision without the keeping of the law
is of no avail, and that true circumcision
and true Judaism are matters of the
heart, not of the flesh only. GAN 7 Tept-
rouy méeya, pnolv. duoroy@ Kays, GAG
aéte; Srav Exn Thy evdov mepiTouny. Kab
oxéres otverw, Tas ecvKalpws Toy mepl
aitiis eishyaye Adyov. od yap evOéws am’
aris ipkato, ered) ToAAH Fy adris 7
imdanyiss GAN jvina Bdeikev adtods ard
Tov pmelCovos mposkekpoukdTas kal THs Els
Qebvy Bracdnulas aitious, téte Aowrdy
AaBov Toy axpoaThy KaTeyvokdTa avTa@y,
kal yuuvdoas THs mpocdplas, cisaryer TOY
mep) mepitoufs Adyov, Bappav bre ovdels
avTh Wnpietrae Aowwdyv. Chrys. Hom. Vii.
47. 25.] awepttopy, chosen as an
example in point, and as the most com-
prehensive and decisive example ; and péy
ydp binds it on to the foregoing reason-
ing: q.d. ‘in the same way circumcision
&e.’ vopov, not Toy ydmov, Tpacoys,—
because the latter would import the per-
fect fulfilment of the whole law : whereas
the supposition is of acting according to
the law, doing the law. mapaBaTns
véuou here, not Tod vduov, the mapaBarTns
vouov, like axpoarhs-vduou and omtihs-
véuou, ver. 13, being a designation generally
of a law-breaker, as those of a law-hearer
and law-fulfiller. axpoB. yéy.| counts
for nothing : the Jewish transgressor is
no better off than the Gentile transgressor.
26. 4 axpoB.] i.e. of ev Ti axpo-
Buotig. 7a Stkatwp.] plainly, the
moral requirements, not the ceremonial :
for one of the very first of the latter was,
to be circumcised. The case is an impos-
sible one: nor does the Apostle put it as
possible, only as shewing manifestly, that
circumcision, the sign of the covenant of
the Law, was subordinate to the keeping of
the Law itself. The articles shew how
completely hypothetical the case is—no less
than entire fulfilment of all the moral pre-
cepts of the law being contemplated.
odxt 4... -] ‘In such a case would not he
be counted asa circumcised person ??
27.] I prefer with De Wette (and Erasm.),
Luth., Bengel, Wetst., Knapp, and Meyer,
to regard this verse not as a continuation
of the question, but asa separate emphatic
assertion, and as leading the way to the next
verse, kpwet, ‘shall rise up in judg-
ment against,’ judge indirectly by his ex-
ample. See Matt. xii. 41, 42, where kata-
kp{vw is used in a sense precisely similar.
A ek d¥ccws axpoB.] ‘he, who
336
f =—ch. iy. 11.
xiv. 20.
2 Cor. ii. 4.
28
Heb. ix. 12. ov a 0
Winer, edn. h ti p i
6, $474.
g see note & ry pavepy ev
ver. 20 reff.
h here (Matt.
vi. 4, 6 rec.]
IPOS POQMAIOY®.
"ev Tw pavepy op Hee EOTLV, ove: 1
‘oapKt meptroun, ™
‘ kouTTw ‘Tovdatos, Kal TEptronn ‘kapdiag & Ev
IT. 28, 29.
aE TOV ‘Sa & Yeaunaroc Kal TEPLTOUIC mapaBarny vopou.
Ney
k? ~
adXa 0 4 €v TW
m 4
TVEVUATE
é
only. art’ ov oO "emat OUK avOporwy arr’
ich. viii. 8, 9. ov yan ov 0 “Emawvoc ove ° £6 alae
' ; o ~ ~
coe. 9 eae'Gr oUt GEOU.
vi. 12. Eph. Le Pp
ii. 11 (bis). Phil. i. 22. iii. 3, 4 (bis). Col. ii.1, 1 Tim. aeab. ee 16. 1 Pet.iv.1,2. lJohniv. 2. 2 John 7.
k Matt. as above. John vii 4. 10. xviii. 20. 1 = 1 Cor. iv. Ezek. xliv. 7, 9. m ch. vii. 6.
2 Cor. iii. 6. u Paul (1 Cor. iv. 6. Eph. i. Balb Nail enh ] Pet. i. 7. ii. 14. o = Matt.
i. 2u. Acts v.39. ch. vy. 16.
29. [aAAa, so BD'G.]
aft @eov ins ect D! vulg lat-ff.
remains in his natural state of uncircum-
cision,’ éx gia. is contrasted with ba
ypdu. x. tepit. below. The position of é«
gdicews decides for this rendering and
against joining it with Tehovoa, which
would require 7 a&poBvotia, ex picews TOY
véuov TeAoUCA. Tov vow. TEA. | Such is
the supposition—that an uncircumcised
man could fully act up to the (moral) re-
quirements of the law. Itis not } Tov vou.
Ted.; because akpof. is used in the widest
abstract sense: no distinction is made be-
tween one and another uncircumcised per-
son, but some one man is taken as an ex-
ample of axpoBuotia. So that the omis-
sion of the art. does not give a new hypo-
thetic sense, ‘if it fulfil the law,’ but
merely restates the hypothesis : fulfilling
(as it does, as we have supposed) the law.
ot Tov..... wapaBaTny vopov |
Here again the position of 5:4 ypauuar os
K. Tepitous, between tov and rapaBdrny,
sufficiently shews that, as ex puoews above;
it is a qualification of o& toy mapaBdrny
vduou. Bp. Middleton (it appears, Gr. Art.
in loc. and compare his ref.) would take
ot Thy bid ypduuatos K. mepiTouijs (bvTa),
‘thee who art a professor of the law and
a circumcised person, and understand
elva after mapaBarny.—shall adjudge thee
to be a transgressor of the law. But this
appears exceedingly forced, and inconsistent
with the position ‘of mapas. vduov, which
if it had been thus emphatic; would cer-
tainly have been placed either before, or
immediately after xpwei. We may well
imagine that such an interpretation would
not have been thought of, except to serve
the supposed canon, that, ‘if tév were im-
mediately the artic ‘le of wapaBdrny, vduov
depending on it could not be anarthrous.’
See above on trapaB. véu. ver. 25, and on
ver. 13. Sa yp. «. mep.| did (see
reff.) is here used of the state in which the
man is when he does the act, regarded as
the medium through which the act is done.
It is rightly rendered by in E. V. (not,
for 2nd ev, os G D-lat.
om Tov bef 6c. D?G a.
‘in spite of, as Kéllner and al.)
ypapparos] ‘litera scripta,’ the written
word: here in a more general sense than
in ver. 29, where it is pressed to a contrast
with mvedua: thee, who in a state of
external conformity with the written
law and of circumcision, art yet a trans-
gressor of the law. In vv. 28, 29, sup-
ply the ellipses thus: in ver. 28, fill up the
subjects from the predicates, —ob yap 6 ev
i pavepp (‘Iovdaios) "Iovdatds ear, ovdé
ev TS pavep@ ev capk (mepitou?) wept-
rane (é€oriv); in ver. 29, fill up the
predicates: from the subjects,—aAaa 6 ev
T@ Kpunt@ “lovdatos (‘Iovdaids ear), Kah
mepitouy Kapdias ev mvevuatt ov ypdumare
(wepitoun eat). Thus the veal Jew only,
and the real circumcision only, are ex-
pressed in both verses. This is the ar-
rangement of Beza, Estius, Riickert, De
Wette: Erasm., Luther, Meyer, Fritzsche,
take "Iovdatos, and éy mv. od ypdu., as the
predicates in ver. 29; but the latter gives
a very vapid sense, besides that the opposi-
tion of 6 év TG pavep@, and 6 év TG KpuTT@
is, as De W. observes, also vapid.
29.| év 7G xp. as belonging to *Iovd.
p arallel with Kapdlas as belonging to aa
Touy, both designating the inner : ‘and spiri-
tual reality, of which the name of Jew and
the carnal circumcision are only the signs.
mep. kapd. is NO new expression :—we
have it virtually in Deut. x. 16; Jer. iv.
4: see also Acts vii. 51. év tv.
ov yp.| in spirit, not in letter. Not
merely ‘spiritually, not externally :’ nor
does wv. allude to the necessitating cause
of circumcision (the uncleanness of the
inner man) ((@e., Grot., Estius, Fritzsche) :
—nor signify the material (‘que spiritu
constat,’ Erasm.): nor the vule (Meyer),
—but as De Wette rightly, the living
power or element, wherewith that inner
sphere of being is filled,—év being as in
Acts xvii. 28, of that in which any thing
lives and moves,—compare xapa év my.
ayly, ch. xiv. 17,—aydrn ev mv., Col. i.
III. 1—3.
Iif.
1 wpédera rng TEPLTOMNG 5 a
ial ida “ry [’ yao] 6 Ont ‘emiarevOnoay ta
nriotnoav TLVEC*
Geov. i yao; «&
r = Nam. xviii. 7. see Acts xv. 1].
Gal. ii. 7.
edn. 6, § 39.1
v Phil. i. 18. w = 2 Tim. ii. 13.
20. Heb. iii, 19. see note.
Crap. III. 1. om 4 GN}.
IPOS PQMAIOYS.
I tt x ‘ ms / * ,
Ti ovv ro ° eptacov TOU lovéatou, nH Tle 7)
Le a 7 r ,
moXv kaTta 7avra TOOTOYV,
s 1 Cor. xi. 18.
a as ii, 4. mearevbévtos thy ev Nepyauw fx BrobnKny, Diog. Laert. vii. 129. W iner,
u Acts vii. 38.
(Acts xxviii. 24 reff.
337
p= Matt. v. 37,
47. Eccles.
vii. 1 vat.
Dan. v. 12,
14 Theod.
" Adyta TOU tetas Beeles.
q Fale 16 only.
un n Job xxii. 3.
Ps. xxix. 9.
t =1 Cor. ix. 17. constr., Acts xxi. 3,
* amwotia
1 Pet.iv. ll only. Nam, xxiv. 4, I6 al.
x = ch. xi.
Heb. v. 12.
-tos, Luke xii. 46.)
2. rec aft wey ins yap, with AD3KLN 17 rel syr Thdrt Phot Thl ec; om BD'G vulg
Syr Chr Aug Orig.
3. neOncay 4, deliquerunt Pacian.
8, —Sovrevew ev cat. mv., ch. vii. 6,—elvar
ev mv., ch. villi. 9. So that mvedua here is
not man’s spirit, nor properly the Holy
Spirit, but the spirit, as opposed to the
letter, of the Jewish law and of all God’s
revelation of Himself. od | viz. lovdaiov,
—of the true Jew. epitouy xapd. as be-
longing to him, is subordinate. The
€mrawvos of such a character, (for érawos it
must be,) can only come from Him who sees
ev TS KpuTT@ (Matt. vi. 4, 6), and can dis-
cern the heart. III. 1—20.] Taxine
INTO ALL FAIR ACCOUNT THE REAL AD-
VANTAGES OF THE JEWS, THESE CANNOT,
BY THE TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE ITSELF
CONCERNING THEM, EXEMPT THEM FROM
THIS SENTENCE OF GUILTINESS BEFORE
Gop, IN WHICH ALL FLESH ARE IN-
VOLVED. 1—4.] The circumcised
Jew did unquestionably possess great ad-
vantages, which were not annulled by the
rebellion of some. 1.] ovv, ‘quae cum
itasint.’ Iftrue Judaism and true cireum-
cision be merely spiritual, what is the profit
of external Judaism and ceremonial cir-
cumcision 2 mwepiooov | advantage,
profit, pre-eminence,—see reff. Itis best
to take the question, not as coming from
an objector, which supposition has obscured
several parts of this Epistle, but as asked
by the Apostle himself, anticipating the
thoughts of his reader. 2.] wodd
answers the first question of ver. 1, but
takes no account of the second, as it is
virtually included in the first. Nor can
it be properly regarded as answered i in ch.
iv. 1 ff. (see there.) kata jTavTa
Tp.| not merely omnino, but as E. V. in
every way, i.e. in all departments of the
spiritual life. mpatov| The Apostle
begins as if intending to instance several
of these advantages, but having mentioned
the greatest, leaves it to his reader to fill
in the rest, and turns to establish what he
has just asserted. For mparov can only be
first,—‘secondly, &c., being to follow:
—unot, ‘ primarium illud’ (as Beza),—nor
Vou. II.
aft emorevOnoay ins avtos G?,
katapynon Lb! o Chr-mss?: katapyet
‘precipue’ (as Caly.),—nor ‘id quod pre-
cipuum est’ (as Caloy.), all of which are
attempts to avoid the anacoluthon: com-
pare a similar one at ch. i. 8. emo. |
see reft.—they were entrusted with.
Ta Adyta T. Beod | These words look very
like a reminiscence of Stephen’s apology,
see Acts vii.38. These oracles are not only
the law of Moses, but all the revelations of
God hitherto made of Himself directly, all
of which had been entrusted to Jews only.
By these they were received into a special
covenant, which advantage is therefore in-
cluded in their being entrusted with the
divine oracles. 3.] And this advan-
tage is not cancelled, nor the covenant
annulled, by their disobedience. wt
y4p;| For what? ( quid enim?’ Hor.
Sat. i. 1. 7.) The ydp confirms the pre-
ceding—the ri indicates some difficulty, or
anticipated objection to it. ei qTlor.
tues | If we place an interrogation at ydp,
we must render this, suppose some were
unfaithful; if only a comma, as in E. V.,
‘ For whatif...* The former seems pre-
ferable, as more according to usage. See
Phil. i. 18. qriotncav, did not
believe. If this seem out of place here,
where he is not speaking of faith or want
of faith as yet, but of aducta (ver. 5) and
moral guilt, we may meet the objection by
remembering that unbelief is here taken
more on its practical side, as involving
disobedience, than on the other. They
were amoro, unfaithful to the covenant,
the very condition of which was to walk
in the ways of the Lord and observe His
statutes. The word may have been chosen
on account of émotev@noay above and 7.
miotw T. Oeov below. By A ar.
k.7.A.] Shall their unfaithfulness (to the
covenant: see above, and Wisdom xiv. 25:
in the root of the matter, their unbelief,
as in reff.: and the substantive amorla is
bound to the verb Ariotynoay, but its ren-
dering must be ruled by the contrast to
H mlotis Tov Oeod, which must be ‘the
Z
338 IIPOS PQMAIOY®. Til.
y = Matt. xxiii. 4a
» ~ a y ’ -~ 0 -~
23. Tit. ii. QUTWV TIYV este TOU VEOU
WEEOV.) fy
xii. 22.
z Paul (ver. 31.
1 Cor. xiii. 8
al. fr.) only,
exc, Luke
xiii 7. Heb.
ii. 14. Ezra
iv. 21, 23. v.
5. vi. 8 ouly.
a Paul(v r. 6
alll.) only,
exc. Luke Ric
Zz , -
caged oO al bg Ha yévotro* one
yivéobw d¢ 0 Ode © ahnOne, Tac Of avOpwroc * ' Wevarnc, cdfg
klm
Kaoc yeypamrat "Ores av ee ev Tole ee 017
oOu Kal mxhone ey To “KpiveoBat O&. 5g Oe 7 1) ® aduKla
) eu - ; BS
EOOULEV 5 Ly
D 4
KkaTjTa avOpwmoy
esis
ouviornory, TL
mt ag
ey >
ae
nov Oeov LB ease
aouKoc 0 Deo 0 ‘emipepwy THY
xx.16. Josh. DY: c ro P w 4 ; 0 D 0
xxii. 29. yw: mn yévorro" ETEL TWC by aeeet oO coe sd
petite,” Koonov; 7 et yao n adnBea rov Oeov * ev tw eum ° pev--
pe Pe c subj , Matt. xxii.16. Jolin iii. 33. vii. 18. Vili. 26. 2 Cor. vi. 8t d John viii. 44, 54.
Psa.cxy. }1 (2) e= Luke vii. 29, 35, 1 Tim. iii.16. Psa.
f — Acts xxv. 9, LU al. g—ch. i. 18 al. lich. i. 17 reff. j i=ch.v.
8. 2Cor. vi. 4. vii. 11. Gal. ii. 18. Paul only (exc. eey 832. 2 Pet. iii. f). Wisd. vii. 14. Diod. Sic. xiv. 45.
kch. iv. 1. vi. 1. vii. 7. viii. 51. ix. 14, 30 only. P. Josh. vii. 1=Jude9 (only). Gen. xxxvii. 22. emp.
Tivk mo hepov, Polyb. xv. 18. 4. m = ch, ii. s. 8. n Gal. iii. 15, 1 Cor. ix. 8. (see ch. vi. 19.
1 Cor. iii. 3. xv. 32. Gal.i. 11. 1 Pet. iv. @.) o ver. 4 reff. p = Loke xi. 18. ch. vi. 24!.
q= ch. ii. 12 reff. r=ch.y.9. Matt. xvii. 21. Luke xxi. 34. s here onlyt. Job xxxiy.
Aq. Theod.
rage i.10. Tit.i.12. 1 John i. 10 alt.
47: Katepyace: 5: karnpynoe 28. 76 syrr Cypr Pelag Vig.
4. for yweoOw, eotw G; est vulg D-lat pei Cypr, est and esto G-lat, sit Ambr:
yeverOw Lc Chr. for de, yap G D-lat Syr Cypr Ambrst Sedul: ovy arm.
-—
for kaOws, kabarep BR Thdrt: ws 73:
5. dicatoovvny bef Gcov G vulg.
faithfulness of God’) cancel (nullify) the
faithfulness of God? ‘ Because they hive
broken faith on their part, shall God break
faith also on His ?” 4.) ph yév., let it
not be: see reff. The Apostle uses this ex-
pression of pious horror, when he has sup-
posed or mentioned any thing by which the
honour, truth, or justice of God would be
compromised,as here by His covenant-word
being broken. It is often found in Poly-
bius, Arrian, and the later Greek writers.
yivéoOw «.7.A.] ‘rather let us be-
lieve all men on earth to have broken their
word and truth, than God His. Whatever
becomes of men and their truth, Wis truth
must stand fast.’ The citation which
follows goes to the depth of the matter. It
is the penitent confession of a sinner, that
he is sensible how entirely against God his
sin has been, and how clearly his own un-
worthiness sets God’s judgment against
sin vindicated before him. And to this
meaning the objection in the next verses
is addressed,—see below. That thou
mightest be justified (shewn to be just)
in thy sayings (sentences, words of judg-
ment), and mightest conquer when Thou
art judged, —FoHws, ‘in thy judging,’
which cannot well be our rendering of év
T@ KptveoGal oe,—i.e. ‘when thy dealings
are called in question by men.’ 5.| In
the citation, the penitent regarded his sin
as having been the instrument of bri inging
out God's justice into clearer light. On
the abuse which might be made of such a
view,—the Apostle founds another ques-
tion :—‘ It would almost seem as if God
Kado 76.
aft opynv ins avtou X! (8 disapproving).
vikenoets ADR n: vixnots 17.
would be unjust in inflicting His wrath (the
consequences of His wrath) on men whose
very impiety has been the means whereby
His own righteousness has been shewn
forth, and established.’ Hpov | ‘of the
Tews” (Grot., De Wette, &c.), not ‘of all
men’ (Fritzsche), for only to the Jews can
ver. 7 apply. Sixaroovvyy] viz. that
established by the S:xaodc@a of ver. 4;
not His goodness (as Chrys., Theodoret,
Grot., al.),—nor His truth (Beza, al.).
Kata avOpwrov A€yw | said, as elsewhere by
Paul, to excuse a supposition bearing with
it an aspect of inconsistency or impiety :—
not implying that he speaks in the person
of another, but that he puts himself into
the place of the generality of men, and uses
arguments such as they would use.
6.| He does not enter into the objection
and answer it in detail, but rejects at once
the idea of God being unjust, alluding pro-
bably to Gen. xviii. 25, by recalling to
mind, that the Judge of all the earth must
do right. éret, for (i.e. ‘if it were
so,’ ‘alioquin’). Tov KCopoy is not the
Gentiles (Bengel, Reiche, Olsh., al.), nor is
the respondent in ver. 7 a Gentile (Olsh.,
al., not Bengel), but one of the judy in ver.
5, only individualized to bring out one such
case of pretended injustice more strikingly.
7.] This follows (connected by yap)
upon ver. 6, and shews that the supposition
if carried out, would overthrow all God’s
judgment, and (ver. 8) the whole moral
life of man. How shall God judge the
world? For, if the truth (faithfulness)
of God abounded (was manifested, more
4—9.
IIPOS PQMAIOY.
339
Deke! f} ; wm, 2s ‘ SKE > ~ vite > ‘ frees.
OmaTl EMEMLOGEVTEV ELC THY COCaV auTOU, TL ETL carer tent:
we “apuaptwrocg * Kpivopat ; 5
1 Thess. iv. 1.
Tobit iv. 16.
\ a .
Kat py Kabwe * Brasgn- v= Vo" i-7.
x. 31. Eph.
, ff) \ Og , ee / e / errs
poupela Kat KaVwc paoly TLVEg Nuac AEyew OTL: TOLNTWUEV _ i. bal.
‘ td 7 ? = ~ ~
ra Kaka wa *8A0y ta ayaa; wy To * Kpima » EvouKov
€o0TLV.
x = John viii. 15. 1 Cor. v. 12 (bis).
% = Matt. xviii. 7. a = ch. ii. 2 reff.
dhere only. Eccl. x. 10 Symm._ see note.
reff.) Winer, edn. 6, § 61. 4.
’ z . d v4
9°Ti ovv; mpoeyouca 5.45 Ones | TavTwe.
Gal. v. 1).
w Matt. ix. 10.
f xi. 19. ch. v.
7 00- S132) eee
xlix. 16.
y =ch. xiv.16. 1Cor.x.30. Tit. iii.2. James ii. 7.
b Heb. ii. 2 only t. ech. vi. }5. xi. 7.
see | Cor. v. 10. xvi. 12.
e = here only. (Acts xxi 22
f here only t.
%. for yap, Se A d 5. 23. 57. 74. 124 harl copt Damasc.
8. om 2nd ca BK a 389. 74.
Ambrst. om ta bef kaka D'.
om om: G vulg 76. 120 Epiph Aug Pelag Ruf
9. mpoexwucda AL k: epoupey eth: mpoxatexXouey Tepiocov D'(and lat) G 31 Syr
Chr-mss? Ambrst-mss Ruf: «atexouev +. Thdrt Sev: tenemus D-lat G-lat.
clearly established) by means of my false-
hood (unfaithfulness), to His glory (so
that the result has been the setting forth
of His glory), why any longer (@7:, this
being so,—assuming the premises) am I
also (i.e. as well as others,—am I to be
involved in a judgment from which I ought
to be exempt) judged (to be judged,—the
pres. expressing the rule or habit of God’s
proceeding) as a sinner? And (shall we)
not (in this case rather say), as we (I Paul,
or we Christians) are slanderously re-
ported, and as some give out that we
(do) say (87: recitantis), “Let us do
evil that good may come?” whose con-
demnation (not that of our slanderers
[Grot., Tholuck], but that of those who so
say and act) is according to justice (not
only by the preceding argument, but by
the common detestation of all men, for such
a maxim as doing evil that good may come).
The way adopted generally (Calv.,
Beza, Grot., Bengel, Wolf, Riickert, Kéll-
ner, Tholuck) is to connect ver. 7 by yap
with ver. 5, and to regard kata avOp....-
xéopov as a series of parentheses; but I
very much prefer that given above, which,
in the main, is De Wette’s. Fritzsche and
Schrader strangely enough regard Kayo as
bona fide the individual Paul, and «pivopat
as the judgment passed by his adversaries
(“nam si Dei veracitas meo _peccatoris
mendacio abunde in Dei laudem cessit,
cur adhue ego quoque, Paulus, tanquam
facinorosus ab hominibus reus agor,” &c.) :
Reiche, Olsh., &c. put ver. 7 into the
mouth of a Gentile: Bengel, into that of a
Jew. Doubtless the main reference of this
part of the argument is to Jews: but the
reasoning from the introduction of the
words tov kécpoy (see above) is general,
applying both to Jew and Gentile, and
shewing the untenableness of any such view
as that of the Jewish objection of ver. 5.
9—20.] The Jew has no preference,
Z
NT ta-
but is guilty as well as the Gentile, as shewn
by Scripture ; so that no man can by the
law be righteous before God. 9.] +o
ovv cannot be joined with mpoexdueba ((Ke.,
&e.), because ovdév would then have been
the answer. There is considerable diffi-
culty in mpoexdpe0a. The meaning of
mpoéxouat every where else is passive, ‘to
be surpassed,’ and mpo€éxe, act., is to sur-
pass, or have the pre-eminence. So Plut. p.
1038 p (Wetst.), kar’ obdév mpoexomevors
im rod Aids, ‘cum Jove minores non sint :’
and Herod. i. 32, 6 wev 3) wéya mAovaws
avéABios 5é, Svoic: mpoexet TOD EvVTUXOUS
pdvov, &c. (see Wetst.) Those therefore
who have wished to preserve the usage of
the word, have variously interpreted it in
that attempt: (a) Wetst. would render it
passively, and understand it (as spoken by a
Jew) ‘ Are we surpassed by the Gentiles ?”
But (1) for this inference there is no ground
in what went before, but the contrary (vy.
1 ff.),—and (2) the question if it mean
this, is not dealt with in what follows. (8)
(Ecum. (2nd altern.) regards it as said by a
Gentile, ‘ Are we surpassed by the Jews ??
but for this question there is no ground in
the preceding, for all has tended to lower
the Jews in comparison and reduce all to
one level. (y) Reiche and Olsh. take it
passively, and render, ‘ Are we preferred
(sy God)?’ but no example of this mean-
ing occurs, the above use in Plutarch not
justifying it. (5) Koppe and Wahl render,
taking it as the middle voice, ‘ What can
we then allege (as an excuse)?’ but this
will not suit ov mdvtws. (€) Meyer,
‘What then, have we an excuse?’ but
mpocxdu. has not this meaning. (¢)
Fritzsche, ‘ What then? do we excuse our-
selves (i.e. shall we make any exeuse) ?’
But (1) mpoex. is put absolutely ; and (2)
the answer would rather be wndaués than
ov mdvtws, which replies to a question on
matter of fact. Besides (3) the argument
i)
=
340
g = Matt. viii.
9. ch. vi. 14,
15. Gal. ili.
10. iv. 2 Xe.
Deut. x xxiii.
h Psa. xiii. 1 ff.
(vat.) freely.
i Acts iv. 32reff.
g
€ i} iJ
auaotiav © Etvat,
OlKatoc Oude gic"
k eet xv. 21 0
refi, i
1 acl xv. 17 F wone 3 3 “ - p
* ‘ t
mit xiiz, evoc. 1°? rapoc avewyuévog 0 1 \apu
1 Pet. iii. 11 > a are =
only. = Job yAwooatc auTWwy eooALouvoav.
iG u ’ > - l4v7 N , w? ° \
Psa lied. xen auTwy, wy TO oTOUa = aoac Kal
eR 152 of ca e 58 OPE are 52 ! chee S2
ings i. r
aeings o&€l¢ Ol TOCEC GUTWY EKYXEaL alua
16. Polyb. i. ©
14. 6 al.
o = here only. ’
/
(ch. ii. 4reti.) OUK EYVWOAY.
Ps, xxxvi. 3.
p Matt. xxiii. 27, 29 al4. only.
18. Ps. 1. c. civ. 25 only.
12,13. Ep. Jer. 12, 24 only.
Psa. v.9.
only. Hos, iy, 2.
only.
Acts xxii. 20.) Rev. xvi.6only. Gen. ix. 6.
30 al.
only.
v.¥. Isa. xi. 3.
x = Acts viii. 23 reff.
c James v. 1 only, Isa. xlvii. 1].
e Psa, xxxv. 1.
coueda D'G 31. 89! wth Chr-2-mss c-comm, causati sumus latt.
atavtas G: mavTa Nn.
aft .ovd. Te ins tpwroy A.
10. ovd D' 1.
11. om 1st o ABG: ins DKLN Chr Thdrt Damase Th] Gc.
for ex¢., (ray B.
12. nxpewOnoay AB'D'GR.
Syr eth.
18. Aapvé Adk: -vvt G.
would then go to shew, not that all are sin-
ners, as it does, vv. 10—20, but that all
are liable to God’s wrath, without excuse.
(n) The only way left seems (with Theophyl.,
(Ee. (Ist altern.), Schol. in Matthai, Pelag.,
Vulg., Erasm., Luther, Calv., Beza, Grot.,
Bengel, Tholuck, Kéllner, Schrader, De
Wette, al.) to take mpoexducba as middle,
and understand it as mpoéxouev—Have we
(Jews) the (any) preference? We have
an use of mapéxouat as active, Acts xix. 24,
Tit. 1i..7. See also Winer, edn. 6, § 38.
5. ov mavtws| No, by no means.
This would more naturally be wavTws ov, see
reff. But we have ovdtv mdavrws for ‘ not
at all,’ Herod. v. 34. (Winer quotes od wavu,
‘no by no means,’ from Demosth. Olynth.
II. § 21, but I cannot findit.) The mean-
ing ‘not in every way,’ ‘not altogether,’—
as 1 Cor. v. 10 and Theophr. de Caus.
Plant. vi. 24 (Wetst.), rove? yap od rdvtes,
GAN edy OVAH Tis 7} brdKavoTos,—will not
apply, for it does not agree with what fol-
lows, where the Apostle proves absolute
equality in respect of his argument.
mpoyt.....€tvar| we have before proved
(chs. i. ii.) both Jews and Gentiles all to
be under sin; the construction is not ace.
and inf.,—thaé Jews and Gentiles ae under
MIPO= PQMAIOY=.
yriacapela yap "lovSalove re Kat °EAAnvac mavrac © op
10 kabwc yéypamrat
1 ovK 6
lex@ntwv tov Oeov" 12 pavrec ™ ekéxAwvay, aua ” NX Oew=
ovk torw Towy ° Xpnorornra, ovk toTw Ewe
, > ~ an - 5) nie 17 A vd 080 a 2.
TaAaiTwota €v TALE OOOLC AUTWYD, Kat OoOoV etpn vnc
> U , f ~~ Dah. =
18 © oi Zor | pooc Ocov § avévavtt TwV
q here only.
s James iii. 8. v. 3only. Psa. (xiii. 3 vat ) cxxxix. 3. Ezek. xxv. 6, ll,
y thereonly. Job ax. 14.
Heb. xi. 12. xiii. 15. 1 Pet. iii. 10 (from Ps. x xxiii. 13) only.
z = here (Rev. i. 16. ii. 12. xiv. 14, &c. xix. 15) only. Amos ii. 15.
a(-xtv,
Isa. hx. 7,8. Prov.i. 16 F. b here only. Prov. xx,
(-pos, ch. vii. 24.) d Lukei. 79 only. 1.c (Ps) Isa.
f 2 Cor. vii. 1 only. (Acts ix. 31.
g Matt. xxi. 2. xxvii. 24, 61.
ins o bef worwy DX.
TE;
ho ? a
OTL OUK EOTLY
¢
4 , > ot
EoTtVv O OVVLWV, OUK toTl O
oY ~ ~
y& avrov, ratc
fe 2jN t>? , ois ‘
toc ‘aomiowy vo Ta
, ,
“mixptac * yEpel.
L6ib 7 \
ovvToIuma Kal
Ps. cxlix 6. rhere only. Nom. xxv.
u Matt. xv. 8 |i Mk.
yv Psa. ix. 7 (27) (singular).
y Matt. xxiii.6,7. Luke x1, 39.
1 Cor. xiv. 21.
w here
Rev. iv. 6, 8 als.
2Cor. v. 1). Eph. v. 21.) = Neh.
Acts iii. 16. xvii. 7 only. Josh. xxiv. 26.
om ‘yap D!.
for vp, u7o B.
om 2nd o BG.
om 2nd ov« eat B G67?
14. aft oroua ins avtwy B17.
sin,—but *Iovd.... mdvtas is ace. after
the verb, and iq” Gu. elvat the matter of the
charge,—q. d. ‘ we have before brought in
guilty Jews and Gentiles all as sinners.’
10—18.] Proof of this universal sinfulness
from the Scripture, said directly (ver. 19)
of the Jews, but a portion including, and
taken for granted of, the Gentiles. Com-
pare throughout the LXX (reff.).
11.] In the Psalm,—Jehovah looked down
from heaven on the children of men, to see
ei Zort cumay } ex(ntav tT. 0. He found
none. This result is put barely by the
Apostle as the testimony of Scripture,
giving the sense, but departing from the
letter. 13. ] éSoAvodeav, an Alexandrine
form for é50Alouy ; see Lobeck, Phrynichus,
p. 349. The open sepulchre is an emblem
of perdition, to which their throat, as the
instrument of their speech, is compared.
15.] The LXX (Isa. 1. ¢.) have of
S& médes adtav em movnplavy TpéxXovet,
raxwol ecexéar aluat Kal of diadoyiouol
adtay diadoyiomol ard pdvev (appdvav I.)
cbvtpiuma Kal Tadramwpia ev Tais bd5ots
ai’tav, kal d5dv eiphyns ovk oldaow (eyvw-
cav, F.). 19.| He proves the ap-
plicability of these texts to the Jews by
their being found in the Jewish Seriptures :
F po
Nader...
ABDF
KLNab
edfgh
klmno
017
(On the
omission
of G see
proleg.)
10—21.
Op Marpav aura.
IIpOS PQOMAIOYS.
/> Ser ¢ e , ,
19 Gidapev S& Ort Goa O voOmoc Aéyet, *
o41
= Luke viii.
43. ch.iv.10.
, Philem. 20 al.
~ h? ~ , x + - ~ , i ~ XM ke
TOLC Ev TW VOMW aAél, va Tav oTOMa ppayn Kal U7TO- i 2 Cor. xi. 10.
‘ - ¢ ~ ~
duKoc yevnrat Tac O KOGMOC TW Dew.
m cA
vowLoU
we 8 ‘\ ‘ A
TOU ta yao VOLLOU
mapafaivy trddcKkos Ectw TH Tabdvt, Demosth, 518. 3.
16 (3ce). iii. 8, 24. James ii. 24 (bis), 25.
n Matt. xxiv. 22. Acts x.14. Gal. ii. 16. Exod. xv. 26.
: q Ps. 1. c.
Pet. i. 2, 8, 8. ii, 20 only. Prov. ii. 5.
Pp Acts ii. 17 reff. = Luke xvi. 15.
Heb. x. 26. 2
19. for Aeyer, AaAet N! vulg D-lat Orig
20. ov dur. bef e& epy. vow. DF fuld F-lat Ambrst.
not in any Gentile representation, which
might exclude Jews, but spoken univer-
sally, in those very books which were the
cherished possession of the Jews them-
selves. 6 vépos | Here, the whole O. T.,
the law, prophets, and Psalms : see John x.
34, where our Lord cites a Psalm as in
‘the law. Tots ev TO v. Aadet| it
speaks (not says,—AaAéw is not ‘to say,’
see John viii. 25, note) to (or for, dat.
commodi: i.e. its language belongs to, is
true of, when not otherwise specified) those
who are in (under) the law. So that the
Jews cannot plead exemption from this
description or its consequences. iva |
in order that—not ‘so that :’ the bring-
ing in all the world guilty before God is an
especial and direct aim of the revelation of
God’s justice in the law,—that His grace
by faith in Christ may come on all who
abandon self-righteousness and believe the
gospel. mav oTopa dpayy | If the
Jew’s mouth is shut, and his vaunting in
the law taken away, then much more the
Gentile’s, and the whole world (see above
ver. 6) becomes (subjective, as ywéobw
ver. 4) guilty before God. 20.| The
solemn and important conclusion of all the
foregoing argument. But not only the
conclusion from it: it is also the great
truth, which when arrived at, is seen to
have necessitated the subordinate conclu-
sion of ver. 19, the stopping of every mouth,
&e. And therefore it is introduced, not
with an illative conjunction, ‘ wherefore’
(which 8:67: will not bear), but with ‘ de-
cause. Because by the works of the law
(Gop’s Law: whether in the partial reve-
lation of it written in the consciences of the
Gentiles, or in the more complete one given
by Moses to the Jews,—not, by works of
law: no such general idea of Jaw seems to
have ever been before the mind of the
Apostle, but always the law, emanating
from God) shall no flesh be justified before
Him (the future as implying possibility,—
perhaps also as referring to the great day
n cal | y ~
ov eikawwOynoerar "” raca
re: , € /
ETLYVWOLC auaoTlac.
Heb. xi. 33
20 4 eg om 2 only. 2 Mace.
dvore — epyov xiv. 36 Ald.
p N E fr ea ? see Dan. vi.
oap EVWTLOV AU- 22 Theod.
k here only +.
\ Ny fata
21 Nouv € cavre
TOUTWY TE
1 ver. 30. ch. iv. 2. v.1. Gal. ii.
m = ver. 28. Gal. ii. 16 (3ce). iii. 2, 5, 10 only.
PsA. cxlii. 2. o = ch. ii. 13 reff.
rch. i. 28. x.2. Eph.iv. 13 alll., Paul.
for AaAc, Aeyer D'F.
emiyvacews F,
when zaoa odpé shall stand before God,—
perhaps also as a citation from ref. Ps.
LXX, od SirawOhjoera evdmidy cov mas
(Gv. ov.... aoa, which we render by
nulla, must be kept in the mind to its lo-
gical precision: All flesh—subject—shall
be—copula—not justified—predicate).
The Apostle does not herve say either (1)
that justification by legal works would be
impossible if the law could be wholly kept,
or (2) that those were not justified who ob-
served the prescribed sacrifices and offer-
ings of the ceremonial law (of which he
has never once spoken, but wholly of the
moral): but he infers from his argument
on matters of fact, a result in matter of
fact: ‘Mankind, Jew and Gentile, have all
broken God’s law, and are guilty before
Him: Man keeps not God’s law. By that
law then he cannot arrive at God’s righte-
ousness.” Sia yap ....] For by the
law (as before, whether partially known to
the Gentile or more fully to the Jew) is
the knowledge of sin (whatever knowledge
each has,—whether the accusing and ex-
cusing of the Gentile’s conscience, or the
clearer view of offence against Jehovah
granted to the Jew). The reasoning is :
—the law has no such office, in the present
state of human nature manifested both in
history and Scripture, as to render righte-
ous: its office is altogether different, viz.
to detect and bring to light the sinfulness
of man. Compare Gal. ii. 16.
21—V. li.] Tur ENTRANCE INTO Gop’s
RIGHTEOUSNESS (ch. i. 17) IS SHEWN TO
BE BY FAITH. 21—26.| The Apostle
resumes the declaration of ch. i. 17 (having
proved that man has no righteousness of
his own resulting from the observance of
God’s law) : viz. that God’s righteousness
is revealed by Christ, whose atoning Death
is, consistently with God’s justice, suffi-
cient for the pardon of sin to those who
believe in Him. 21. vuvi] Is this of
time, ‘now, in contradistinction to ages
past, = év 76 viv Kaipg, ver. 26,—or is it
342 TIPOS POMAIOY®.
5 = ver. 28.
EEL
8 ‘ , ts , 0 -~ u , vw
= ver 28. “ ywoc vouov oiKatoouvn Veou TEpaveowTat, paotu-
8,9. 1 Cor.
iv. 8 al.
t ch. i. 17 reff.
uch. i, 19 reff.
/ we s ae 4 , \ ~ x ~ 92td ,
poumévyn —UTO TOU VOMOV Kal TwWY Tpopntwy, OuKaLtooury
y a «- Sz U ? ~ - bee , [ \
pe igi gr 8: Geov Sta * riatewe Inoov XoloTov, ELC TavTac | Kal
37. 3John
ee ee) , ‘ , ? 7 bd d fe
3. Heb. vii. eTl mavrac | TOUC TLOTEVOVTAC. OU yao EOTLV StacroAn
la ‘
8. - er \ c - - f ar f -
a 23 TaVTEC Yao yNMapToV Kal ; VOTENOUYTAL TNC d0Ene TOU
is xiii. 19 - 9 , h ‘ - > ee , ‘ <
xActsxil 1 egy 248 Sicaovmevor " Owoeav Ty auTOU ' YagITL ota TIC
re
y = Phil. ii. 8.
zconstr., Mark xi, 22. Acts iii. 16. Gal. ii. 16,20. James ii. Lal.
33 reff. dch. x. 12 reff.
constr., 2 Cor. xi. 5. f constr.. John xii. 43.
13 reff.)
v. ld al.
21. paptvpopevn D!.
b = Gal. iii. 14. c Acts iv.
e = (but act.) Luke xxii. 35 al. Ps. xxii.1. wv, 1 Cor. i. 7.
g w. dat., ver. 28. Tit. iii. 7 only. (ch. ii.
h Matt. x. 8. 2Cor, xi.7. Exod. xxi.2. (Jolin xv, 25, from Ps. xxxiv. 19.) i=ch.
22. for ino: Xp-5 €v XptoTw ino. A: om Chr: om inoov B Tert: txt CDFKLN 17 rel
vss Clem Orig Thdrt Thl (ce Pelag Ambrst Chrom Bede.
om Kal ETL TAaYTasS
(possibly from homeotel : on the other hand, the longer text may be the junction of
two readings) ABCN! copt eth arm Clem (Orig) Cyr Aug Ruf-comm : ins DEK LN? 17
syrr vulg(but am demid al Damase om ets wavr. Kat) Chr Thdrt Thl @e Ambrst Chrom
Bede.
merely = ‘as things are,’ ‘now we find ?’
The former is held by Grot., Bengel, Tho-
luck, Reiche, Olsh., Riickert, al.,—the
latter by Fritzsche, Meyer, and De Wette.
The former is true in sense, and applicable
to the circumstances of the gospel: but
the meaning is too strong, where no con-
trast of time is expressly in view. I
therefore prefer the latter, especially as
Paul’s usage elsewhere justifies it ; see ch.
vii. 17: 1 Cor. xv. 20. xwpis vopov |
without the (help of the) law, ‘inde-
pendently of the law :’ not ‘without the
works of the law ;’ for here it is not the
way to the du. Geo0 which is spoken of
as is faith), but that di. etself.
tkatoc. Gcov| God’s righteousness: in
what sense, see ch. i. 17, and note.
mepavépwrat| viz. in the facts of the gos-
pel. ‘The perfect sets forth the manifesta-
tion of this righteousness in history as an
accomplished and still enduring fact—the
amoxadvrretat of ch.i. 17 denotes the con-
tinual unfolding of this righteousness in
the hearts and lives of faithful believers.
paptupoupévy «.7.A. | being borne
witness to (pres. because the law and pro-
phets remain on record as a revelation of
God’s will) by the law and the prophets
(not merely the types and prophecies, but
the whole body of the O. T., see Matt.
xxii. 40). 22. Sixatoo. Sé 6.) but
that (so 5é in Herod. vii. 8, "Apioraydpn
7G Midnolw, dovAm Se juetep~,—and 1.
114, imd tod cod SovAov, BovKddov 5é
matdds: the contrast being between the
general mention which has preceded, and
the specific distinction now brought in.
See Hartung, Partikellehre i. 168 ff.) the
righteousness of God (i.e. ‘I mean, the
righteousness of God 81a miorews *1. xp.’)
which is (7 is not necessary, the art. being
often omitted in cases where the ear is re-
minded of a usage of the cognate verb
with a preposition, such as Sicaodobar die
miorews. Compare Col. i. 4, &KkovoavTes
Thy mlotw bu. ev xpioTe “Inc., and Eph.
iii. 4, SUvacbe vojoar Thy ovvecly mou ev
7S pvotnplm [oumevtes ev mdon copia
occurs Dan. i. 4 Theod.]. See Winer,
edn. 6, § 20. 2. b) by the faith in Jesus
Christ (gen.: see reff.). cis TayT. [K.
éml mdvr.] depends on repavépwrat,—(is
revealed) unto (‘ towards,’ ‘so as to pene-
trate to’) all{, and upon (‘ over,’ ‘so as to
be shed down on,’ but in the theological
meaning, no real difference of sense from
eis ; this repetition of prepositions to give
force is peculiar to Paul, see ver. 30, and
Gal. i. 1) all] who believe. Probably the
repetition of mévras was suggested by the
two kinds of believers, Jew and Gentile,
so as to prepare the way for ob ydp éott
SiaoroAh (but still no essential difference
in the interpretations of eis and ei must
be sought). 23. tas S6éys Tov
Geov| Of the praise which comes from
God, see reff. (so Grot., Thol., Reiche,
Fritz., Meyer, Riickert, De Wette) : not,
‘of praise in God’s sight’ (Luther, Calv.,
Estius, Kéllner): not, ‘of glory with
God, as ch. yv. 2 (Ge., Beza, al.),—for he
is not speaking here of future reward,
but of present worthiness: nor, of the
glorious image of God which we have
lost through sin (Calov., al., Rickert,
Olsh.), which is against both the usage of
the word, and the context of the passage.
24.) dixmotuevor agrees with mdav-
ves, without any ellipsis; nor need it be
resolved into cal dixaodvrac: the partici-
pial sentence is subordinated to the great
general statement of the insufficiency of
all to attain to the glory of God. It is
yal
Twv Tpo*
KLNab
edfgh-
kimn-
oe
22—25.
k >? , ~ 1? = ~
aToOAUTPWaEWC TUG «E&Y KELOTW Inoov,
€ 0 ‘ n id , 8 ‘ UJ Oo? pal ’ ~ ed
oO é£0C t agTyotov (a TlOTEWC év TW auTOuv aluartt,
Pp » qv 8 gc ~ Y 4 , > ~ 5 ‘ ‘ r ,
élc Evoeigny THC tkaltoourvyg auTou, (a TIV TAQEGLV
only. L.P-H. Dan.iv.32 LXX only. (-otv, Exod. xxi. 8. Zeph, iii. 1.)
m = here (ch. i. 13. Eph. i. 9) only. Polyb. i. 33.
(Heb. ix. 5) only.
bis.
see note.
2 Cor. viii. 24. Phil. i. 28 only t.
IPOS POMAIOY=.
9, tputéuevoe TOUS YporPouaxous.
o = Matt. xii. 27, 28 al.
343
95 «8 ,
25 ov o mooeero k Luke xxi. 8.
ch. viii. 23.
1 Cor. i. 30.
Eph. i. 7, 14.
iv. 30. Col.
1 = ch. vi. 11. viii. 2 al,
0 n = here
p ch. i. 5 reff. q here
rhereonly t. ( cévae, Sir. xxiii. 2.)
25. tacrnpevoy F: om arm: propitiatorem D-lat vulg-sixt harl’ Ambrst Oros, Jer
Ambr : propitiationem vulg E-lat syr: placationem Hil.
rec ins ts bef micTews,
with BC3D!KL 17 rel Chr-txt Thdrt Ke: om C!D'F® Orig, Eus Bas Cyr Damase Thi,
—om dia micrews A Chr-comm(and 2-mss).
for Ist avrov, eavtov B 47.
for mapeowy, rwpwow 46: mapaveow 69. 116: propositum D'-lat Aug Ambrst Pelag-
comm.
not necessary, in the interpretation, that
the subjects of mdayres and dixaodmevor
should be in matter of fact strictly com-
mensurate :—‘all have sinned—all are
(must be, 7f justified) justified freely, &c.’
Swpeav]| see reff.: here, ‘ without
merit or desert as arising from earnings of
our own;” ‘ gratis.’ TH avTOU xaptTt |
by His grace, i.e. ‘His free undeserved
Love,’ as the working cause (De W.).
Sia Tis aod. «.7.A.] By means of the
propitiatory redemption which is in (has
been brought about by, and is now in the
Person of) Christ Jesus. airohvTpw-
ots, redemption by a Avrpov, propitiation,
—and, as expressed by the preposition azo,
redemption from some state of danger or
misery : here,—redemption from the guilt
of sin by the propitiatory sacrifice of
Christ’s death, see reff. and Matt. xx. 28.
In Eph. i. 7 this aroAvrpwors is defined
to = f &heots TOY TapamTwmdT ov.
25.] wpoéSero, not here ‘ decreed,’ as in
reff. N. T.,—-but put forth, set forth,
manifested historically in His incarnation,
sufferings, and exaltation. Wetst. quotes
Thucyd. ii. 34, Ta d07a mpoTibeytTa TaY
amoyevouevev, ‘they expose the bones of
the deceased to public view.’
idacrypiov] as a propitiatory offering.
So we have cwrthpia, Exod. xx. 24,—xapi-
othpiov (evxaprathpioy A.), 2 Mace. xii. 45,
—and Kxa$dpovov, Herod. i. 35, in the sense
of thank-offerings and offerings of purifica-
tion (no subst., as @dua, need be supplied,—
the words being themselves substantives) :
and we have this very word in Dio Chrysos.
Orat. ii. p. 184 (cited by Stuart), where he
says that the Greeks offered an iAacrfpioy
Ti ’A@hva, a propitiatory sacrifice. The
ordinary interpretation (‘Theodoret, Theo-
phyl., Luth., Calv., Grot., Calov., Wolf,
Olsh.) is founded on the sense in which the
LXX use the word, as signifying the golden
cover of the ark of the covenant, between
the Cherubim, where Jehovah appeared
and whence He gave His oracles. 7d
ikaothpiovy méradoy vy xXpugovy, emEKELTO
Bt 1G KiBwrg. éxatépwhey 5 elxe TA THY
xepouBlu extuTopata. exeidey TO apxreper
AeroupyoovTs eyivero SHAN Tov Geov 7
ebuevera .. . . TO GANOdY iAaothpiov 6
deamdtns eat) xpiotds’ exeivo Se 7d Ta-
Aaudy TovTov Toy TUmoV emAHpou. apudTTet
5¢ adTG ds avOpdm@ Td bvoma, ovx as Oe
&s yap Ocds, adtds Sia Tod iAaoTnplov
xpnuari¢e. Theodoret : on which Theo-
phylact further,—édqAov 3€ mavtws Thy
avOpwrivny piow, Hrs Tana hv THs
Ocdr Tos, emikadvmrovoa TavTnv. The ex-
pression occurs in full, ‘Aaorhpioy emlOeua,
Exod. xxv. 17: elsewhere iAacrhptoy only,
as ref. Heb. See also Philo, Vit. Mos. iii.
8, vol. ii. p. 150. But De Wette well shews
the inapplicability of this interpretation,
as not agreeing with eis Evdekw K.7.A.
(which requires a victim, see below), and as
confusing the unity of the idea here, Christ
being (according to it) one while a victim
(€v TG adtod aluar:), and another, some-
thing else. The other interpretation (Vulg.
propitiationem : soB. V.: Beza, Riickert,
al.: adj.— Rosenmiiller, Wahl), which
makes iAacrhptov an adj. agreeing with 6v,
‘a propitiator, hardly agrees with mpo-
Gero, implying an external demonstration
of Christ as the fAaorhprov, not merely an
appointment in the divine ceconomy.
Sia wiotews | by faith, as the subjective
means of appropriation of this propitiation :
—not to be joined with év abtod atuar: (but
the omission of 77s is no objection to this,
see above on ver. 22), as Luth., Calv. al.,
Olsh., Riickert, —for such an expression as
miotis or moretw év To alu. 1. xp. would
be unexampled,—and (which is decisive)
the clause év 76 avtod aluati requires a
primary, not a subordinate place in the sen-
tence, because the next clause, eis vd. T.
duc. avt., directly refers to it. As da
ict. is the subjective means of appropria-
tion, so év 76 alu. avtod is the objective
means of manifestation, of Christ as a pro-
pitiatory sacrifice. alpa does not = Odve.-
344 IPOS POQMAIOY®S. Lit.
here only+ we 8 id t < J. , Sy jee a bes
"eee. at, Tuy * TeOyEyOVvOTwY auaprnnarwy ey Ty “avoxy Tov
3 % ~
thakii2s, Osov, 26% rpo mm * evdetEw 7 3S cninebeie autou ev
29. 1 Cor. vi / ly ¢
e or.Vl.e oa \
Bea TO vuv Katpe?, “ate TO Elvat aUTOV Cikatoy eal 7 Sekar
uch. ii. 4 retl, ae | {7 bh
Vacit ia, Ouvta * Tov ék “*mloTEwe noov. Ilov obv % ° Kav-
1 Cor. vi. Sal.
w ch. viii. 18. xi. 5. 2 Cor. viii. 14 only. Gen. xxx. 20. x Acts iii. 19. vii. 19. ch. i. 11, 20 al. yeh.
ii. 13 reff. z constr, ch. ii. 8 reff. a constr., ver. 22. b =] Cor. i. 20. c Paul
(ch. xv. 17. 1 Cor. xv. 31 al’. ) only, exc. James iv. 16. Jer. xii. 13.
26. rec om Ty, with D3KL Chr Thdrt Thl Ge: ins ABCD'X Clem Cyr. (F 17 omit
from 61k.
Sucatovvta, Sixatovy D}.
Ambrst Pelag Ruf: xp
17 Clem Qe, :
. no. D!-lat:
tos, but refers to propitiation by blood,—
the well-known typical use of it in sacrifice.
eis Evderév x.7.A.| in order to
the manifestation of His righteousness:
this is the aim of the putting forth of Christ
as an expiatory victim. Sikatcotvn,
not truth (Ambrst., al.),—not goodness
(Theodoret, Grot., Hammond, Koppe,
Rosenm., Reiche),—not both these com-
bined with justice (Beza),—not justifying
or sin-forgiving righteousness (Chrys.,
Aug., Estius, Kren, 13%. -Crus.), —not the
righteousness which He gives (luther,
Elsner, Wolf, al.), which last would repeat
the idea already contained in ver. 21 and
rob eis 7d civat av. Sixaoy of all meaning,
—not holiness, which does not correspond
to Sikais and dixaodv,—but judicial
righteousness, JUSTICE (as Orig., Caloy.,
Tholuck, Meyer, Schrader, Riickert ed. 2,
al.). This interpretation alone suits the
requirements of the sense, and corresponds
to the idea of 8:«codv, which is itself judi-
cial. A sin-offering betokens on the one
side the expiation of guilt, and on the
other ensures pardon and reconciliation :
and thus the Death of Christ is not only
a proof of God’s grace and love, but also
of His judicial righteousness which re-
quires punishment and expiation. (Mainly
from De Wette.) dia. T. Tdpeoiy
K.T.A. | = bia 7d Taptevat Tov Ocdby Ta
mMpoy. AMapTHuaTa ev TH avoxh avtov, and
contains the reason why God would mani-
fest His judicial righteousness ; on account
of the overlooking of the sins which had
passed, in the forbearance of God: i.e.
to vindicate that character for justice,
which might seem, owing to the sus-
pension of God’s righteous sentence on
sin in former ages in His forbearance, to
be placed in question:—to shew, that
though He did not then fully punish for
sin, and though He did then set forth
inadequate means of (subjective) justitica-
tion,—yet He did both, not because His
justice was slumbering, nor because the
avrov ver 25 to 61k. avtou ver.
om inoov F 52 E-lat: for ine., mo. xp. vulg copt Thdrt
Tov Kup. NM. ino. xp. Syr
txt ABCKN am fuld D?-lat syr eth Chr Thl Gc, Aug Oros.
26.)
om ka F fuld Ambrst. for
r: moov Dubdfgmo
nature of His righteousness was altered,—
but because He had provided a way where-
by sin might be forgiven, and He might be
just. Observe, mdpeois is not forgiveness,
but overlooking, which is the work of for-
bearance (see Acts xvii. 30), whereas for-
giveness is the work of grace,—see ch. ii. 4:
—nor is Tay mpoyey. aL.,
each man which precede his conversion”
(Calov.), but those of the whole world be-
Sore the death of Christ. See the very
similar words Heb. ix. 15. The render-
ing bia, ‘by means of’ (Origen, Luth.,
Calv., Calov., Le Clerc, Elsn., Koppe,
Reiche, Schrader), is both ungrammatic zal
and unmeaning. 26. mpds Thy evd.
«.7.A.| The art. distinguishes this évderés
from the former, as the Suller and ulti-
mate object, of which that évdekis was a
subordinate part:—with a view to the
(or His) manifestation of His righteous-
ness in this present time. ‘The shewing
forth that He was righteous throughout
His dealings with the whole world, by
means of setting forth an adequate and
complete propitiation in the death of
Christ, was towards, formed a subsidiary
manifestation to, His great manifestation
of His righteousness (same sense as before,
judicial righteousness, justice) under the
Gospel. The joining mpds thy évdeék.
K.T.A. with ev TH avoxy Tt. Oeod (Beza,
Riickert 2 ed., Thol., al.) would draw
off the attention from the leading thought
of the sentence to a digression respecting
the dvox} 7. @., which is not probable.
eis TO elvat x.7.A.] in order that
He may be (shewn to be :—the whole pre-
sent concern is with €vdertis, the exhibition
to men of the righteousness of God) just
and (yet, on the other side) justifying
him who is of (the) faith in Jesus (roy
éx tla. Ino., him who belongs to, stands
in, works from as his standing-point, faith
in Jesus: see ch. ii. 8, note, and reff:).
27—IV. 25.) JEWwIsH BOASTING
ALTOGETHER REMOVED by this truth, Nov
‘the sins of
26—380. IIPOX PQOMAIOY2. o45
dua © t 5 = @ fg Wy % dGal. iv. 17
ta TOLOU VOMOU, TWV Oy Vs Bie Bie,
Xxili. 2 vat.
2 Mace. xiii.
? 21 (only 2).
vVOMOvV, &— Acts iv. 7
9 ’Tovsat 0 bed 5 ¥ NM eOudts \ Wee ery.
" meee ae aa es ouxe Kat eOvev ; val Kal al. fr., Paul.
Kno 5 i eCexArtlaOn.
ovyxl, ara Sia vomov Tisrewe. 28 8 NoyiZoueda * yao
~ Y i j 7
” Stcatova0at miaret avowrov : Ywolc Jepyov ?
‘
’ ~ 30 k @ ec 6) \ a j S , ‘ k? James ii. 14—
eOvar, ELT EO étc O €0c OC LKALWOEL TEOLTOMNY EK oe poabonner
ch. xiv.14. Phil. iii. 13. Wisd. xv. 12. h w. dat., ver, 24 reff. iver. 21. jver.
20 (reff). k ch. viii. 9 reff.
27. aft kavxnors ins cov F latt Thl-comm Aug).
om 2nd d:a D!.
28. Aoy:Cwucdar DIK. ¥rec OY (prob corrn from misunderstandg of roy-
Coua to convey a conclusion: see note), with BCD§KL 17 rel syrr Chr Thdrt Thl Gc :
yap AD'FR latt copt Cyr Damase Ambrst Ruf Aug Ambr. ree mote. bef dixaove-
@a (to throw emphasis on more, supposing the ver to convey a solemn conclusion),
with KLN? 17 rel syrr Chr Thdrt: for more: avOpwmov, avOp. dia morews FB vulg wth
Aug: txt ABCDN! copt. .
29. om 7 n 39! Thdrt: un A'(appy) 39? Hil: «77: az latt. povey Bab 23.
39. 47. 48. 76 Clem, Ath, Chr,(mss vary) Cyr Thl (but aft sov5. Clem Ath): ovos D:
txt ACFKLN 17 rel Ath, Thdrt (Ee, tantum latt. rec aft ovxe ins de, with L 17
rel syr Chr Cyr, Thdrt Thl Ee: om ABCDFKN k latt Syr copt Clem, Ath Chr-ms,
Cyr, Damase.
30. rec emwermep (corr), with D!3FKLN? 17 rel vss Eus Ath Chr Thdrt Th] (He:
quoniam quidem latt Ambr: txt ABCD?! copt Clem Orig Cyr, Did Damase : siqui-
dem Jer Pacian. om o D! Orig.
for ovxi, ovk D!: ov F.
however BY MAKING VOID THE LAW, nor
BY DEGRADING ABRAHAM FROM HIS PRE-
EMINENCE, but BY ESTABLISHING THE
Law, and shewing that Abraham was really
JUSTIFIED BY FAITH, and is the FATHER
OF THE FAITHFUL. 27.| 7 KavyxyoLSs,
the boasting, viz. of the Jews, of which
he had spoken before, ch. ii., not ‘boasting’
in general, which will not suit ver. 29. (So
Theodoret, 7d dpnddv Tav “lovdalwy ops-
vnua,—Chrys., Theophyl., (ic. :—Vulg. :
gloriatio tua: Bengel, Riickert, Meyer,
De Wette, al.) é€exA.] ov Ere X@pav
éxet, Theodoret. Sia. 7. v. «.7.A.] BY
what law (is it excluded) ? (is it by that)
of works? No, but by the law (norma,
the rule) of faith. The contrast is not
here between the law and the Gospel as two
dispensations, but between the law of works
and the law of faith, whether found under
the law, or the Gospel, or (if the case ad-
mitted) any where else. This is evident
by the Apostle proving below that 4braham
was justified, not by works, so as to have
whereof to boast, but by faith. 28. |
AoyiLdpeGa, not ‘we conclude, but we
hold, we reckon, see reff.: the former is
against N. T. usage; and has probably
caused the change of ydp into obv, by some
who imagined that this verse was a conclu-
sion from the preceding argument. For we
hold (as explanatory of the verse preceding,
—on the other supposition the two verses
are disjointed, and the conclusion comes
in most strangely), that a man is justified
by faith, without the works of the law
(not works of law) ; and therefore boast-
ing is excluded. 29.] In shewing how
completely Jewish boasting is excluded,
Paul purposes to take the ground of their
own law, and demonstrate it from that.
He will shew that God is not (the God)
of Jews alone, but of Gentiles, and that
this very point was involved in the pro-
mise made to Abraham, by believing which
he was justified (ch. iv.), and therefore
that it lies in the very root and kernel
of the law itself. But, as often elsewhere,
he passes off from this idea again and again,
recurring to it however continually,—and
eventually when he brings forward his
proof-text (rat épa moAAGy eOvGv TéBeiKd oe,
iv. 17), Abraham’s faith, and not this fact,
has become the leading subject. 30.
elrep | if at least (if we are to hold to what
is manifest as a result of our former argu-
ment) God is One, who shall justify the
circumcision (=the Jews, after the analogy
of ch. ii. 26) by (ex, as the preliminary con-
dition,—the state out of which the justiti-
cation arises) faith, and the uncircumcision
(the Gentiles) through (by means of) their
faith. Too much stress must not be laid
on the difference of the two prepositions
(see ver. 22 and note). The omission of the
art. in éx lor. and its expression in 6:4 77s
mio. are natural enough: the former ex-
presses the ground of justification, generally
taken, ek mictews, by faith: the latter the
means whereby the man lays hold on justi-
346
1 Paul ach ii.
25. iv. 9, &c.
1 Cor. vii. 18,
19 al.) only,
exc. Acts xi. ,
f Gen. xvii. vouov
m ver. 3 reff.
n ver. 4reff.
o = Heb. x. 9.
Num. xxx. 14. 1 Mace. xv. 5.
ix.12. Acts vii. 11.
/ \
TlOTEWC KA
ovuv ™
° ta ravouev.
-avo, see ch, vi. 13.
81. rec wotwpev, with D3KLN? rel Chr Thdrt Thl ec:
txt ABCD?FX! Orig Cyr Procop Damase.
mepiotavouey D!:
IIPOS PQMAIOY®2.
' ax poBvuariav cua THe misrewe.
a Fas ai cua THC TIOTEWC 5
1 Cor. iii. 1 reff.
2Tim.i.18. Gen. vi. 8. xxvi. 12
TEE ade
31 youov
"an yévouro, adAa
IV. !®Ti ovv Epovpev i evonkévat | “ABoaau TOV
p ch. iii. 5 reff. gq = Luke
ovvictwuev 17.65. 93 lect-6:
Cuap. 1V.1. rec aBpaay roy matepa nuwy bef evpnrevat, with KL 17 rel syrr Chr
Thdrt Thl ic Gennad Phot: om evpynkevac B 47!:
fication, 51a Tis mlorews, by his faith: the
former is the objective ground, the latter
the subjective medium. Jowett’s rendering
of mepitomiy ex mlatews, ‘the circumcision
that is of faith, though ingenious, is hardly
philologically allowable, nor would it corre-
spond to the other member of the sentence,
which he rightly renders ‘and the uncir-
cumeision through their faith’ To under-
stand rijs ticrews (as Mr. Green, Gr. p. 300)
as referring to mfiarews just mentioned ‘ by
the instrumentality of the identical faith
which operates in the case of the circum-
cised,’ is to contradict the fact: the faith
was not, strictly speaking, identical in this
sense, or the two cases never need have
been distinguished. See vv. 1, 2. 31. |
But again the Jew may object, if this is the
case, if Faith be the ground, and Faith the
medium, of justification for all, circumcised
or uncircumcised, swrely the law is set aside
and made void. That this is not so, the
Apostle both here asserts, and is prepared
to shew by working out the proposition of
ver. 29, that the law itself belonged to a
covenant whose original recipient was jus-
tified by faith, and whose main promise
was, the reception and blessing of the Gen-
tiles. vopov, not ‘/aw,’ but the law,
as every where in the Epistle. We may
safely say that the Apostle never argues of
law, abstract, in the sense of a system of
precepts,—its attributes or its effects,—
but always of THE LAW, concrete,—the
law of God given by Moses, when speaking
of the Jews, as here: the law of God, in
as far as written in their consciences, when
speaking of the Gentiles: and when in-
cluding both, the law of God generally,
His written as well as His unwritten will.
Many Commentators have taken this
verse (being misled in some cases by its
place at the end of the chapter) as standing
by itself, and have gone into the abstr act
grounds why faith does not make void the
law (or moral obedience) ; which, however
true, have no place here: the design being
to shew that the law itself contained this
ins bef aBpaap ACDER latt Eus
very doctrine, and was founded in the pro-
mise to Abraham on a covenant embracing
Jews and Gentiles,—and therefore was not
degraded from its dignity by the doctrine,
but rather established as a part of God’s
dealings,— consistent with, explaining, and
explained by, the Gospel.
IV.1—5.] Abraham himself was justified
by faith. The reading and punctuation of
this verse present some difficulties. As to
the first (see var. read.), the variation in
the order of the words, and the reading
mpomatopa seemed to me formerly, how-
ever strongly supported, to have sprung
out of an idea that xata odpxa belonged
to marépa. This being supposed, edpn-
Kkévat appeared to have been transposed
to throw marépa ju. kata odpka together,
—and then, because Abraham is distinctly
proved (ver. 11) to have been im another
sense the father of the faithful, rarépa to
have been altered to the less ambiguous
mpomdtopa, ancestor, a word not found in
the N. T., but frequent in the Fathers.
I therefore in the 38rd edition of this vol.,
with De Wette, Tholuck, and Tischendorf
(in his Zast edn.), retained the rec. text.
Being now however convinced that we are
bound to follow the testimony of our best
MSS., and to distrust such subjective con-
siderations as unsafe, and generally able
to be turned both ways, I have adopted
the reading of A(B)CDFR Kce., bracketing
edpynxevat as of doubtful authority, omitted
as it is by B. Grot., Le Clere, and
Wetst. punctuate, tl ody éepoduey ; ebpy.
. oapxa :—and Matthai, ri ody ; epodu.
.odpka; supplying Sicaoctyny (or
more rightly an indefinite 7) after etpy-
kevat. But as Thol. well remarks, both
these methods of punctuating would pre-
suppose that Paul had given some reason
in the preceding verses for imagining that
Abraham fad gained some advantage ac-
cording to the flesh : which is not the case.
1. ovv| The Apostle is here contend-
ing with those under thelaw,from their own
standing-point : and he follows up his véuov
ABCDF
KLNab
cedfgh
kilmn
ol7
IV. 1—3.
ITIPOD PQMAIOYS.
347
, ~ A oe ? A ’ A ’
. TooTaTopa Nuwv . KaTa i ouoka ; 2 yap ABoaau bez r here only t.
a t ay , ff) uv vw ,
Eoywv EOLKALWUN, eyee Kavynea.
Ps. xxix. 8
, ’ > x N Symm.
AR. abe mage enters
Gedv 8 ri yap n* ypagn Aéyes * "Eriotevaey 6 “ABpadp yy, ava,
v Gal. vi. 4.
xii. 12, or John i. 1, 2.
xvi. 34 reff.
Cyr Damase Ambrst.
w Paul (1 Cor. v. 6 al8.) only, exc. Heb. iii. 6. Deut. x. 21 al.
y ch. ix. 17 reff.
1 Cor, xv. 51.
x = Mark
zw. dat., GEN. xy.6. Acts
rec (for mporar.) marepa, with C3DFKLX-corr! 17 rel latt
syr Chr Thdrt Gennad Phot Thl Ee: patriarcham Syr: txt ABC'X*3 copt wth arm
Eus (Chr-comm,) Cyr Damase.
2. adda F.
Cyr.
3. in XN yap has been written twice, but the first erased.
sary) D'F b o latt Chr Cypr.
iotdvouev, by what therefore (‘hoc con-
cesso,’ ‘seeing that you and I are both
upholders of the law ’) shall we say, &c.
This verse, and the argument following, are
not a proof, but a consequence, of vdmov
tor., and are therefore introduced, not with
yap, but with odv. evpynKévar | viz.
towards his justification, or more strictly,
earned as his own, to boast of. Kato
cdpka belongs to evp., not (as Chrys.,
Theophyl., Erasm.) to wpomwdtopa 7p.
For the course and spirit of the argument
is not to limit the paternity of Abraham to
a mere fleshly one, but to shew that he was
the spiritual father of all believers. And
the question is not one which requires any
such distinction between his fleshly and
spiritual paternity (asin ch. ix. 3,5). This
being so, what does kata odpka mean ?
It cannot allude to ctrewmeision ; for that
is rendered improbable, not only by the
parallel expression é& pywy in the plural,
but also by the consideration, that cireum-
cision was no épyoy at all, but a seal of the
righteousness which he had by faith being
yet uncircumcised (ver. 11),—and by the
whole course of the arguinent in the pre-
sent place, which is not to disprove the
exclusive privilege of the Jew (that having
that the father and head of the race him-
self was justified not by works, but by
faith. Doubtless, in so far as circumcision
was a mere work of obedience, it might be
in a loose way considered as falling under
that category: but it came after justifica-
tion, and so is chronologically here ex-
cluded. «ata odpKxa then is in contrast
to kata mvevya,—and refers to that de-
partment of our being from which spring
works, in contrast with that in which is the
“exercise of faith : see ch. viii. 4, 5. 2. |
For if Abraham was justified (assuming,
as a fact known to all, that he was justified
by some means) by works, he hath matter
of boasting (not expressed here whether
in the sight of men, or of God, but taken
rec ins tov bef 6eov, with D3KL 17 rel Chr Thdrt: om ABCD!FX
om de (as unneces-
generally : the proposition being assumed,
‘He that has earned justification by works,
has whereof to boast’). Then, in disproof
of this,— that Abraham has matter of boast-
ing,— whatever men might think of him,
or attribute to him (e.g. the perfect keep-
ing of the law, as the Jews did), one thing
at least is clear, that he has none beforeGod.
(wpés, probably as in the second ref., with,
in the sense of chez: apud Deum.) This
we can prove, (ver. 3) for what saith the
Scripture? Abraham believed God (God’s
promise) and it (7d morevoa) was reck-
oned (so LXX. Heb., ‘He reckoned it’) to
him as (ch. ii. 26) righteousness. The
whole question so much mooted between
Protestants on the onehand, and Romanists,
Arminians, and Socinians on the other, as
to whether this righteousness was reckoned
(1) ‘per fidem,’ being God’s righteousness
imputed to the sinner; or (2) ‘propter
fidem, so that God made Abraham righteous
on account of the merit of his faith, lies in
fact in a small compass, if what has gone
before be properly taken into account.
The Apostle has proved Jews and Gentiles
to be all under sin: utterly unable by
works of their own to attain to righteous-
ness. Now faith, in the second sense men-
tioned above, is strictly and entirely @ work,
and as such would be the efficient cause of
man’s justification,—which, by what has
preceded, it cannot be. It will therefore
follow, that it was not the act of believing
which was reckoned to him as a righteous
act, or on account of which perfect righte-
ousness was laid to his charge, but that
the fact of his trusting God to perform
His promise introduced him into the bless-
ing promised. God declared his purpose
(Gen. xii. 3) of blessing all the families of
the earth in Abraham, and again (Gen. xv.
5) that his seed should be as the stars of
heaven, when as yet he had no son. Abra-,
ham believed this promise, and became par-
taker of this blessing. But this blessing
was, justification by faith in Christ. Now
348
TIPOS POMAIOYS.
Ty:
. a oe \ ’ / 2) Ay , so \
anch ix 8 TW Bem, Kat “eXoytaOn avty * ac Stkatootynv. 4 Tw 08
ov.
xvii 28. 2 C f nee 06 1 r iZ # ka a a tv adXa
1 Macc. ii. 52. epya OMEVm O ptavocg Ou oy éTat T x P ’
Ps. cy. 31. Viies? , Sess ~ A Neeley cs , f , \
b absol., Tar KkaTa opetAnna TW OE fA) Epyalopevyy, TlOTEVOVTL Oe
xvii. 3 re
= f ? \ A ~ ‘ he ~ a , c ,
Oe kon - emt oTey 8 Sikatouvta Tov acepn, AoyiZera N) WloTic
7. _1 Cor. iii. > ~ , , i , \ ’ i , N
Fal Gen. autou “ete Sikatocuyyny. © kabameo Kat Aaveid ! AEye TOV
XXX1. 7.
d ver. 16. e = here (Matt. vi.12) only. Deut. xxiv.10. Thue. ii. 40. (-An, ch. xiii. z) ,f ver.
24. Acts ix. 42. xi.17. see Matt. xxvii. 42 v. r. gch. ii. 13 reff. heh. v.6. 1 Tim.i.9.
1 Pet. iv. 18. 2 Pet. ii. 5. iii. 7. Jude 4,15 (bis) only. Prov. xxi. 30. (-e¢a, ch.i. 18.) i Paul (ch.
xii. 4. 1 Cor, xii. 12 al8.) only, exc. Heb. iv. 2. Lev. xxvii. 8 only (?). see Heb. v. 4. j = John viii. 27.
Phil. iii. 18.
4. rec ins To bef operAnua (appy as agreeing better with the idea of a definite obliga-
tion incurred : 7. é.
Td dpedduevov, ‘what is due from the employer, as indeed
Bloomf. explains it), with none of our mss: ins ABCDFKLX rel.
5. aoeBnv D'FR.
6. for kabarep, xabws DF.
Abraham could not, in the strict sense of
the words, be justified by faith ix Christ,
—nor is it necessary to suppose that he
directed his faith forward to the promised
Redeemer in Person ; but in so far as God’s
gracious purpose was revealed to him, he
grasped it by faith, and that righteousness
which was implied, so far, in it, was im-
puted to him. Some have said (Tholuck,
e. g.) that the parallel is incomplete—
Abraham’s faith having been reckoned to
him for righteousness, iviereas, in our case,
the righteousness of Christ is reckoned to
us as our righteousness, by faith. But the
incompleteness lies in the nature of the re-
spective cases. Inhiscase, the righteousness
itself was not yet manifested. He believed
implicitly, taking the promise, with all tt
involved and implied, as true. This then
was his way of entering into the promise,
and by means of his faith was bestowed
upon him that full justification which that
faith never apprehended. Thus his faith
itself, the mere fact of implicit trust in
God, was counted to Aim for righteousness.
But though the same righteousness is im-
puted to us who believe, and by means of
faith also, it is no longer the mere fact of
believing implicitly in God’s truth, but the
reception of Christ Jesus the Lord by faith,
which justifies us (see vv. 23—25 and note).
As it was then the realization of God’s
words by faith, so now: but we have the
Person of the Lord Jesus for the object of
JSaith, explicitly revealed: he had not. In
both cases justification is gratuitous, and
is by faith: and so far, which is as far as
the argument here requires, the parallel is
strict and complete. 4. TO Epyalop. |
(q. d. r@ epyatn, but the part. is used
because of the negative T@ ut epyad. fol-
lowing)—to the workman (him that works
for hire, that earns wages, compare zpos-
npydoaro, Luke xix. 16) his wages are
not reckoned according to (as a matter
ins o bef daver5 DF Chr-comm,.
of) grace (favour), but accordiztg to (as
a matter of) debt. The stress is on kata
xapiv, not on AoylCerat, which in this first
member of the sentence, is used hardly
in the strict sense, of tmputing or reckon-
ing, but of allotting or apportioning :—
its use being occasioned by the stricter
AoylCera: below. And the sentence is a
general one, not with any peculiar reference
to Abraham,—except that after Kara xdpw
we may supply és 76 ’A8padu, if we will;
for this is evidently assumed. 5. |
But to him who works not (for hire,—is
not an epyarns looking for his puo6ds)
but believes on (casts himself in simple
trust and humility on) Him who justifies
(accounts just, as in ver. 3) the ungodly
(‘impious :’ stronger than ‘unrighteous :”
—no allusion to Abraham’s having formerly
been in idolatry,—for the sentence follow-
ing on ver. 4, which is general and of uni-
versal application, must also be general,—
including of course Abraham: aa€Beia is
the state of all men by nature),—his faith
is reckoned as righteousness. Kata
xapw is of course implied.
6—8.] The same is confirmed by a passage
Srom David. This is not a fresh example,
but a confirmation of the assertion involved
in ver. 5, that a man may believe on Him
who justifies the ungodly, ‘and have his faith
reckoned for righteousness. The applica-
bility of the text depends on the persons
alluded to being sinners, and having sin
not reckoned to them. aoeBets and
AoyiLopat are the two words to be illus-
trated. The Psalm, strictly speaking, says
nothing of the imputation of righteousness,
—but it is implied by Paul, that the remis-
sion of sin is equivalent to the imputation
of righteousness —that there is no negative
state of innocence —none intermediate be-
tween acceptance for righteousness, and re-
jection for sin. 6. A€y. Tov pak. | pro-
nounces the blessedness, ‘the congratu-
4—ll1.
IPOS POMAIOY2.
349
k ‘ dene: , ees ‘ ] fe , :
pakagtopov Tov avOpwrou @ o Oedc | Aoyierat Sucarosy- UE Nas
only t.
\ ww <
vynv ywpic Eepywy, 7 Makapuor wy ° apéeOnaav al ° avopttat 1 ver. 3.
‘ a p? yee f) Cat , 8 ,
kat wv "erekadupOnoay at auaotiar. © paKkapLoc
> ~ |] ’ , € ’ e
ov my Aoytonrat KUOLOG GuapTlay. 96
? SN ‘ /2 vn \ ap AN X >
ourocg TEemt THY TEPLTOUNY, *n Kat Teme THY * axpo[3u-
ae ASE eee alee 1 ~» ‘ 1
oTlav 3 Aéyouey yao ort éAoyiaOn TW ABoaap n Worle
1 2 3 7 .
ele OLlKatoGUYHY
” Nin ea? 5s? , | ) t
OvTt, if) Ev akooPvoria 3 OUK
5) = 7 ~
z axpoPvortia. 1 eal “onusiov EAaBev * reotrounc, “ opea-
33 reff. Mark ix. 12, 13.
t = ch. iii. 19 reff.
of apposit., Acts iv. 22. 2 Cor. v. 5.
2 Tim. ii. 19. Rev. v. 1 all2.) only.
Heb. vii. 13.
8. for 6, 06 BD'GN!: txt ACD? FKLN rel.
9. aft meprrouny ins povoy D harl'(not am demid fuld) Ambrst Pelag.
om ott BD'N.
em, ets C: om 29. 33: om em THY Aa.
aft Sicatoc. 17. 62.
u = Matt. xxvi 48.
Col. iii. 24.
(Hagg. ii. 24.)
Aware m ch. ili. 21
reff.
GVO W y= matt. vi.
k x > 12. xii. 31.
pPakaplophoc OUV Acts viii. 22.
Isa, xxii. 14.
Psa. xxxi. }.
o = Matt. vii.
23. xiii. 4).
ch. vi. Iv al.
Exod, xxxiv.
ae o siminte ' - te .
TWC OUY ehoytaOn 5 EV TEOLTOLY | here ony,
, oe > % te? lic. Gen.
Ev mepitony, GAA “ev vir.
(-vupu,
1 Pet. ii. 16.)
q = Acts iv.
sch. ii. 30 reff.
v constr. gen.
w = 1 Cor. 1x. 2
r1 Cor. ix. 8 reff.
1 Cor, xiv. 22. GEN. «vii. 11.
Winer, edn. 6, § 59.8.
Aoyioera K n 17.
for 2nd
om 7 mioTis K: ins
10. om ot: F vulg(not fuld') D%-lat Cyr Ambrst Pelag Aug.
11. meprrounv AC! syrr Orig-schol Eus Cyr-jer Chr, Cyr, Procop Damase: txt
lation :’ in allusion perhaps to the Heb.
form, ‘yx ‘ (O) the blessings of, ...-
It is very clear that this righteousness
must be xwpls épywv, because its impu-
tation consists in the remission and hiding
of offences, whereas none can be legally
righteous in whom there is any, even the
smallest offence. 8.] ov ph Aoyion-
wat, as the same construction usually in
the N. T., is future (Winer, edn. 6, § 56.
3), and must be referred to the great final
judgment. Or we may say with Olsh. that
the expression is an O. T. one, regarding sin
as lying covered by the divine long-sufier-
ing till the completion of the work of
Christ, at which time first real forgiveness
of sins was imparted to the ancient be-
lievers ; compare Matt. xxvii. 53 ; 1 Pet. ili.
18. In this last view the future will only
refer to all such cases as should arise.
9—12.| This declaration of blessedness
applies to cirewmcised and uncirewncised
alike. For Abraham himself was thus
justified when in UNCIRCUMCISION, and
was then pronounced the father of the
faithful, uncircumcised as well as cirewn-
cised. pakaptopds of course includes
the fact, on account of which the con-
gratulation is pronounced,—the justifica-
tion itself. 9. emi] sc. Aéyerai, see
refi. The form of the question, with 7)
xa, presupposes an affirmative answer to
the latter clause ; which affirmative answer
is then made the ground of the argumenta-
tion in vv. 10, 11, 12:—On the uncir-
cumcision (-cised) also. For we say,
&e. The stress is on T@ ABpadp, not on
4 wiotis: for we say that To ABRAHAM
faith was reckoned for righteousness.
10.] was, under what circum-
stances? The interval between the re-
cognition of his faith (Gen. xv. 6) and his
circumcision, was perhaps as much as
twenty-five, certainly not less (Gen. xvii.
25) than fourteen years. 11.] And he
received (from God) the sign (token, or
symbol) of cireumeision (gen. of apposition,
see reff. The reading mepirouqy appears
to have been an alteration on account of
oppayisa following), a seal (the Targum
on Cant. iii. 8, cited by Tholuck, has the
expression, ‘ the seal of circumcision,’ and
in Sohar, Levit. vi. 21, it is called ‘a holy
sign.” So also Baptism is called in the
Acta Thome, § 26, 7 oppayis Tov AouTpov,
and elsewhere in the Fathers simply 7
copayis. Grabe, Spicil. Patr. i. 333) of the
righteousness (to stamp, and certify the
righteousness) of the faith (gen. of apposi-
tion [but not iz appos. with du. by con-
struction |,—‘ of the righteousness which
consisted in his faith,’—not, ‘of his justi-
fication by faith :’ the present argument
treats of faith accounted as righteousness)
which was (or, ‘which he had:’ ris may
refer either to dix. or to tior.,—but better
to the former, because the object is to
shew that the righteousness was imputed
in uncirecumcision) during his uncireum-
cision. In literal historical matter of fact,
Abraham received circumcision as a seal of
the covenant between God and him (Gen.
xvii. 1—14). But this covenant was only
a renewal of that very one, on the pro-
mise of which Abraham’s faith was exer-
cised, Gen. xv. 5, 6,—and each successive
350 IIPOS PQMAIOY®. IV.
x Acts lil. 19.
vii. 19. ver.
yida THe Stkalocunc THe * TlaTEwWe THC tty Ty *axpo(varia,
18; chi. Th, Ris 1 oe 2) 2m , ‘ - , a 5 ?
20 al. Ei¢ TO ELVaL QUTOY TaTEPa TAVTWY TWY TIOTEVOYTWY © OL
a=ch.ii-270 ¢ > ' x? aw - \ > - . 5
las axpopuatiac, “ec TO AoyoOnvat [«at| auToLG THY Ot-
fort, , 9 ‘ / ~ ~ > be ? c
chasx.45 KaLoourny, I? kal matEépa TeoLTOUNE TOLG OUK ” EK ~ TEDL
refi.
d Acts xxi 24,
Gal. v. 25.
~ , > A ‘ ad - - ev
rounc povov, adXa Kat ToIc ““ otoryovow Tog © tyvEctY
ae P ~ t? > , , ~ £ ‘ c on ie LE
Woigou TNE EY *akoopvaria TloTEWC TOV TATOO NAwy ABoadp
eg rae 1 (ee ‘ 5 \ , ok x7 - "AB elt: eo ,
hae ad OU y2p ta vowutovu yy eTayye ta TW paau 7) TW o7EO-
e2Cor. xii, 18. 1 Pet. ii. 21t¢. Sir. xxi.6. txvn tHe GAnBeias, Polyb. iv. 42. 7. (dat., ch. xiii. 13.) f Acts
vii. 2 reff. gch.i. 3 reth.
BC?DFKLN 17 rel latt copt Orig-e Chr, Cyr, Thdrt Thl Ce.
dia F: ty mwepitouns L. om Tns bef din. A. om tT) DF b c o Procop Damase.
for 8, 51a AD'F K(e sil) L: txt BCD?“8 rel. om kat ABN! a demid tol
Orig-schol Cyr Damase : ins CDFKLN$ 17 rel latt syrr eth Thdrt Th! He. om
anv C2D'N: for thy, es Ad 32. 114. 124 Syr Cyr, ad justitiam vulg D3-lat G-lat
Ambrst Pelag Aug.
12. om tas ovK ex mepirouns (homeot) &!: ins N-corr!. rec ins t7 bef akpo-
Bvoria, with D3KL rel Chr Thdrt Thl @e,: om ABCD'FR a' ¢ f hl mn Procop
Damase (e,.—tns mot. Ths ev TH axpoB. DKLabefgh k1n 017 vulg(not am fuld
aft oppayida ins
harl') Thdrt Thl-sif Gc, lat-ff: om morews &!: ins X-corr!.
renewal of which was a fresh approval of
that faith. The Apostle’s point is,—that
the righteousness was reckoned, and the
promise made, to Abraham, not in cireum-
cision, but in uncircumcision. €is TO
elvat....] In order that he might be
(not ‘so that he is;’ see Gal. iii. 7) the
father of all that believe in uncircum-
cision (did, see reff.,—* conditionis ’).
Abraham is the father of the faithful.
But the triumph and recognition of that
faith whereby he was constituted so, was
not during his circumcision, but during his
uncircumcision :—therefore the faithful, his
descendants, must not be confined to the
circumcised, but must take in the uncir-
cumcised also. On warépa in this sense,
Tholuck compares the expression Gen. iv.
20; 1 Mace. ii. 54 (@ieés 6 mathp juav
év t@ (nda@oa Aov), and Maimonides,
‘Moses is the father of all the prophets
who succeeded him.’ See also our Lord’s
saying, John viii. 37, 39. ‘The Rabbinical
book Michlal Jophi on Mal. ii. (Thol.) has a
sentiment remarkably coincident with that
in our text: “Abraham is the father of all
those who follow his faith.” els TO
hoy. «.7.A.] (is in fact parenthetical, whe-
ther brackets are used or not ; for otherwise
the construction from the former to the
latter warépa would not proceed) in order
that the righteousness (which Abraham’s
faith was reckoned as being,—the righte-
ousness of God, then hidden though im-
puted, but now revealed in Jesus Christ)
might be imputed to them also.
12, wal (cis 7d elvar airdy) martépa
weptTopys ....| And (that he might be)
father of the circumcision (the cirecumn-
cised) to those (dat. commodi ‘ for those,’
‘in the case of those’) who are not only
(physically) of the circumcision, but also
who walk (the inversion of the article
appears to be in order to bring out more
markedly rots é« wepit. and tots oTo1x.,—
who are not only of é« wepit., but also of
arotxoovtes ....) in the footsteps (reff-)
of the faith of our father (speaking here as
a Jew) Abraham (which he had) during
uncircumeision. (The art. would make it
‘during his uncireumcision,’ —but the sense
is better without it, the word being gene-
ralized.) 13—17.] Not through the
LAW, but through THE RIGHTEOUSNESS
OF FAITH, was THE INHERITANCE OF THE
WORLD promised to Abraham: so that not
only they who are of the law, but they who
follow Abraham’s faith are HEIRS OF THIS
PROMISE. 13.| ydp, strictly for.
The argumentation is an expansion of
matépa mavT. Tov moTevdvTwy above. If
these believers are Abraham’s seed, then
his promised inheritance is theirs.
81a vopov | not, ‘under the law,’ —nor, ‘ by
works of the law :’—nor, ‘ by the righteous-
ness of the law:’ but, through the law,
so that the law should be the ground, or
efficient cause, or medium, of the promise.
None of these it was, as matter of historical
fact. For not through the law was
the promise (made) to Abraham, or (# in
negative sentences answers to kal in affirm.,
see Matt. V. 17) to his seed, viz. that he
should be heir of the world, but by the
righteousness of faith. This specifica-
tion of the promise has perplexed most of
the Commentators. The actual promise,
Gen. (xii. 2, 3) xiii. 14d—17; xv. 18; xvii.
ABCDF
KLNa b
edfgh
kimn
ol7
12—16.
, ~
att avuTou,
ota dtkatoovvne TIOTEWC, M4
. j c / k , ci. 2 ‘
Mol, J KeKEvwrat yy TloTIC Kal KaTnpynTrat 7) emayyeXta.
15 ¢
, a, MF 1m |
vomoc, ovee " Taoa[3aatc.
(Jer. xiv. 2. xv. 9 only.)
3. vii. 8,13. 2Cor.iv.J7. Jamesi. 3 al.
ii. 2. ix.15 only. Ps.c.3. Wisd. xiv. 3Lonly. w.gen, ch. ii. 23. 2 Macc. xv. 10 only.
iii. 20, 30 al.
13. om 7 &!: ins &-corr!.
om ABCDFRX d Damase.
15. for ov, mov G'.
IPOS PQMAIOY®2.
hes J , i ¥ ,
TO xAnpovopov auTov étlvat KOOMOU,
16 8 ‘ - 0? U ef
ia TOUTO EK TlOTEWC, LVa
k ch. iii. 3 reff.
dL
> \
h 76 w. inf,
ahXa 1 Thess. iii.
LP Ld i ? 8.
EL yao OL EK VOMOU kA noove- i=Tit. iii. 7.
‘
Heb. i. 2.
vi.J7. xi.7.
James ii 5.
Micah i. 15.
‘ , 19 ‘ m , 7 3 > 7
0 yao vouog ooyny Kateoyacerat. ov CE OUK EOTLY j=) Cori. 17.
ix. 35. 2 Cor.
ix. 3 (Phil.
ii. 7) only t.
l= ch. ii. 5, 8 reff. m= ch. v.
n absol., ch. v.14. Gal. iii. 19. 1 Tim. ii. 14. ne
o=ch.
rec ins rou bef ckocuov, with KL 17 rel Thdrt Thl Gc:
for 51a ducatocvyns, Sikatocuyny F. (S:axatoruyns G'.)
rec (for Se) yap (see note), with DFKLN% rel latt syrr Chr
(ort o vou. for o yap v. above) Cyr He Ambrst Aug, Bede: txt ABCN! syr-marg copt
Thdrt Thl Julian Ambr Ruf.
8, was the possession of the land of Ca-
naan. But the Rabbis already had seen,
and Paul, who had been brought up in their
learning, held fast the truth,—that much
more was intended in the words which
accompany this promise, ‘ In thee (or in thy
seed) shall all families of the earth be
blessed,’ than the mere possession of Ca-
naan. They distinctly trace the gift of the
world to Abraham to this promise, not to
the foregoing. So Bemidbar Rabb. xiv.
202. 3 (Wetst.),—* Hortus est mundus,
quem Deus tradidit Abrahamo, cui dictum
est, “eteris benedictio”’ (see other citations
in Wetst.). The inheritance of the world
then is not the possession of Canaan merely
(so that kécuov should = ys) either
literally, or as ‘a type of a better posses-
sion,—but that ultimate lordship over the
whole world which Abraham, as the father
of the faithful in all peoples, and Christ,
as the Seed of Promise, shall possess: the
former figuratively indeed and only im-
plicitly,—the/Zatter personally andactually.
See ch. viii. 17; Matt.v.5; 2 Tim. ii. 12;
1 Cor. xv. 24. Another difficulty, that
this promise was made chronologically be-
Sore the reckoning of his faith for righteous-
ness, is easily removed by remembering that
the (indefinite) making of the promiseis here
treated of as the whole process of its asser-
tion, during which Abraham’s faith was
shewn, and the promise continually con-
firmed. adtéy includes his seed.
14.] The supposition is now made which
ver. 13 denied, —and its consequences
shewn. For if they who are of the law
(who belong to the law, see reff.: not,
“who keep the law,’ nor is dfcaror to be
supplied) are inheritors (i. e. inherit
‘ejus rei causi,’ by virtue of the law:
they may be inheritors by the righteous-
ness of faith, but not quoad their legal
standing), faith is (thereby) made empty
(robbed of its virtue and rendered use-
mapaBaceis (itacism) AF.
less), and the promise is annulled (has
no longer place). How andwhyso? The
Apostle himself immediately gives the rea-
son. 15.) For the law works (brings
about, gives occasion to) wrath (which
from its very nature, excludes promise,
which is an act of grace,—and faith, which
is an attribute of confidence) ;—but where
(or, for where; but I should regard ydp
as introduced to suit the idea of the second
clause rendering a reason for the first)
there is no law (lit. ‘where the law is
not’), neither (is there) transgression.
‘We should rather expect (says De W.)
the affirmative clause, “And where the law
is, there is transgression: but the negative
refers to the time before the Mosaic law,
when there was no transgression and there-
fore also no wrath.’ Yes; but not because
there was no transgression then; the pur-
pose of the Apostle here is not to deny the
existence of the law of God written in the
heart (which itself brings in the knowledge
of sin) before Moses, but to shew that no
promise of inheritance can be by the law,
because the property of the law is, the more
it is promulgated, to reveal transgression
more,—not to unfold grace. So that com-
paratively (see notes on ch. vii.) there was
no transgression before the law of Moses ;
and if we conceive a state in which the law
whether written or unwritten should be
altogether absent (as in the brute creation),
there would be no transgression whatever.
But observe (see ch. v. 12—14) that this
reasoning does not touch the doctrine of the
original taint of our nature in Adam, — only
referring to the discrimination of acts,
words, and thoughts by the conscience iz
the light of the law: for wapaBacts is
not natural corruption, but an act of trans-
gression: nor does the Apostle here deny
the former, even in the imaginable total ab-
sence of the law of God. 16.| For
this (viz. the following) reason it (the
302
'. \ ,
pes clips, P xara Kap, q
13.
\ ab 4 / ’ =~
ver. 11 reff. @ TEOUaTIL, OV TW
(Bipinde gs penne: ; o ne t, if
set Kal Tw " EK TIOTEWC
4. vi.19. ix. « 17 (
U7 sue Pets G K © é avjrTat
10,19 only Te eid uy e ¢ ‘4 YP
Wise. vil. 23 Y pefeika ae) *
s Actsi. 4 reff. - ‘ s
t = ver. 13. TOLOVYTOG TOVC VEKNOUC Kal
uch. ii. 8 re
v GEN. xvii. 5. w = 1 Tim. ii. 7.
XXv. 4.
22 al.
y attr., Lukei. 4.
4 Kings v.7,
16. aft miorews ins mnoov D'(and lat?).
movoy and ka F(and F-lat) 91 D-lat: om «ou fuld harl!.
IIPOS PQOMAIOY®.
? A s.
fl¢ TO Eélvat
Katévavre Y ov ETLOTEVOEV Oeov, Tou
2 Tim. i. 11.
ii. 17. xii. 19 (Mark xi. 2 | L. (Mt. and Matt. xxvii. 24, v. r.] xii. 41. xiii. 3) only. Exod. xxxii. 11 F.
Winer, edn. 6, $24. 2. b.
a see note, and Isa. xii. 4. xlviii, 13. 4 Kings viii. 1 (?). 7a@ uy) Guta éxadecev
eis TO €lvat, Philo de Creat. Princ. § 7, vol. ii. p. 367.
ry.
* BcBaiav tiv *emayyeXlav
~ , ,
“eK Tov vosov povov, ara
f ess”
“ABpadu, O¢ totw | maTnp TavTwY
Ore Tatépa Todo eOveorv
* Cwo-
.s €
*kaXovvroe Ta 1 OVTa WE
x = 2 Cor.
(Nam.
1 Cor. xv.
Heb. i. 2. 2 Pet. ii.6. Jer. i. 5.
z John v. 21. ch. viii. ll.
aft wa ins n A 45. 80 arm. om
aft vowov ins eotw D*,
17. emorevoas I, credidisti vulg-mss(demid flor fuld tol, besides F-lat) D-lat Syr
Ambrst Vig Pelag; eredent wth:
inheritance,—not the promise; the pro-
mise was not strictly speaking é« mioTews :
—nor must we supply they, meaning the
heirs, who although they might fairly be
said to be é« miotews | compare of é« vdjuou
above, and reff.] could hardly be without
harshness described as being kata xdpww)
was by faith that it might be (strictly
the purpose ;—not, ‘so that it was’)
according to grace (free unmerited favour.
As the law, bringing the knowledge of
guilt, works wrath,—so the promise,
awakening faith, manifests God’s free
grace,—the end for which it was given) ;
in order that the promise might be sure
(not, ‘so that the promise was sure :’ this
was the result, but the Apostle states this
as the aim and end of the inheritance being
by faith,—quoad the seed of Abraham,—
that they all might be inheritors,—as the
manifestation of God’s grace was the higher
aim and end) to all the seed, not only to
that (part of it) which is of the law (see
ver. 14), but to that which is of the faith
(walks in the steps of the faith, ver. 12) of
Abraham (it is altogether wrong to make
’"ABpaau depend on omépuate expressed
or understood, as (Zcum., Koppe, and
Fritzsche). The part of the seed which
is of the law here is of course confined to
believing Jews; the seed being believers
only. ‘This has been sometimes lost sight
of, and the whole argument of vv. 13—16
treated as if it applied to the doctrine of
justification by faith without the works of
the law, a point already proved, and now
presupposed,—the present argument being
an historical and metaphysical one, pro-
ceeding on the facts of Abraham’s history,
and the natures respectively of the law and
grace, to prove him to be the father of all
believers, uncircumcised as well as cireum-
cised. bs oT TaThp TayTw Hpay |
emiotevoay D},
By the last declaration, the paternity of
Abraham, which is co-extensive with the
inheritance, has been extended to all who
are of his faith ; here therefore it is reas-
serted: juayv meaning toy mortevdvTwr.
17. Kaas yéyp.| The words (ref.) are
spoken of the numerous progeny of Abra-
ham according to the flesh: but not with-
out a reference to that covenant, according
to the terms of which all nations were to
be blessed in him. The Apostle may here
cite it as comparing his natural paternity of
many nations with his spiritual one of all
believers : but it seems more probable that
he regards the prophecy as directly an-
nouncing a paternity far more extensive
than mere physical fact substantiated.
These words are parenthetical, being
merely a confirmation by Scripture tes-
timony of és éorw mat. maytT. ju., with
which (see below) the following words
are immediately connected. KaT-
évavtt ob ériotevcev Geod | The meaning
appears to be, ‘ Abraham was the father
of us all,—though not physically, nor in
actuality, seeing that we were not as yet,—
yet in the sight and estimation of God,—
in his relation with God, with whom no
obstacles of nature or time have force.
The resolution of the attraction
must be kxarévaytt Oeov, KarévayTi ov
éemlatevoevy, as in ref. Luke, before
God, in whose sight he believed. [Chry-
sostom’s interpretation (and similarly
Theodoret, al.),—&smep & Oeds obi eort
Mepixds debs, GAAG wdvroy mar hp, oUTw
kal avTos.... Td yap ‘KatévavTt’ dpoiws
éori,—does not fall in with the con-
text, and is certainly a mistake.]
Tov Cwor. tT. vexp.| Who quickens the
dead;—a general description of God’s
almighty creative power (see 1 Tim. vi.
13), applied particularly to the matter
17—19.
>
»”
ovTa’
TIIPOS PQMAIOY®.
353
a b ce I~ c ’ , , ee ’ ‘ sn! eT
Soe ° map’ eXmioa “em °EdmtO “ Eextorevaer, © ec TO TAN Mas.
xvi. 17 al.
, @ ’ ‘ , ~ > ~ 4 Ne fae ,
yeveo at QuTOV Tareoa ToAAwy eOverv kata TO ELONMEVOY ¢ Acts ii. 26
(from Ps, xv.
¢ of — i¢ , \ S Obie , i ~~ ae
® Ourwe Estat TO oTEppLa Gov, 19 cai un“ acbevnoag ‘ry 3). eh gil
q mat i , <8 PW rl = na 1 ix. 10 al. L.P.
WlOTEL, [ou KaTEVOHOEVY TO EAVUTOV GWItd [ion] VEVES Hos. ii. 18.
d w. dat. of
thing, Luke xxiv. 26 only. e ver. 11 reff. f Acts xiii. 40 reff. g GEN. xv. 5.
h = 2 Cor. xi. 21. xiii. 9. ch. xiv. 2, 21.1 Macc. xi. 49. ich. xiv. 1 only. k = Heb. x.
24, Isa. lvii. 1. 1 Col. iil. 5.
18. ed cAmid: C'D'F.
been written twice, and the first erased. |
Heb. xi. 12 only t.
yevacbat F(but not G).
[in & kara seems to have
at end add ws at agrepes Tov ovpayvou
Kat TO auwmov THs Oadacons F vulg-sixt(with flor F-lat al) some lat-ff, simly 106. 108-
marg Thl; sicut stelle coli harl' G-lat ; sicwt arena maris fuld mar, sicut arena que
est in litore maris tol.
19. ins ev bef rm more: D!F vulg-sixt(with F-lat) D!-lat G-lat Syr copt Julian Bede.
om ov (see notes) ABC am fuld-corr Syr copt Chr, Damase Julian: ins DFKL
rel latt syr Chr, Thl (Xe Ambrst Bede.
om 75y BF am(and demid harl) old-lat
Syr eth Chr Epiph Ruf: ins ACDKLN rel fuld syr-w-ast Thdrt. (syr-w-ast fuld Bede
in hand—the deadness of generative phy-
sical power in Abraham himself, which was
quickened by God (but vexpods is a wider
term than vevexpwpmévory, the genus, of
which that is a species). The peculiar ex-
cellence of Abraham’s faith was, that it
overleaped the obstacles of physical incapa-
city, and nonenity, and believed implicitly
God’s promise. Compare 2 Cor.i. 9.
kal kad. Ta py OvT. @s 6vtTa | Much diffi-
culty has been found here: and principally
owing to an idea that this clause must mi-
nutely correspond with the former, and
furnish another instance of God’s creative
Almightiness. Hence Commentators have
given to cadet thesense which it has in reff.,
“to summoninto being, and have understood
as bvta as if it were eis Td eivaz. Thus, more
or less, and with various attempts to escape
from the violence done to the construction,
Chrys., Grot., Elsn., Wolf, Fritzsche, Tho-
luck, Stuart, De Wette, al. I see however
in this latter clause not a repetition or ex-
pansion of the former, but a new attribute
of God’s omnipotence andeternity,on which
Abraham’s faith was fixed. Who calleth
(nameth, speaketh of) the things that are
not, as being (as if they were). This He
did in the present case with regard to the
seed of Abraham, which did not as yet exist :
—the two key-texts to this word and clause
being, év *Ioadk KAnOycetat oo orépua
ch. ix. 7 (see note there),—and Acts vii. 5,
érnyyelAato Sodvar abT@ eis KaTaoXeow
ati Kal TG oreppatt adTod met’ abtdv,
ovk dvtos a’T@ Tékvov. These Téxva,
which were at present in the category of ra
wy bvra, and the nations which should
spring, physically or spiritually, from him,
God ékdare: &s bvta, spoke of as having an
existence, which word Abraham believed.
And here, asin the other clause, the Kkadeiy
rd gw) dvTa Gs bvra is not confined to the
case in point, but is a general attribute of
Vou. Il.
* —and compare Ps. exlvii. 4.
all God’s words concerning things of time,
past, present, and future, being to His Om-
nipotence and Omniscience, all one. His
purposes, when formed, are accomplished,
save in so far as that evolution of secondary
causes and effects intervenes, which is also
His purpose. This also Abraham appre-
hended by his faith, which rested on God’s
absolute power to do what He had promised
(see below). 18—22.j A more detailed
description of this (Abraham’s) faith, as
reposed on God’s Omnipotence. 18. |
Who against hope (where there was no-
thing to hope) believed in (emf, with dat.,
in its literal import signifying close ad-
herence, is accordingly used to connect an
act with that to which it is immediately
attached as its ground or accompaniment.
Thus here, the hope existed as the neces-
sary concomitant and in some sense the
condition of the faith) hope, in order to
his becoming the father of many nations
(i.e. as a step in the process of his becom-
ing, and one necessary to that process going
forward. He would never have become, &e.,
had he not believed. To render eis Td yev.
‘that he should become,’ and connect it
with éricrevcey [Theophyl., Beza, all., De
Wette] is against Paul’s usage, who never
connects mortevw with a neut. inf.,—and
not justified by Phil. i. 23 ; 1 Thess. iti. 10.
The mere consecutive sense, ‘so that he
became,’ here, as every where, is a weaken-
ing of the sense,—and besides, would intro-
duce an objective clause in a passage which
all refers subjectively to Abraham).
ovtws | viz. as the stars of heaven : see l.c.,
19.] The
reading (with or without od ?) must first be
considered. Reading ov, the sense will be,
And not being weak in faith, he paid
no attention to, ke. Omitting od, ‘And
not being weak in (his) faith, he was well
aware of, &e.—but did not, Ke. Of these,
A A
304
m here only.
GEN. xvii. 17
only.
n of time, here
(Heb. ii. 6.
iv. 4) only.
o Acts viii. 16
reff. U
p 2 Cor. iv. 10
only t.
q Luke ii. 23
(from Exod,
Xui. 2) only.
Gen. xx. i8.
r constr. [Acts
XXyv. 20],
Soph. Ant.
372.
A ease
emnNy
s Acts i. 4 reff.
ITPOS PQMAIOY2.
ec
Kpwpévoy, ™ EKATOVTAETNC
~ , Pus 2
Kowow TNC 4 wnt pac Lappac,
| (~ = » } > > , ¢
rou Oeov ov ‘ dtexoifn ty “amistia, adr * eveduvanwOn 7)
, > a ~
yeArat duvaroe €oTtLV Kat 7TolMmoat,.
, ' eS , ,
7 ehoytaOn auTW : etc OuKatoovurvny.
ple as , ¢ a? oO Wen. tatu i &e nuac
auTOv phovoyv OTt ehoyia n auTW, a a Kal t ynuac,
t = Acts x. 20 reff.
IV. 20—25.
Db ‘ons , A s P ,
TOU uTapXwy, Kal THY ve-
208 tie St TH ® emayyeA tay
‘ ~ ~ it U \
TLOTEL, ~ dove * dd£av TW Dew, 21 kat * 7 Anoopopn Pec Ort O
23.6 [* cai]
23 OUK eyoagn OE oe
uch. iii. 3 reff. v Acts ix. 22
of Paul, otherwise Paul (Eph. vi. 10 al4.) only, exe. Heb. xi 31. Ps. li. 7 (9). Judg. vi. 34 A.(not F.) only.
w Luke xvii. 18. Johnix. 24. Acts xii. 23. Josh. vii. IY.
min Heb. xii. 26 only. pass., Gal. iii. 19. 2 Macc. iv. 27.
i. 9.
a ver. 3.
join it with exatoyt.)
vmapxer D!.
20. om de F eth.
adAa B.
Jatt.
x =ch. xiv. 5 reff. only.
3 fe sgh.
1 aor., James i. 12 al. z = (ch. i. 24.] Phil.
eduvauwbn F.
21. om Ist kai (as unnecessary : but the repetitions of ka are characteristic) D*F
22. om xa: BD'F Syr copt: ins ACD3KLN rel vulg syr Thdrt Thl @e Ambrst
Julian Sedul.
23. pwovov bef & avtoy DF latt.
at end ins es Sixatocvyny D* vulg(not am) Syr
Chr Cyr Thdrt(prefixing 7 mors) Thl Ruf Ambrst Sedul.
the second agrees the better with eis d€ Thy
ér. ver. 20,—but the first very much better
suits the context ; the object being, to extol
Abraham's faith, not to introduce the new
and somewhat vapid notice of his being
well aware of those facts of which it may be
assumed as a matter of course that he could
not beignorant. The Apostle does not want
to prove that Abraham was in his sound
senses when he believed the promise, but
that he was so strong in faith as to be able
to overleap all difficulties in its way. The
erasure of ov seems to have been occasioned
by the use of «at instead of ovdé before
Thy vexpwow. And the following 6é, with-
out being strongly adversative, falls well
into its place—He took no account of, &c.
DMG 2k The rendering, ‘ And he did
not, being weak in faith, take account of,
&e.’ (omitting od, and making 7 the ruling
neg. particle of the clause), is ungrammati-
cal: od would be required. Abraham
did indeed feel and express the difficulty
(Gen. xvii. 17), but his faith overcame it, and
he ceased to regard it. But most probably
Paul here refers only to Gen. xv. 5, 6, where
his belief was implicit and unquestioning.
éxat. wov| Abraham’s own ex-
pression in 1. ¢., where he also describes
Sarah as being 90. His exact age was 99.
Gen. xvii. 1, 24. 20.| On 5é, see
above. But with regard to (ref.) the
promise of God he doubted not through
unbelief —(De Wette thinks from the
analogy of morevew efs T1,—that els rT.
ér. is perhaps the immediate object of
diaxplvecOar: g.d. ‘did not disbelieve
in the promise of God’), but was strong
(lit. ‘was strengthened,’ ‘shewed himself
strong’) in faith (dat. of reference, ‘ with
regard to faith. ty am. and rq zlor.,
because both are here strictly abstract,
being set against one another as oppo-
sites). Sovs 86§. 7. 8.| viz. by re-
cognizing His Almighty power (see reff.,
especially Luke). 21. | wAnp., see ch.
xiv. 5, being fully persuaded. eriy-
yeArat is not passive (nor é nom.), but
middle, and ‘God’ the subject; that,
what He has promised, He is able also
to perform. 22.] 8.6, on account of
the nature of this faith, which the Apostle
has now since ver. 18 been setting forth ;—
because it was a simple unconditional cre-
dence of God and His promise. If we reac
kai, it imports besides being thus great
and admirable, it was reckoned to him for
righteousness :—éAoyio@n, viz. Tb mioret-
gat TO Bea. 23—25.| Application
of that which is said of Abraham, to ail
believers on Christ. 23.] éypadn, was
written, not the more usual yeyparrat,
‘is written’ similarly in the parallel, 1
Cor. x. 11; and in our ch. xv. 4. The aorist
asserts the design of God’s Spirit at the
time of penning the words: the perfect
may imply that, but more directly asserts
the intent of our Scriptures as we now find
them. Now it was not written on his
account alone (merely to bear testimony
to him and his faith) that it was imputed
to him,—but on our account also (for our
benefit, to bear testimony to us of the efli-
cacy of faith like his. Observe that 6¢ in
the two clauses has not exactly the same
sense,—‘on his account’ being = (1) to
celebrate his faith,—and (2) on our account
= for our profit ; see on ver. 25), to whom
MT:
otc pidXe *XoyilesBar, roic
> , ? ~ ~ ’ ~
* eyelpavra Incovy Tov KUoLOV nuav ek vEeKpWY,
d 860 BS ‘ Xe , C= Nie FCs oe. ‘
Taos oun ta Ta TAPATTWUATA HUWY Kat nyéeOn ota
\ 25 ’ c ~
TYHV ~ OLKALWOLY YUWY.,
h p ¢ h? ’ aa kv
V. 1 Atkawbévrec obv " Ex Tricrewe | elonVvny © EXwuUEV
Ezek. xviii. 26.
hch. iii. 20 reff. t= ch. ii. 10 reff.
24. evyeipovta A.
ITPOD PQMAIOY®S.
b ?
TlLOTEVOUVGLY
f= feline 40 reff.
359
Q
b ver. 5 reff.
rer e1Cor. xv. 12
5A
5) reff.
O€ a= ch. viii. 32.
1 Cor. xi. 23.
Gal. ii. 20.
Eph. v. 25.
| lee |
eT
2
Matt. vi. 14.
Gal. vi. 1.
Ps. xviii. 12.
ch. v.18 onlyt. Levit. xxiv. 22 only.
g
k John xvi. 33. Acts ix. 31 only.
25. for Sixaiwow, Oucaownr(sic) Dt, duxaoovvny a 17. 73. 77. 891. 93 lect-13
lect-14 Syr Chron.
CHar. V. 1. rec exouev, with B2FX-corr! rel Syr(Etheridge: see also Mehring
p 457 ff) syr Did Epiph Cyr, Ambrst, Sedul: txt AB1(sic: see table) CDKLN! fh? m 17
latt(including F-lat) Syr copt Chr Cyr Thdrt Damasc Thl (ic Ruf Pelag Oros Aug
Cassiod.
it (i.e. 7d morevew TH Oeg, as ver. 22)
shall be imputed (for righteousness :—
méAAeL Aoy. is a future, as ch. iii. 30;
v. 19 (Thol.),—not, as Olsh. al., spoken as
from the time and standing of Abraham),
namely, (to) us who believe on (this spe-
cifies the judas: and the belief is not a mere
historical but a fiducial belief) Him who
raised Jesus our Lord from the dead
(the central fact in our redemption, as the
procreation of the seed of promise was in
the performance of the promise to Abraham,
see ch. i. 4; 1 Cor. xy. 14 ff.; and resembling
it in the (wororjoat Tovs veKpous).
24. | é« vexp@v is always anarthrous, as in-
deed vexpot sometimes is (for ‘the dead ’)
in classic writers, e. g. Thucyd. iv. 14; v.
10, end: and see Winer, edn. 6, § 19. 1.
The omission may in this phrase be ac-
counted for by the preposition (Middleton,
ch. vi. 1): but I suspect Winer is right in
looking for the cause of the absence of the
article after prepositions rather in the usage
of the particular substantive than in any
idiom of general application. 25.] Here
we have another example of the alliterative
use of thesame preposition where the mean-
ings are clearly different (see above, vy. 23,
24). Our Lord was delivered up (to death)
for or on account of our sins (i.e. because
we had sinned):—He was also raised up
(from the dead) for or on account of our jus-
tification (i. e. not because we had been, but
that we might be justified). This separate
statement of the great object of the death
and resurrection of Christ must be rightly
understood, and each member of it not un-
duly pressed to the exclusion of the other.
The great complex event by whichour justi-
fication (death unto sin and new birth unto
righteousness) has been made possible, may
be stated in one word as the G@LORIFICA-
TION of Christ. But this glorification con-
sisted of two main parts,—His Death, and
His Resurrection. In the former of these,
He was made a sacrifice for sin; inthelatter,
He elevated our humanity into the partici-
pation of that Resurrection-life, which is
also, by union with Him, the life of every
justified believer. So that, when taking the
two apart, the Death of Christ is more
properly placed in close reference to for-
giveness of sins,—His Resurrection, to jus-
tification unto life everlasting. And thus
the Apostle treats these two great events,
here and in the succeeding chapters. But
he does not view them respectively as the
causes, exclusively of one another, of for-
giveness and justification : e. g. (1) ch. v. 9,
we are said to be justified by His blood,
and 2 Cor. v.21 God made Him sin for us,
that we might become the righteousness of
God in Him: and (2) 1 Cor. xy. 17, if
Christ is not raised, we are yet in our sins.
So that, though these great events have
their separate propriety of reference to the
negative and positive sides of our justifica-
tion, the one of them cannot be treated
separately and exclusively of the other, any
more than can the negative side of our jus-
tification, the non-imputation of our sin,
without the positive, the imputation of
God’s righteousness. lt will be seen »
from what I have said above that I cannot
agree with Bp. Horsley’s view, that as our
transgressions were the cause of Jesus being
delivered up, so our justification must be
the cause of His being raised again. Such
a pressing of the same sense on ia is not
necessary, when Paul’s manifold usages of
the same preposition are considered: and
the regarding our justification (in the sense
here) as a fact past, is inconsistent with the
very next words, Sicamdévres ex mictews,
which shew that not the objective fact, but
its subjective realization, is here meant.—
In these words (of ver. 25) the Apostle in-
troduces the great subject of chaps. v.—viil.,
— DEATH, as connected with SIN,—and
LIFE, as connected with RIGHTEOUS-
AA 2
306
1= Acts ii.
47. xxiy. 16.
2 Cor. vii. 4.
1 John iii. 21.
v.14.
m Eph. ii. 18.
iii. 12 only
(in both places, w. art.) t.
2 Cor. i. 24.
2. rec aft exxnkauev ins Tn mote (marginal gloss), with CKLN' rel vulg syr copt
wth-pl Chr, Thdrt Ce lat-f: ev rq mater AN-corr'(but ey erased) 93. 124 fuld Syr
Tit-bostr Chr, Thl: om BDF old-lat 2th-rom Ambrst, Hil Aug.
A d!: xapr(sic) m. ep D'F.
NESS. The various ramifications of this
subject see in the headings below.
Cuap. V. 1—11.] The blessed conse-
quences of justification by faith.
1.] It is impossible to resist the strong
MS. authority for the reading €x@mev in
this verse. For indeed this may well be
cited as the crucial instance of overpower-
ing diplomatic authority compelling us to
adopt a reading against which our subjec-
tive feelings rebel. Every internal con-
sideration tends toimpugnit. Ifadmitted,
the sentence is hortatory. ‘ Being then
justified by faith, let us have peace with
God. (This is the only admissible sense
of the first person subjunctive in an af-
firmative sentence like the present. The
usage is an elliptical one: twper, ‘that we
go, i.e. ‘it is time, or in an address,
‘permit, &c. that we go.” Thus Od. x.77,
Zddwpev ava Kotv: Il. x. 450, Bop, ar’
Zpya tréruxrat. See other examples in
Kiihner, Gramm. § 463. The deliberative
sense, attempted to be given by Dr. Tre-
gelles [see Kitto’s Journal of Bibl. Lit. No.
xiv. p. 465 ff.], can only have place in an
interrogative or dubitative clause, andevery
example given by Mr. Green, whom he cites
for his supposed sense, as well as by Kiihner
[§ 464], is of this kind. Besides, to eall
the sense ‘ we ought to have,’ deliberative,
seems a misnomer.) But how can man be
exhorted to have peace with God? To be
reconciled to God, he may, 2 Cor. v. 20:
but of this there is no mention here, and
having (been allowed to believe in and
enjoy) peace with God, depends on, not
our reconciliation to Him, not any thing
subjective in ourselves, but the objective
fact of His reconciliation to us. If, as
some say, €xwuev = katéxwpev, Heb. x.
23, the article would be required before
ciphyny, and (perhaps) before mpds or did.
Besides which there are two objections in
the form of the sentence to this reading :
(1) €xouer is coupled by rat (60 of Kal)
to éox#amer, and this connexion necessi-
tates, in my view, that the first verb should
assert a fact, as the second undoubtedly
does. Had the former verb been €xwpev,
IPOS PQMAIOY=.
1 +. ‘ 6 ‘ 8 ‘ ~ , € ~ <i | ~ ~
mpoc tov Oeov sta tov Kupiov nawy Inoov xetotou,
9a? \ eae , , N ,
280 ov Kat thy ™ Toocaywyny EoyNKapev ELC THY " yaow
ud ? Zt gt , \ P , 6 Be + Hs ~
raurny ev y °eotyKamev, Kat PKavywpuela ex eArrtoL THC
n = wy. 17, 20, 21. ch. vi.1 al. fr.
p ch. ii. 17 reff. w. €mi and dat. here only. Ps. xlviii. 6.
a
o = John viii. 44. 1 Cor. xv. J.
for xapiv, xapav
we should hardly have found the caf where
it is. (2) If €xwpev be hortatory, cavxe-
ueOa, in verse 2, must be so likewise: (for
if we were exhorted to the lesser degree
of confidence, eiphyny €xew, such exhorta-
tion can hardly be founded on the existence
already of the greater degree, kavxacbat
k.T.A.) Which, both as to sense and con-
struction, is very improbable. I believe
(but see below) an account of the reading
may be sought, as in 1 Cor. xv. 49, in a
tendency of those who transcribed some of
our MSS. to give such assertions a horta-
tory, or, where interrogative, a deliberative
form: thus we have swOncduea in some
MSS., ver. 10,—(howpev ch. vi. 2,—m0-
Tevmpey or moTevowmer, and our (ower
ch. vi. 8,—dmakovoate ch. vi. 17,—7pos-
evéwnat (bis) 1 Cor. xiv. 16,—7el@wpev 2
Cor. v. 11,—morevwuey John iv. 42,—
cuv(howmey and cupBacircvowpmery 2 Tim.
ii. 11, 12:—or perhaps the whole ground
of the account to be given of the w is
better shifted to a more general habit of
the MSS. (even the greatest and best, see
instances in prolegg. to Vol. I. ch. vi. § i.
36, 37) to confound o and w: so that in
very many cases, such variation can hardly
be called a different reading at all.
The whole passage is declaratory of the
consequences flowing from justification by
Saith,and does not exhort, but assert. Nor,
would it seem, does the place for exhortation
arrive, till these consequences have been in
the fullest and freest manner set forth,—in-
deed so fully and freely, that the objection
arising from their supposed abuse has first
to be answered. Being therefore justified
(‘having been justified ’—it is an act past
on the Christian, not like sanctification, an
abiding and increasing work) by (as the
ground) faith, let us (believers in Christ :
I render the ewisting text) have peace
(‘reconcilement ;’ the opposite of dpy7,
see ver. 9) with (‘in regard of,’ see reff.)
God through (by means of) our Lord
Jesus Christ. With regard to the nature of
this peace (= state of reconciliation, ‘no
more condemnation,’ as ch. viii. 1) see above,
on the reading éxwpev. 2.| Through
2—6.
186Ene tov Oeov. ?
Pev raic *OXtbeotw, etdoTec Ore * OX ‘Uropovny
‘Sdoxuuyy, n oe * SoKuun * o Matt. xiii,
“4 2
" Katepyacerat, 4 de ‘vropovn
éArtoa’ > n de éAmIc ov * KaTatoXvvEl, OTL “ayary Tov
IIPOS PQMAIOYS. 307
>) , > ‘ \ a se
“ov povoy 62, "adda kai ? Kavyopevot 126% ii-7
rch. viii. 23.
2 Cor. viii. 19
fr.
Acts vii.
10, ll al.
2 Kings xxii.
14, Nah. i. 7.
Q eae / S = ou. $8 Zz a 7 Fr
€0U ~ EKKEYVUTAL év Tatc Kap tat¢c YUwY ova TVEVMATOC t ch. ii. 7 reff.
c , ~ 3 0: c ha 6
aylou TOU OVEVTOC I)Lv
a > - a
aoQevev ETL
Ps. lxvii. 31 Symm.
viii. 39. 2 Cor. xiii. 13.
a=1 Cnr. ix. 22. see 1 Cor, iv. 10.
(John v. 4.) see Num. ix. 13.
d= ch. iv. 5 reff.
3. aft ov wovoy Se ins tovto D!.
A ‘ ” € ~
El YE XpPtaToc OVTWVY MWY
b ‘ s eX
Kata Kaioov “vuTEp
w ch, ix. 33 & x. 11 (from Isa. xxviii. 16).
y = Actsii. 17 (from Joel ii. 28) al.
Prov. xxii. 22. Ps. cvi. 12.
uch. iv. 15 reff.
v here bis.
2 Cor. ii. 9.
> ~ ge vill. 2. ix. 13.
acepwv améQavev. xiii. 3. Phil.
ii, 22 only t.
2 Cor. vii. 14 al. x =ch.
z Acts xi. 28 reff.
b= hereonly. Num. xxiii. 23.
ce = John vi. 51. x. 15. xi. 51,52. Luke xxii. 19 al. fr.
rec kavxwuc0a (mechanical repetition from
preceding ver), with ADFK L(-o-) & rel Tit-bostr Chr Thdrt Thl Ge Cypr: txt BC
Orig, Tert.
5. for nuwy, vuwy XR}.
6. rec (for e ye) evs yap, with ACD'3KX rel syr Epiph, Chr Thdrt Damase Ruf:
eis Tt yap D2E: wt quid enim latt Iren-int Faustin: e yap fuld' copt Isid Aug: eh:
et de L. Syr: txt B.
Isid-ms Damasce Iren-int Faustin.
whom we have also (so 51d [kat], ch. i. 24;
iv. 22, where «al, if read, serves to shew
the coherence and likelihood of that which
is asserted—answering almost to our ‘as
might be expected’) had our access (the
persons spoken of having come to the Father
by Christ,—see Eph. ii. 18,—the access is
treated of as a thing past. 77 mlore: and
év TH wlore: appear to have been glosses,
explanatory of the method of access. This
access would normally take place in bap-
tism) into this grace (namely, the grace of
justification, apprehended and held fast sub-
jectively [from what follows]; not, 7d mav-
Twy emituxely THY Si. Bawticowatos aya-
0éy { Chrys. al. ], which is inconsistent with
év 7 é€othk.: not, ‘the Gospel’ [Fritz.j,
for the same reason ; not, ‘hope of blessed-
ness’ { Beza], for that follows : least of all
‘the grace of the apostolic calling’ | Sem-
ler], which is quite beside the purpose)
wherein we stand (see parallels in reff. 1
and 2 Cor.; i.e. abide accepted and ac-
quitted with God; see also 1 Cor. x. 12,
and ch. xi. 20); and (couple to elpny. éxw-
fev, not to év 7 éorhx.) triumph in the
hope (kavxdoua: is found with ext, év, repli,
barép, and [ Thol. | with an ace. of the object.
In Heb. iii. 6 we have 7d kavxynua Tis
€Amtdos) of the glory of God (of sharing
God’s glory by being with Christ in His
kingdom, John xvii. 24, see reff.).
3.] And not only so (not only must we tri-
umph in hope, which has regard to the fu-
ture), but triumphing in (not amidst; the
6A. is the ground of triumph) tribulations,
knowing (because we know) that (our) tri-
bulation works endurance (supposing, i. e.
we remain firm under it), and our endu-
rance, approval (of our faith and trust, 2
rec (aft acevwy) om eri, with D§KL rel: ins ABCD'F® latt
Cor. ii. 9; ix. 13: not, ‘proof’ [Soxpacta],
as Grot.; nor ‘experience, as E. V.,—
‘Soxiuh est qualitas ejus, qui est ddnios.’
Bengel,—the resul¢ of proof), and (our)
approval (fresh) hope; and (our) hope
(not for attn 7 éAm. as Olsh.) shames
(us) not (by disappointing us; ‘mocks
us not’); because God’s love (not ‘the
love of God, i.e. man’s love for God,
—as Theodoret, and even Aug., misled
by the Latin; see reff., and compare the
explicit thy éavtod dydarny cis Tuas,
which answers to this in ver. 8) is (has
been) poured out (‘effusa, not ‘ diffusa’
[ Vulg.], which latter word perhaps misled
Aug., owing to whose mistake the true in-
terpretation was lost for some centuries, al-
though held by Orig., Chrys., and Ambrose.
See Trench on St. Augustine, ch. v. p. 89:—
i.e. ‘richly imparted’) in our hearts (ev may
be taken pregnantly, exréx. els kal méver
év,—or better, denotes the locality where
the outpouring takes place,—the heart
being the seat of our love, and of appre-
ciation and sympathy with G'od’s love) by
means of the Holy Spirit (who is the Out-
pourer, John xvi. 14; 1 Cor. ii. 9,10) who
was given to us (Olsh. rightly refers the
aorist part. to the Pentecostal effusion of
the Holy Spirit). ‘ Prima heec est in hae
tractatione Spiritus Sancti mentio. Nimi-
rum ad hune usque terminum quum per-
ductus est homo, operationem Sp. Sancti
notanter denique sentit.’ Bengel.
6.] The text here is in some confusion,—
see var. readd. The whole may perhaps
have arisen from an ecclesiastical portion
having begun xpiotbs dvTwy huey acde-
vav ert... When this found its way
into the text, ér: was repeated. This of-
008
7
e Acts xiv. 18.
XXVii. 7, 8,
16, 1 Pet. iv.
18 (from
Prov. xi. 31)
only.
f Philem. 15
only t. Wisd.
xiii, 6. xiv.
1Y only.
g = 1 Cor. vi. 1
reff.
h ch. iii. 5 reff.
© node yap
Tov ayalov
ich. iii. 7 reff.
iv. 4. vi. 11. Gal. ii. 17. iii. 11. v. 4.
7. woyis N!: txt N-corr’.
TIIPOS PQMAIOY=.
‘ yy = 49 ay
Taya Tli¢ Kal ToApa aTvoQavetv
k Paal (here &c., fonr times.
Phil. i. 23. ii. 12) only, exe. Matt. vi. 30. Mark x. 484 L. see Heb. xii. 9, 25.
¥
Ge ash Ul \ > o ~ fit: ee a ‘
UTEO OiKatou Tic avoGaveirat UTEO y20
,
i
8 ure
, ee ‘ ¢ ~ > A ? (Drege ¢ wo 1 ¢
toTHoty CE THY EaUTOV ayaTHV ELC NMac, OTL ETL GApmao-
~ ” € ~ ‘ € \ € ~ ? yi
tTwrwv OVTWV YW XetoToc ‘ uTep— HUWY amwéBavev.
k Fay gti) Mets 2 1 Pr eai? Ee emel
9 ToAAw OvuYyV padXAov Suxatwhévrec vUVv évV TW aluarte
1 Cor. xii. 22. 2 Cor. iii. 9, 11.
1 Acts xiii. 39. 1 Cor.
om 2nd yap Li 2. 32. 62 lect-18: de 238.
8. rec aft nuas ins o eos (supplementary insertn, as is shewn by the variations in its
position), with ACKX rel copt Chr (He: bef ers nuas, DEL latt syr Dial Chr-ms, Thdrt
Thi Iren-int Aug: bef de arm: transp freely Syr Faustin: om B.
om ett 109 Dial :
for ert, es Syr Chr: e¢ ers D?>(and lat!) F tol Cypr Hil Aug, Ruf Pelag Ambrst.
neav bef ovtwy Li Chr.
9. om ovy DF fuld copt arm Dial Iren-int Cypr.
erased) Nt.
fended the transcribers: but the first &r
could not be erased, because ydp followed ;
it may then have been conjecturally emended
to «i (and ydp to yé as in B, or d¢€ as in L),
or eis rf, — some retaining ér: in both places.
The place of ér: is often, in the case of ab-
solutes, at the beginning of a sentence, with
the subject of the sentence between it and
the word or words to which it applies ; so
ért avtov AadovvyTos, Matt. xii. 46,—é11
5 ad’Tod paxpay améxovtos, Luke xv. 20,
&e. On reconsideration, however, seeing
that if we follow the most ancient MSS.,
we must either repeat ét, which seems
very unlikely to have been originally writ-
ten, or adopt the reading of Bb, I have
taken the latter alternative. If, that is
(on et ye, see note, 2 Cor. v. 3, and Eph.
iii. 2), Christ when we were yet weak
(‘powerless for good ;’—or even stronger
than that :—there seems in this verse to
be a tacit reference to Ezek. xvi. See es-
pecially vv. 7, 8 of that chap. in the LXX,
—ov d€ joa yuurvh Kal aoxnuovotoa...
kat d:jAGov Sia cov Kad Lov oe, Kal idod
Kaipds gov... kal Sierétaca Tas mrépuyds
pov em) oé, kal exddvpa Thy aoxnmoatyny
gov, Kal mood cor’ Kal eisjAOov ev dia-
OhKn meTa god, Aéyer Kvpios), at the ap-
pointed time (compare reff. and Gal. iv. 4,
and katpés in the quotation above) Christ
died for (‘on behalf of, see reff.) ungodly
men (not brép Hpav, because the Apostle
wishes to bring out fully by this strong
antithesis, which he enlarges on in the
next verses, the greatness of the divine
Love to man). 7.) The greatness of
this Love, of Christ’s death on behalf of
the impious, is brought out by shewing
that there is none such among men, nay
that such a self-sacrifice,—not unexampled
where a good man, one loving his fellow-
men and loved by them, is to be rescued,—
is hardly found to oceur on behalf of the
aft Sicameytes ins ev (but
pious and just. Fer hardly will any one
die on behalf of a just man (masc.,—not
neuter, ‘ for justice’ or ‘righteousness’ sake,’
as Jer., Erasm., Luth., al. : for the matter
in hand is Christ’s death on behalf of
persons)—for (this second ‘for’ is ex-
ceptive, and answers to ‘but I do not
press this without exception,’ understood)
on behalf of the good man (the art. as
pointing him out generally, as in the ex-
pression, ‘the fool,’ ‘the wise man,’ ‘the
righteous,’ ‘the wicked’) perhaps (rdxa
opens a possibility which wéAis closes) ene
is even found to venture (the pres. implies
habituality—it may occur here and there)
to die. The distinction here made be-
tween dikaios and ayaGds, is also found in
Cicero, de Of. iii. 15, ‘Si vir bonus is est
qui prodest quibus potest, nocet nemini,
recte justum virum, bonum non facile re-
periemus.’ (But some edd. read ‘istum vi-
rum bonum.’) Theinterpretation which
makes Sikaos and ayaédés refer to the
same man, and the second clause = ‘I do
not say that such a thing may not some-
times occur,’ is very vapid, and loses sight
of the antithesis between Ofxaios, and
&dixos (= aoeBhs = auaptwrds).
8.] But (as distinguished from human
examples) He (i.e. God. The omission of
6 @eds, which critical principles render
necessary, is in keeping with the perfectly
general way in which the contrast is put,
merely with ris, not avépémev tis. The
subject is supplied from 4 &yarn Tov Gcod,
ver. 5) gives proof of (‘ establishes’ (reff:) ;
—not ‘commends’) His own love (own,
as distinguished from that of men in ver. 7)
towards us, in that while we were yet
(as opposed to vdy in the next verse) sinners
(= aobcvey aoeBor, and opposed to
dixaos and dyabds, ver. 7) Christ died
for us. 9—11.] The Apostle further
shews the blessed fruits of justification,
ABCDF
KL ab
cedfgnun
klmn
ol7
we 19,
> - m , , > - ? ‘ ~ n ’ wes
auTou owOnoousla Ot avurov amo TNC opyn¢
HPOS PQMAIOYS. 359
10 t -yao me Mut i 21.
Jer. XXX Vii.
Nem = CS ~ ~
éyApo ovrec ° catnAAaynpev Tw Bew dia tov Qavarov tov tes)?
y vn Matt. iii. 7.
viov avrov, “ woAAw ‘ padAov °KaradXayévrec P cwAnoo~ gh.i18 si.
Vo here bis
’ ~ € ~ ,. a r > ¢ iW) r? x
ueBa P ev TH 1 wn avrov’ !!T ov povoy o&, aNXa: iKat fo
s ’
Bis: , bed f) bad 8 ‘ ~ ’ c ~ 4 -
KADY WHEVOL Ev TW EW ta TOU KUPLOU NUWY yGOvU
~ ? = ~ Vek x mV FY
XOLOTOV, ou OU VUV TY kataAAaynvy éAaPouev.
2 Cor. v. 18,
19, 20 only t.
(Jer. XEX1.
[xlviii.] 39.)
2 Mace. i. 5.
vii. 33. vill.
12 x ~ ¢ u PCs 3 > , Tr st , vy”?
Ata TOUTO WCTEp ou EvOC avOow7ov n auapTia ELC 29 only.
reff q = 2 Cor. iv. 10, 11, 12.
xi. 15. 2 Cor. v. 18, 19 only t. (Isa.ix.5.) 2 Macc. v. 20 only.
y= WIsD. xiv. 14 F.(?) see John i. 9.
10. A omits from Tw Oew to Tw ew ver 11.
11. aft ov povoy de ins rovro D'¥ fuld! arm Ambrst.
_ peda Lb (ec a -o-) h m al,(in Sz) latt arm Thl: kavyomev FP.
p = Acts xi. 14
sch. ii. 17 reff. t (=) ch.
u = Acts xxiv. 2 reff.
r ver. 3.
om 1st tov F(but not G).
for Kavx@pmevol, KauxXw-
om xpiotou B.
(So Mai and Btly: Tischdf has passed it over.)
viz. salvation, both from wrath, and with
life. The argument proceeds from the
beginning of the chapter: but the con-
nexion, as so frequent with St. Paul, is
immediately with the parenthetical sen-
tences just preceding. Much more then
(if He died for us when sinners, a fortiori
will He save us now that we are righteous
by virtue of that His death) having now
been justified by His blood (see remarks
on ch. iv. 25), we shall be saved by Him
feom the wrath (to come, or of which we
know: force of the art.). 10.] The
same is substantiated in another form:
‘we were enemies (see below) when He
died and reconciled us: much more now
that we have been reconciled, and He
lives, shall we by His life be saved.’ For
if, being enemies (éx@poi may either be
active, as Col. i. 21, ‘haters of God ;? so
éxOpd, ch. vii. 7; Eph. ii. 15: or passive,
as ch. xi. 28,—‘ hated by God. But here
the latter meaning alone can apply, for the
Apostle is speaking of the Death of Christ,
and its effects as applied to all time, not
merely to those believers who then lived :
and those unborn at the death of Christ
could not have been éx6@pot in the active
sense), we were reconciled (kataAAdoves-
@al tut also may be taken of giving up
anger against any one,—see ret. 1 Cor.,
and Jos. Antt. vi. 7, od yap édpa Toy Oedy
SiadAartéuevov,—or of being received into
favour by any one,—see 1 Kings xxix. 4,
ey rin SiadAdayhoetar obTos TH kupip
avrov; and Jos. Antt. v. 2. 8, diaAvod-
bevos Tas pméurpels, KATAAAGTTETAL pds
aithy,—the latter of which meanings,
were received into favour with God, must
for the reason above given be here adopted)
to God by means of the Death of His Son
(this great fact is further explained and
insisted on, in the rest of the chapter),
much more, having been reconciled (but
here comes in the assumption that the
corresponding subjective part of reconcilia-
tion has been accomplished, viz. justifica-
tion by faith: compare 2 Cor. v. 19, 20,
eds Av ev xpioT@ Kéopov Kata\\dcowv
éauTad.... deducda dwEp xXpioTod, KaTah-
Adynre TG OeG. Both these, the objective
reception into God’s favour by the death of
Christ, and the subjective appropriation,
by faith, of that reception, are included),
we shall be saved by means of His Life
(not here that which he now does on our
behalf, but simply the fact of His Life,
so much enlarged on in ch. vi.: and our
sharing in it). 11.] A further step
still—not only has the reconciled man con-
fidence that he shall escape God’s wrath,
but ¢riumphant confidence,—joyful hope in
God. But (aber) not only so, but (jon-
dern) making our boast in God (particip.
not as the finite verb, but in every case
either the consequence of an anacoluthon,
or finding its justification in the construc-
tion: so here “ not only shall we be saved,”
but that in a triumphant manner and frame
of mind. See Winer, edn. 6, § 45. 6)
through our Lord Jesus Christ, through
whom we have now (not in contrast with
the future glory, ‘even now,’ as Thol., for
that would be more plainly expressed,— but
as in ver. 9) received (our) reconciliation
(to God). 12-—-VIII. 39.] THE
PoweER OF Gop (ch. i. 16) IS SET FORTH
AS FREEING FROM THE DOMINION OF
SIN AND DEATH, AND ISSUING IN SAL-
VATION. 12—19.] The bringing in
of RECONCILIATION and LIFE by CHRIST
in its analogy to the bringing in of SIN
and DEATH by ADAM. 12.] This verse
is one of acknowledged difficulty. The two
questions meeting us directly are (1) To
what does 8: todto refer? (2) d&szep,
‘like as,’ may introduce the first member
of a comparison, the second being to be
discovered ; or may introduce the second,
the first having to be discovered. I shall
360
v , Vine wet 1 ‘ ~ c , e 04
eae ae ne Tov ences eccnd Oey, Kat dua THC awaotiac Oo Vavaroe,
aa scat ovrwe “eve Tavrac avPowmouc [o Bavaroc | * dim Bev
1 Cor. xi. 28 y ge
iv. 25
San Yep TaVTEC MLapToV. ay pt yao vouou apaotia nv
reff. y 2 Cor. v. 4. see Matt. xix. 9. Acts iii. 16. z=ch.i. 13 al.
MPO PQMAIOYS.
Ve
12. ets tov Kocpoy bef n amapria DF latt(am fuld &e though not vulg-ed) Ambr.
rec aft av@pwrous ins 0 Oavaros (marginal gloss specifying the subj of dimrvey,
as is shewn by the varr), with ABCKLX rel vulg Thl Ge Augajig ; aft SimAGev Syr arm
Chr Thdrt: bef ers 7. a. syr-w-ast: om DF harl Augseye Ambr Pac, Leo Bede.
endeavour to answer both questions in con-
, nexion. (1) I conceive 6:4 rotro to refer
to that blessed state of confidence and hope
just described: ‘on this account,’ here
meaning, ‘ quee cum ita sint:’ ‘ this state of
things, thus brought about, will justify the
following analogy. Thus we must take
dsmrep, either (a) as beginning the com-
parison, and then supply, ‘so by Christ in
His Resurrection came justification into
the world, and by justification, life ;? or (8)
as concluding the comparison, and supply
before it, ‘it was,’ or ‘Christ wrought.’
This latter method seems to me far the
best. For none of the endeavours of Com-
mentators to supply the second limb of the
comparison from the following verses have
succeeded : and we can hardly suppose such
an ellipsis, when the next following com-
parison (ver. 16) is rather a weakening than
a strengthening the analogy. We have ex-
ample for this use of és7ep,in Matt.xxv. 14,
and of ras, Gal. iii. 6. Consequently
(the method of God’s procedure in intro-
ducing life by righteousness resembled the
introduction of death by sin: ‘it was’)
like as by one man (the Apostle regards
the man as involving generic succession
and transmitting the corrupt seed of sin,
not the woman: but when he speaks of
the personal share which each had in the
transgression, 1 Tim. ii. 14, he says, ‘Adam
‘was not deceived, but the woman being de-
ceived was in the transgression’), sin (as a
POWER ruling over mankind, see ch. iii. 9,
and ver. 21,—partly as a principle which
exists in us all, and developes itself in our
conduct, partly as a state in which we are
involved; but the idea here must not be
confined [Caly.] to original sin, as it
reaches much wider, to sin both original
and actual: nor to the habit of sinning [as
Olsh.]: nor is it merely the propensity to
sin {as Rothe]: nor is sin personified
merely, as in ch. vil. 8, 11) entered into
the world (not ‘ esse ccepit,’ ‘ primum com-
mnissa est,’ as Reiche, Fritz., and Meyer:
but diterally,—‘ entered into,’ ‘ gained ac-
cess into,’ the moral world,—tor sin in-
volves moral responsibility. So Gal, iii. 23,
ap) Tov 5t €AOetv tH lori, ‘before the
faith came in’), and by means of sin (as
the appointed penalty for sin, Gen. ii. 17;
iii. 19) death (primarily, but not only,
physical death: as apaptia, so @dvaros, is
general, including the lesser in the greater,
i.e. spiritual and eternal death. See ch.
vi. 16, 21; vii.10; viii. 6; 2 Cor. vii. 10),
and thus (by this entering in of sin and
death ; i. e. in fact, by thise connexion of sin
a
and death, as appears by ef’ @ mavtes
juaprov) death (whether 6 @dv. be genuine
or not, death is the subject of 8:7AGe«v)
extended to all men (see reff. De W.
well says that mdvr. av6p. differs from
xécmoy, as the concrete part from the ab-
stract whole, and d:épx. from eisepxec Bat,
as the going from house to house differs
from the entering a town. Obs.,
that although the subject of S:jA@ev is
plainly only death, not sin and death, yet
the spreading of stn over all men is taken
for granted, partly in the oftws, partly in
the following clause), because (e¢’ 4, lit.
of close juxtaposition : and so ‘on ground
of; ‘on condition that, which meaning,
if rightly applied, suits the case in hand.
Life depended on a certain condition,
viz. obedience: Death on another, viz. dis-
obedience. Mankind have disobeyed: the
condition of Death’s entrance and diffusion
has been fulfilled: Death extended to all
men, as a consequence of the fact, that,—
posito, that, = because,all have sinned.
Orig., Aug., Beza, and Estius render it as
Vulg., ‘in quo’ [Adam]: Chrys., Theo-
phy 1, Ke., Elsner, ‘propter quem :’ Grot.,
“per quem’) all sinned (see ch. iii. 23 :—
not ‘were sinful, or.‘ were born in sin,
as Calvin would restrict the meaning : sin,
as above remarked, is here, throughout,
both original and actual: in the seed, as
planted in the nature by the sin of our
forefather: and in the fruzt, as developed
by each conscious responsible individual in
his own practice. So that Calvin’s argu-
ment,—‘ hie non agi de actuali peceato,
colligere promptum est: quia si reatum
quisque sibi arcesseret, quorsum conferret
Paulus Adam cum Christo?’ does not
apply, and the objection is answered by
Paul himself, where he says, distinguishing
between the mapdrrwua and the xdpioua
below, yv. 15, 16, 7d 5& xdpiowa é« od-
13, 14.
IIPOS POMAIOY’S.
361
Ee , e , \ , a? - re , h 1
év KOomW, amaoTia de ove “edAoyetrat py OVTOS vOmON, * here ony.
-y@v, Philem.
18 only t.
’ e {
4adAa > eBacirdevce o Oavatoc amo “Adam “ niyo ye eizian.
- t Ne: ulewN ‘ x € ,
Mauoiwe Kat é7Tl TOVC fy) apaoTnoavTac
Gen. xxxvii. 8.
e Lukei. 59. Ezraii.61. Neh. vii. 63.
13. eA\Aoyaro AS-corr!-marg :
d of time, Matt. xi. 23. Acts x. 30. Xx. 7.
~ ch. vi. 12.
TW c Luke i. 33.
t xix. 14, 27.
L Tim. vi. l4al. Ps. civ. 19.
ee
eT L
eddoyertw f, evedoyerto (imputabatur) N! 52. 108
vulg(but not am) G-lat syrr copt «th lat-ff: AcAoytorar Ject-19: evdaoyerrat Se
14. [adada, so BD. |
Tren-int Jer.
Gv wapartwpdatev cis Sicolwua. The
napdatwua was not only that of one, the
original cause of the entry of sin, but the
often repeated sins of individual men :—nor,
‘suffered the punishment of sin,’ as Grot.
and Chrys., @vntol yeydvacr). Observe
how entirely this assertion of the Apostle
contradicts the Pelagian or individualistic
view of men, that each is a separate creation
from God, existing solely on his own exclu-
sive responsibility,—and affirms the Augus-
tinian or traducian view, that all are evolved
by God’s appointment from an original
stock, and though individually responsible,
are generically involved in the corruption
and condemnation of their original.
13. | How, consistently with ch. iv. 15, could
all men sin, before the law? This is now
explained. For up to (the time of) the
law (= amd °Ad. wéxpt Mavo. ver. 14:
not ‘during the time of the law,’ as Orig.,
Chrys.,—rod vdéuov do00€vtos,.... éws 6
yéuos Av,—Theodoret,—an allowable ren-
dering of the words, but manifestly incon-
sistent with the sense ;—nor, ‘as far as
there was law, there was sin, as Dr. Bur-
ton,—which is both inadmissible from the
béxpt Mwtoews following, and would not
answer to the simple matter of fact, jv év
kéou@) there was sin in the world (‘men
sinned,’ see Gen. vi. 5—13; committed ac-
tual sin: not, men were accounted sinners
because of Adam’s sin: the Apostle reminds
us of the historical fact, that there was sin
in the world during this period): but sin is
not reckoned (as transgression) where the
law is not. éd\Aoyetrat has given rise
to muchdispute. Very many Commentators
(Aug., Ambr., Luth., Melanc., Calv., Beza,
Riickert, Tholuck, Stuart, al.) explain it of
consciousness of sin by the sinner himself,
as in ch. vii. 7: but (1) as De Wette ob-
serves, this is not the natural sense of the
word, which implies Two parties, one of
whom sets down something to the account
of the other (ref.): (2) this interpretation
would bring in a new and irrelevant ele-
ment,—for the Apostle is not speaking in
this chapter at all of subjective human con-
sciousness, but throughout of objective
for em, ev B Chr Thdrt, in similitudine (or -nem) latt
truths with regard to the divine dealings :
and (8) it would be altogether inconsistent
with the declarations of ch. ii. 15,—where
in this sense the éAAoy:ouds of sin by the
véuov wh €xovres is distinctly asserted.
I am persuaded that the right sense of €AA.
is, reckoned, ‘set down as transgression, —
‘put in formal account,’ by God. In the
case of those who had not the written law,
&uaptia is not formally reckoned as mapa-
Baots, set over against the command: but
in a certain sense, as distinctly proved ch.
ii. 9—16, it 7s reckoned and they are con-
demned for it. Nor is there any inconsis-
tency, as Tholuck complains, in this view.
Other passages of Paul’s writings support
and elucidate it. He states the object of
the law to be, ch. vii. 18, va yévntrat Kal’
brepBorAhy auaptwrds 7 Guaptia Sia Tis
évroAjjs. The revelation of the law exag-
gerated, brought into prominent and formal
manifestation, the sinfulness of sin, which
was before culpable and punishable, but in
a less degree. With this view also agree
Acts xvii. 30; ch. ii. 12, 600: avduws huap-
Tov, avduws Kal d&rodovyTat,—and ili. 25,
in so far as they state an analogous case.
The objection to taking ok éAAoyeirat
relatively, ‘is not fully reckoned, will
hardly be urged by those who bear in mind
the Apostle’s habit of constantly stating
relative truths as positive, omitting the
qualifying particles: see e.g. ch. vil. 7,
where with Guaptiay and with ov« 7dew
both, we must supply qualifications (see
notes there). 14.| But (notwith-
standing the last assertion that sin is not
fully reckoned where the law is not) death
reigned (was a power to which all suc-
cumbed) from Adam to Moses (uéxpr
Mwuo. = &xpt vduou above): i.e. although
the full éAAoyiouds of sin did not take
place between Adam and Moses, the wni-
versality of death is a proof that all sinned,
—for death is the consequence of sin :—in
confirmation of ver. 12. kal én T.
py Gp.| even (notwithstanding the dif-
ferent degrees of sin and guilt out of, and
under, the law) over those who sinned
not according to the similitude (reff-)
362
TIPOS PQMAIOY®.
ie
; f¢ , ~ , , , id bd | ee
f=ch.vi5 " QMOLWLATL THC * rapaBacewc ‘Adam, O¢ éatw * TUTOG
gone ley » eAA 1b Pyar. os . k , ¢
eft tov 'pédAovtoc, ~ aX ovy we TO * TapaTTWHA, OVTWE
n = 1 Cor. x. - ,
6tr
i = Matt. xii.
32. Acts
xxiv. 25 al.
Wisd. xix. 1. k ch. iv. 25 reff.
15. om Ist ra B.
of the TRANSGRESSION of Adam. (1) én
7@ 6u. belongs to auapr. and not to éBact-
Aevoev (as Chrys., Theophyl., Bengel, Elsn.,
al.),—for that would bring in, in the words
Tovs my Guapthoavtas, an absolute con-
tradiction to 颒? 6 mdvres juaproy, by
asserting that there were some who did
not sin. (2) The emphasis lies on wapd-
Bacis, as distinguished from Gpaprtia.
Photius (in De W.),—é6 wey (Ab.) apic-
pevny kK. vouoSeTnPeioay evToAty mapéeBy
Kk. fuaptev’ of 5& nudpravoy toy avTo-
Sldaxrov Tis piaoews Adyov evuBplCorTes.
They had all sinned: but had not like
Adam, transgressed a positive revealed
command. (3) There is no reference here,
as some Commentators (Beza, al.) have sup-
posed, to the case of children and idiots,—
nor (as Grot., Wetst.) to those who lived
pious lives. The aim is to prove, that
the seed of sin planted in the race by the
one man Adam, has sprung up and borne
fruit in all, so as to bring them under
death ;—death temporal, and spiritual ; — of
these, some have sinned without the law,
i.e. not as Adam did, and as those after
Moses did : and though sin is not formally
reckoned against them, death, the conse-
quence of sin, reigned, as matter of his-
torical fact, over them also. It is most im-
portant to the clear understanding of this
weighty passage to bear in mind, that the
first member of the comparison, as far as
it extends, is this: ‘As by Adam’s trans-
gression, of which we are by descent in-
heritors, we have become (not by imputa-
tion merely, but by propensity) s¢aners, and
have thus incurred death, so &e’..... (see
helow). bs éotiv TUros T. peAd. | Who
isa figure (or type: not thus used by LXX,
see Umbreit’s note) of the future (Adam).
This clause is inserted on the first mention
of the name Adam, the one man of whom he
has been speaking, to recall the purpose for
which he is treating of him,—as the figure
(ref.) of Christ. vod péAX., not ‘ qui futu-
rus erat,’ as Beza, Reiche ; but spoken from
the Apostle’s present standing, ‘who is to
come. The fulfilment of the type will
then take place completely, when, as 1 Cor.
xv. 22, ev Td xpiot@ wdvtes Cworoin-
Ofoovrat. Still less, with Koppe, can és
be taken by attr. for 6, and tov wéAAovTos
be interpreted ‘ of that which is to come,
aft woAAw ins ovy A Syr.
\ wae Gael : , \ ee ae k
Kat TO Xaelopa EL yop TW) TOV éEVOC TAOATTWPATL
l=ch. vi. 23. xi. 29.
om ev F-gr.
viz. life and salvation: see 1 Cor. xv. 45.
Many suppose these words és éor. tux.
T. MEAA. to be the apodosis of ver. 12: but
see there. 15—17.| Though Adam
and Christ correspond as opposites, yet
there is a remarkable difference, which
makes the free gift of grace much more
eminent than the transgression und its
consequences, and enhances the certainty
of its end being accomplished. But not
(in all points) as the act of transgression
(of Adam, as the cause inducing sin and
death on his race), so also is the gift of
grace (i. e. justification: not a direct con-
trast, as drakof in ver. 19: the Apostle
has more in mind here the consequence of
the maparr., and to that opposes the
xapioua. De W.). 15. ei yap K.7.A. ]
Distinction the first, in DEGREE :—and in
the form of a hypothetical inference ‘a
minori ad majus.’ For if by the trans-
gression of the one [ man } the many | have |
died, much more did the grace of God,
and the gift abound in (by means of) the
grace of the one man Jesus Christ to-
wards the many. (1) The first question
regards 7o0AA@ maAdAov. Is it the ‘a for-
tiori’ of logical inference, or is it to be
joined with ewepiccevaey as quantitative,
describing the degree of abounding? Chrys.
(ToAAG yap TovTo EvAoyeTepov), Grot.,
Fritz., Thol., adopt the former, and pro-
vided only the same thing is said here as in
ver. 17, the usage there would decide it to
be so: for there it cannot be quantitative.
But I believe that not to be so. Here, the
question is of abounding, a matter of de-
gree, there, of reigning, a matter of fact.
Here (ver. 16) the contrast is between the
judgment, coming of one sinner, to condem-
nation, and the free gift, of (see note below)
many offences,’ to justification. So that I
think the quantitative sense the better, and
join TWoAAG pGAXAov with éreplacevoer, in
the sense of much more abundant (rich
in diffusion) was the gift, Kc. (2) xapus,
not the grace working in men, here, but
the grace which és in, and flows from, God.
(83) év xdpittT. TOD... ., not to be joined
(Thol.) with 7 Swped, as if it were 7 ev
xdp. (which would be allowable), but with
éreploc. The grace of our Lord Jesus
Christ (His self-offering love, see 2 Cor.
viii, 9) is the medium by which the free gift
ABCDF
KLNab
edfgh
klmo
o17
15—17.
m
’ © 50 ‘ ? 7, S
Kal dwoeca ta Kapire ™) TOU
XploTou Pee "rove moAXAove °
is ? c ‘ ¢, , ‘\
we ou Evog¢ auaoTHoayvTOoG TO
IITPOX PQMAIOY®.
ot woAAot amwéBavoy, "rohAw re padXov n Xaorc tov Qeov
, 0
ETEPLOGEVOEDV.
363
m = ver. 19 bis.
ch. xii. 5.
< % ) 0 , ql" ~ “hy os x. 17,
33.
EvOC AVUOWTOU TG ye. o,A0lrelr
16 0 Acts il. 38
refit, Wisd.
xvi. 26.
\ >
Kat OU
r BS ? = bY \ \ 25
wonpa TO pty yep Pp ch. viii. 18.
2 Cor. i. 6.
ch. iii. 7 al.
s - Pit ees ss “etd oe , x 3: ] , t 3 q
Kotwa ES éevoc ét¢ KaTakoluua, TO € Xaeloua EK © constr., Hph.
= k , ,
TOo\AwWY ~~ TapaTTwmatwY “ EC
r James i. 17 only t¢.
1 Pet. i. 22.
tive.
u =ch.i. 5. xvi. 26.
¥. vii. 3.)
Q ,
* Otkalwua. El
v here bis.
w = here only. see note and ch. i. 32 rett.
i. 8. 2 Cor.
ix. 8, but
ep. transi-
t ch. ii. 29 ref.
-o:s, 2 Cor. iii.
Ce 3 :
yao
ssee 1 Pet.iv.17. Rev. xx. 4.
ch. viii. Lonlyt. (-veev, ch. ii. 1.
16. for auaprnoartos, avaprnuatos D(and lat!) F fuld'(not am harl! al) Syr Thdrt
Aug,(txtsepe) Ruf Pelag Ambr-comm Sedul: auaprntos(sic) X'.
at end add (wns D}(and lat!) fuld! th.
lect-19, syr has it w-ast.
is impartedto men. (4) The aorist érepioc.
should here be kept to its indefinite his-
torical sense, and not rendered as a per-
fect, however true the fact expressed may
be: doth are treated of here as events, their
time of happening and present reference
not being regarded. 16.] Distinction
the second, in KIND. The former differ-
ence was quantitative: this is modal.
And not as (that which took place) by
one that sinned, so is the gift. Itisa
question whether any thing, and what, is to
be supplied before 6? évds Guapt. Rothe,
Meyer, and Tholuck (and so E. V.), would
supply nothing, and render, ‘And not as
by one having sinned, so is the gift.2 But
(De W.) this has against it, (1) that since
the ydp following gives the reason for this
sentence, this must contain implicitly all
that that next expands in detail; which is
not merely the distinction between spring-
ing from one man and out of many offences,
but much more: and (2) that thus da
would = é« or vice versa, whereas 514 cha-
racterizes the bringer im, and éx the occa-
sion. Others have supplied 7d xpiua (Ben-
gel, Kéllner): 7d katd«piyua (Theophyl.,
Reiche): 6 @dvaros ecisjA@ey (Grot., Es-
tius, Koppe) :—but inasmuch as it is pur-
posely left indefinite, to be explained in the
next verse, it is better to supply an inde-
finite phrase which may be thus explained :
e.g. Td yevouevor, ‘that which took place
by one,’ &e. TO pev yap K.7.A. |
For the judgment (pronounced by God
upon Adam) was by occasion of one
man (having sinned,—supply auaprhcar-
Tos: TaparTeuatos would be hardly al-
lowable, and would not help the sense, in-
asmuch as many sizne7's, as well as many
sins, are implied in woAA. apart. below),
unto condemnation (its result, in his own
case and that of his posterity: supply, asin
ver. 18 is expressed, [éyéveto] eis mavras
avOpémovs); but the free gift was by
occasion of many transgressions (where
om yap F-gr 45
sin abounded, ver. 20, there grace much
more abounded : the existence of the law
being implied in rapamr.) unto justifica-
tion. The only difficulty here is ¢he sense
of Suxatwpa. The ordinary meaning of
the word is 7d éravdp@wua Tov aduchuatos,
‘the amendment of an evil deed :’ so Aris-
totle, Eth. Nicom. v. 10, diapéper 5€ 7d
adiknua kal To &ducov, Kal Td Sicatwua
kal Td Slkaovy USikov pey yap eote TH
pice 7 Tages’ Td avTd 5& TovTO bray
mpax0y, adinnud eote mply SE mpaxOijvar
ovrw, GAN Udikov. Spuotws dé Kal Sikalwua
KaAcitrat 5€ Kal Td Kowwdy aAAOV BikaLo-
mpdynua, dikatwua 5€ Td emavdpPwua Tov
adicjuatos. But this, which Aristot. in-
sists on as the proper, but not perhaps
usual sense of the word, is not to be
pressed in the N. T., and does not, though
upheld by Calv., Calov., Wolf, and Rothe,
suit the context as contrasted with card-
kpyua. Other renderings are, ‘an abso-
lutory sentence’ (Meyer, Fritz., al.) : ‘@
righteous act, as in ver. 18; Baruch ii.
19; ‘righteousness, as in Rev. xix. 8
(where see note): ‘@ righteous cause,’ or
plea (LXX, Jer. xi. 20): ‘justification’
(E. V., Luth., De Wette, al.). The first
seems to me to be right, as standing most
exactly in contrast with KaTaxpiua; the
use of the -ua being partly perhaps ac-
counted for by the alliteration of the ending
marking more strongly the antithesis.
Thus as katdkxpima isa sentence of condem-
nation, so dikalwua will be a sentence of ac-
guittal. This in fact amounts to justifica-
tion. 17.] Distinction the third, also in
KIND; that which came in by the oze sin-
ner, was the reign of DEATH: that which
shall come in by the One, Jesus Christ, will
be a reigning in LIFE. For (carrying on
the argument from ver. 15, but not so as
to make parenthetical [ Rothe | ver.16,—for
dixaiocbvns presupposes dixalwua) if by the
transgression of the one man (the read-
ing év [7r@] él wapamtdépate goes with
364
x ver. 14 reff. = <a
y2Uor.vii.2, TY TOV EVO
x.14. James ‘ eae ee Db ~
zion. Ola TOV EVOC, ” TOAAW
Eccles.1.3 al. t
IIPOS PQMAIOYS.
¥.
k Etat '
mapamTwpuatt o Oavatroc * eBacirevoeyv
"nwarXov ot tHv ?* TEoLooELaV Tne
= M: mess de \ ~ a ~ ~ , ,
1Fe tae, KaoiTOC Kat ‘TIC ° éwoeac THe OiKalocvvne AapPavovtec
2Y al. fr.
a=idoriv.s. €v *Cwy * Baottedcovew ota Tov evoe ‘Inaov Xplorov.
Rev. v. 10,
xx 4, 6.
xxii. 5.
b ch. vii. 3, 25. 2? 7) ,
viii. 12. ix. @vV OwWTOVUC
16, 18. xiv. ,
2 , > 2
2119. Gal wnatoe “eae mavrac avOowmouc
vi. 10 al3. P.
c = ver. 12.
d = Rev. xv.
4 only.
Baruch ii. 19, see note on ver. 16.
ii.2 only +. (-ovecv, Matt. xviii. 17.)
19 «
\ \ -
WCTED yao oua THC
ech.iv. 25 onlyt. Levit. xxiv. 22 only.
18 bY A bof € 8 sa k cee ,
pa OUVY WC U Yevoe TAOATTWLATOC €i¢ TavTac
52, v , 7] ‘ a, ie cee d
é€tc KaTakpia, OuTWC Kal ot EVOC oucat-
,’ ’ - 4
“ete © Stkaiwow Cwne
as
f ~ > ,
TAaONAKONC TOV EVOC avJow7ou
f2Cor.x.6. Heb.
17. for tw Tov evos, ev ev. AF; ev tw ext D: ev evos 47 am(with demid al) Orig, :
tw 44: txt BCKLN vulg D-lat Syr Chr Thdrt Th] He Aug.
om Tns dapeas B49
Iren-int Orig, Chr-comm Augsepe Bede: tnv Swpeay 67? Thi Ruf: add kat 63 vulg
syrr Chr-mss? Cyr Isid Thdrt (2c-comm Ambrst Pelag.
Orig). ins 77 bef Gon L k 17. 93.
Chr;,.
37. 46.
Guapthuatos for auaptnoavtos in ver. 16:
both have evidently been corrections)
death reigned by means of the one man,
much more (logical—a fortiori) shall
they who receive the abundance of the
grace and of the gift of righteousness
(ver. 15: beware of the shallow and weak-
ening notion, that it is “for r7}s dicatoodvns
Sedwpnuevns”’) reign in life (eternal) by
means of the one (Man) Jesus Christ.
mepiooeia answers to émeptoaeucer, ver. 15:
THs Xdpitos, to i X. Tov Aeod; only here,
as at ch.i.5, the word signifies not only the
grace flowing from God, but the same grace
implanted and working in man :—depeas,
to Swped there, but qualified by 77s dicato-
ctyns, answering to dicalwua in ver. 16.
The present AauBdvovtes, instead of
AaBdyres, is not merely used in a substan-
tive sense, receptores (as Fritz. and Meyer),
but signifies that the reception is not one
act merely, but a continued process by
which the mepiooela is imparted. (So
Réthe, De W., Thol.) év Cwq Bac. |
“ Antithesis toé @dvatos éBuc. Weshould
expect 7 (wh BaciActores, but Paul designedly
changes the form of expression, that he may
bring more prominently forward the idea of
free personality. ¢w7 is not only corporeal
(the resurrection), but also spiritual and
moral,—as also in @dvaros we must include
5a Tis Guaptias ver. 12. Baciredoovorw is
brought in by the antithesis: but it is else-
where used (see reff.) to signify the state of
blessedness, partly in an objective theocratic
import (of the reign of the saints with
Christ), partly ina subjective moral one, —
because reigning is the highest development
of freedom, and the highest satisfaction of
om tys dixatoo. C 70!
Bactrevovaw 0 17. 47. 77. 91 copt Orig
xp. bef nov B Orig,. (agst Orig, Iren-int.)
18. aft evos ins avOpwrov &! (&* disapproving).
for dixaiwparos, To dikatwua DG; Kat dicaiwua F( per unius justitiam).
maparTwua F(per unius delictum)
all desires.” De Wette. 18.] Recapi-
tulation and co-statement of the parallel
and distinctions. Therefore (&pa otv, see
reff., is placed by Paul at the beginning of
a sentence, contrary to classical usage) as
by means of one trespass (not, ‘ the trans-
gression of one,’ as Erasm., Luth., Calv.,
Koppe, Fritz., Thol., which is contrary to
usage, and to ver. 17, where that meaning
is expressed by T@ Tod éEvbs Tapamtduart.
In this summing up, the Apostle puts the
antithetical elements as strongly and
nakedly as possible in contrast; and
therefore abridges the ‘trespass of one’
and ‘ the righteousness of one’ into ‘one
trespass ’ and ‘ one righteousness’) it came
upon (éyévero, indefinite, being supplied)
all men unto condemnation,—so also by
means of one righteous act (the Death of
Christ viewed as the acme of His Obe-
dience, see Phil. 11. 8 = 4 brakoh Tod Evds
below ; not as in ver. 16,—nor Righteous-
ness, as Thol., which would not contrast
with mapamr., a single act) it came upon
all men (in extent of grace,—in posse, not
in esse as the other) unto justification of
(conferring, leading to) life. 19.]
For (in explanation of ver. 18) as by the
disobedience of (the) one man the many
(= ravres KvOpwro above, but not so ex-
pressed here, because in the other limb of
the comparison mdyt. &v@p. could not be
put, and this is conformed toit : see there)
were made (not ‘were accounted as’
[Grot. al.]: nor ‘became by imputation’
[Beza, Bengel]: nor ‘ were proved to be’
| Koppe, Reiche, Fritz. ] : see reff.) sinners
(not drevOvvor koAaoet, as Chrys., Theo-
phyl.: ‘actual sinners by practice,’ is
Ww
18—20.
x dpapTwAot " kateoraOnoay
Te
woAAol. ay vOMOC Oe
B 7, = be m? ¥2 e ¢ ' o¢ '
TAOATTUMLA. OU CE em Acovaceyv H auaptla, vumEoETEPLa-
AtOpa vuKTds evtos THY TEcX@v, Polyb. ii. 55. 8.
16 ald.) only, exc. 2 Pet. i. 8. 2 Chron. xxiv. 11.
(-@s, Mark vii. 37.)
HPO> PQOMAIOY2.
i € , \ A
1oi mwoXXol, ovTwe Kat Oia
k ec ~ ~ c 8 ' h ,
Umrakone Tov evoc dikator " Katactafyaovrat
365
ch. iii. 7 reff.
=o Peta Se
5 «3 Mace. iii. 5.
OL Listas RXVili.
S iver. 15 reff.
i oy ed ,
maoeicnAbev, Vay. mAcovacy TO kch.i.5 reff.
1 Gal. ii. 4
only t-
mapecsndAde
ch. vi. 1. 2 Cor. iv.
m Paul (here bis.
o 2 Cor. vii. 4 only t.
n ver. 15.
19. aft 2nd evos add avOpwrov D'F Iren-gr Cyr, Aug,(omatiq) Ambr, Bede.— Tov evos
avOp. bef urakons F.
20. for Ist de, yap L.
meant, the disobedience of Adam having
been the inlet to all this: compare 颔 ¢
mdvres juaptoy ver. 12 and the notes, on
the kind of sin spoken of in this whole
passage, as being both original and actual),
so also (after the same manner or analogy
likewise) by means of the obedience (unto
death, see on last verse) of (the) One man
shall (future, because, as in ch. ii. 30,
justification, as regards the many, is not
yet completed. De W.) the many (= 7roA-
Aol, compare Matt. xxvi. 28; Mark x. 45,
but thus expressed because moAAol would
not have answered in the other limb of
the comparison. In order to make the
comparison more strict, the mdytes who
have been made sinners are weakened to
the indefinite of woAAot, the moAAot who
shall be made righteous are enlarged to the
indefinite of toAAot. Thus a common term
of quantity is found for both, the one ex-
tending to its largest numerical interpreta-
tion, the other restricted to its smallest) be
made (see above) righteous (not by impu-
tation merely, any more than in the other
case : but ‘shall be made really and actually
righteous, as completely so as the others
were made really and actually sinners.’
— When we say that man has no righteous-
ness of his own, we speak of him as owt of
Christ : but in Christ and united to Him,
he is made righteous, not by a fiction, or
imputation only of Christ’s righteousness,
but by a real and living spiritual union with
a righteous Head as a righteous member,
righteous by means of, as an effect of, the
righteousness of that Head, but not merely
righteous by transference of the Righteous-
ness of that Head ; just as in his natural
state he is united to a sinful head as a sinful
member, sinful by means of, as an effect of,
the sinfulness of that Head, but not merely
by transference of the sinfulness of that
Head). See the whole question respect-
ing mavres and of woAAol treated in Tho-
luck’s Comm. in loc. 20.| How the law
(of Moses) came in, ir the divine economy.
But (i.e. the two things spoken of ver. 19
did not simply and immediately happen)
for ov, omov F.
the law (of Moses: not daw, in the ab-
stract, nor ‘the law of nature, as Dr.
Peile,—nor even the law of God in its gene-
ral sense, as often in ch. i. ii. ;—but here
strictly THE LAW OF MosgEs, as necessi-
tated by vv. 13, 14 in this same argument)
came in besides (besides the fact of the
many being made sinners, and as a transi-
tion point to the other result : formed a
third term, besides these two, in the sum-
mary of God’s dealings with man: com-
pare mposerédn, Gal. iii. 19:—not mpds
kaipoy €560n, Theophyl.: not, came in be-
tween Christ and Adam (the fact, but not
the interpretation ],as Theodoret and Calv.:
—not — cisjA@ev merely),—in order that
(reAuKas, its design,—not merely exBatikas,
its result, as Chrys., al. ;—here, and every
where else. So of ver. 21) the trespass
(created by the law; for where no law,
no transgression, ch. iy. 15:—not merely
the knowledge of sin, but actual transgres-
sion) might multiply (in actual fact : not
‘be abundantly exhibited,’ or any such
evasivesense). No possible objection can
be taken to this statement by those who
view the Law as a preparation for Christ.
If it was so, then the effect of the Law, ,
the creating and multiplying transgression,
was an end in the divine purposes, to bring
out the necessity of One who should de- |
liver from sin and bring in righteousness.
‘«‘ Those who weaken this telic iva into ‘ so
that,’ in order to guard the Apostle from
what seems to them a doctrine unworthy of
God, overlook equally his firm standing on
the acknowledged ground of historic fact
and actuality, as the humility with which
here, as ever (ch. xi. 33, 34), he bows before
the mystery of the oixovoula tov @cov.”
Umbreit. But (this terrible end, the mul-
tiplying of transgression, was not, however,
God’s ultimate end: He hada further and
gracious one) where (‘ when,’ De Wette,
after Grot., al.: but Tholuck justly remarks
that instances of this meaning of od in
prose are wanting. In verse it seems to
occur, Eur. Iph. Aul. 96, but even there
may be rendered ‘ in the case where’) sin
366
. 14 reff. . A 2]
preclarct: geugev 1) Xaptc,
rch. iii. 5 reff.
IIPO> PQMAIOY:.
ad (- nae
iva inet 3
- / cu he
TW favarw, OUTWS Kal 2)
’ , @f.e , ’
P eBactAevoev 1») Guaoria ev
Xapre * Pacitevoy cia SiKato-
a /
23 : in cvrne Bele Conv atonov dia ‘Incod yptstou tov Kuptov
[exc. a ee Huov
Viii. .
(Exod. xii. ae ’ ~ s? , oe ' e G
scare ahha VI. 1° Ti ob "E00UMED 5 ° ETULEVWMEV TH Apapria, LYa 7)
uch. iii. a reff. \ Ou ‘ , ve ; w? 04 ‘
v Acts x. al Xaptc ‘or covaay 5 5 “" an yévotro. oitwec “ amefavome
re ' ore s
weaned ty anaoria, * mac Ere ¥ Zyoomev ¥ ev avty; °* 7 * ayvosire
ii. 19. (ver. 10. ch. xiv. 8.) w. &76, Col. ii. 20. x=ch. iii.6. 1 Cor. xv.12. Gal.iv.9. Gen. xxxix. 9.
y = Col. (ii. 20) iii. 7 only.
21. om Tw F.
z= ch. ii. 4. iii. 29.
for BactAevon, -cet KL c 1! 0 77. 115-6-21-2.
ach. i. 13 reff.
xp- bef inc. B.
Cap. VI. 1. rec emimevovmey, with rel Chr Thdrt Gennad-c Diod-c Thl @e Tert
Augsepe, permanebimus vulg G-lat :
peccato latt.
2. aft ovrives ins yap F latt syrr (not Tert al).
(the generic of the specific rapdrrwua)
multiplied, (God’s) grace exceedingly
abounded (not ‘did much more abound,’
as E. V.: for words compounded with i7ép
have a superlative, not a comparative sig-
nification, e. g. ref. baepAlav, brepyikdw,
brepudw, k.7.A.,—and Paul often uses these
compounds. The E. V. has likewise de-
stroyed the force of the comparison by ren-
dering the different words wAcovd¢w and
mepiocevw both by one word ‘ abound’).
21.) The purpose of this abounding
of grace :—its ultimate prevalence and
reign, by means of righteousness, unto life
eternal. That, as sin reigned (the historic
indefinite past, because the standing-point
of the sentence is, the restitution of all
things hereafter) in death (ev, of that in
and by which the reign was exercised and
shewn: death was the central act of sin’s
reign. He doesnot here say, ‘death reigned
by sin,’ as in vv. 12—14, because sin and
grace are the two points of comparison,
and require to be the subjects), so also
grace may reign by means of (not év
here, though it might be so, if dinar.
applied to our being made righteous: but
as it applies to the Righteousness of Christ
making us righteous, it is dé) righteous-
ness, unto (leading to) life eternal through
(by means of) Jesus Christ our Lord
(‘Jam ne memoratur quidem Adamus,
solius Christi mentio viget.’ Bengel).
Cuap. VI.—VIII.] “THE MORAL EF-
FECTS OF JUSTIFICATION. VI. 1—14.]
ny encouragement given hereby (see ch.
v. 20) to alife in sin: for the baptized are
dead to sin, and walk in a new (vv. 1—7)
life, and one (vv. 8—11) dedicated to God.
1.) What then shall we say ?—
the introduction of a difficulty or objection
arising out of the preceding argument, and
emimevonev KN 1. 57. 68. 109 lect-13 copt Gild:
emmewouev L 93,124: txt ABCDF b! m o 17 Syr Damasc.
ins ev bef tn A, ia
(nompey CFL 17 Diod Chr-ms,.
referring to ch. v. 20. See ch. iii. 5.
émipevopev, ‘must we think that we
may persist, —the deliberative subjunc-
tive. So eimwuev 7) cry@uev, Eur. Ion 758:
mapéAOw Sduovs, Med. 1275. See Kiihner,
Gramm. § 464, and note on ch. v. 1.
May we persist in (our natural state and
commission of) sin, that (God’s) grace
may multiply (ch. v. 20) ? 2.) ph yev.
(see reff.), used of some inference in itself
abhorrent from reverence or piety, or pre-
cluded by some acknowledged fact incon-
sistent therewith. The latter is here the
ground of rejection. An acknowledged fact
in the Christian life follows, which pre-
cludes our persisting in our sin. We
who (ofrives describing quality, not merely
matter of fact) died (historic aorist, not
perf. as in E.V.: the time referred to
being that of our baptism) to sin (reff.
and examples in Wetst.:—became as
separate from and apathetic towards sin
as the dead corpse is separate from and
apathetic towards the functions and stir
of life: wévew aklynrov dsmwep toy vexpdy,
Chrys. ‘Sin,’ tH au. =as above), how
any longer shall we live in it (= mep:-
TATE év—but not, as De W., Gv with a
dative: Gv & ti is a further step than
Giv tun, implying introilion, and not
merely sympathy)? 8.] Or (sup-
posing you do not assent to the argu-
ment in the last verse, see reff.) are ye
ignorant (the foregoing axiom is brought
out into recognition by the further state-
ment of a truth universally acknowledged)
that all we who were (i.e. all of us,
having been) baptized into Christ Jesus
(‘into participation of, ‘into union with,’
Christ, in his capacity of spiritual Master-
ship, Headship, and Pattern of conformity)
were baptized into (introduced by our
V. 21.
ABCDF
KLNab
edfgh
klmn
017
VI. 1—5.
(BarricOnney ”
Oavatov avrou
¢ e
OTL OGOL
A - /
Ora TOU Pamrioparos ec Tov Oavarov, i wa women
MPOS PQMAIOYS.
gC Xptarov ‘Tnsovv,
® BawrioOnuer 5 say”
367
be > b Acts viii. 16
fig TOV ret. <
¢e Col. ii. 12
oniyt.
ouverapnpey ob aur ales ie?
i yeoGn
e see Yoho xi.
d
Xptoroc eK veKpwy ota THC ® 86Ene Tov Tat poe, ourwe Kal tat Vii. 6 only.
g Bost Eze os ed
mesic év kawornrt cone TEDLTATHOWHEY, EL yao go mca,
" soupurot yeyovapev TW * Guowwpare tov Oavarov avrov, ppd ag
reff. h here onlyt. Amosix.13. Zech, xi. 2 only. i ch.i, 23 ref.
8. om iqoovy B 31. 39. 73. 109. 118. 120. 124 lect-8 Chr Thdrt Thl Ambr,: imo. bef
xpior. 80 Syr eth.
4. om tov D'F k}.
5. for aAAa, awa F latt.
baptism into a state of conformity with and
participation of) His Death? The Apostle
refers (1) to an acknowledged fact, in the
signification, and perhaps also in the man-
ner (see below) of baptism,—that it put
upon us (Gal. iii. 27) a state of conformity
with and participation in Christ ;—and (2)
that this state involves a death 77 auapria
even as He died TH Guaptia (ver. 10) ;—
the meaning being kept in the background,
but all the while not lost sight of, that the
benefits of His death were likewise made
ours by our introduction into the covenant.
4.| A further explanation of the
assertion in the last verse proceeding (odv)
on its concession by the reader. We were
then (not the temporal but inferential
‘then :’ q. d. “ You grant my last position :
Well then,” ...) buried with Him (xa@dzep
éy Tint Taw TH Batt Katodvdyvtwy juav
Tas Kedadas 6 madras &vOpwros OamTeTat,
kal KaTadvs KaTw KpiTTeTat bAws Kabdak, ©
Chrys. on John iii. Hom. xxv. 2, vol. viii.
p- i151) by means of our baptism into
(His) death (rod Bamr. cis thy Odvatoy
belong together, not cuverdp. eis Tt. 0.,
which would hardly bear any sense. The
absence of the art. before efs is no objec-
tion to this ;—it is unnecessary, because
no distinction from any other baptism is
brought out, and 7d Bamr.-eis-rdbv-Ody. is
connected as one idea); in order, that, as
Christ was raised from the dead by the
glory (Sdia and Svvayis are cognate ideas ;
compare the import of the Heb. 1» and the
LXX in Ps. Ixviii. 35 [Ixvii. 34 LXX],
Isa. xii. 2: and 7d xpdtros tis Sdéns in
Col. i. 11. The divine dda includes all
that manifests the Creator to the creature :
and hence also his Almightiness. Tholuck.
The renderings ‘in Dei gloriam’ | Beza,
Bretschneider], and ‘because He is the
image of the Father’ [Dr. Burton, altern.],
are inadmissible for 6:4 with a gen.) of the
Father (Theodoret makes % 56f4 tod xa-
for 51a, vo D'(appy).
ins avaor. aft avtov F Syr arm.
Tpds = 7 oixela Odrys of the Son, which
is manifestly wrong), thus we also should
walk in newness of life (not = ‘a new
life ;?>—nor are such expressions ever to be
diluted away thus: the abstract kawdrnrtis
used to bring the quality of newness, which
is the point insisted on, more into promi-
nence, compare 2 Thess. ii. 11; 1 Tim. vi.17;
Winer, edn. 6, § 34. 3. The comparison
is not only (as Stuart) between our Lord’s
physical death and resurrection, and our
spiritual ; but reaches far deeper : see notes
on vy. 10, 11). 5.| The Apostle con-
firms the last verse by a necessary sequence
that those who are united to Him in His
Death, shall be also in His resurrection.
For (confirmatory) if wehave become united
with the likeness of His Death (ctugutos
= either (1) ‘congenitaly—as ba thy
ctipoutov Sikatocvyny, spoken of Samuel,
Jos. Antt. vi. 3. 3,—or (2) ‘ cognate,’ of like
nature,—or (3) ‘arising simultaneously, —
or (4) ‘grown together, —or (5) ‘planted
with, ‘consitus.’ The rendering of Syr.,
Vulg., Luth., E. V., ‘planted together,’ is
inadinissible, -puros being not from dutetw,
but from ¢¥w: as also is that of Erasm.
and ii insititii.? The fourth mean-
ing, ‘ grown together,” , ‘intimately and pro-
avessively united,’—* coaluimus,’ as Grot.,
—seems here to apply best. Obs. ot.
is to be connected with 7@ 6u., not with 7a
xpiorG understood, as in ver. 6: in which
case we should have to supply 7@ Suotmuate
again before Tijs avactracews, which would
be not only grammatically difficult, but
would not correspond to the sense: for
Christians, it is true, partake of the like-
ness only of Christ’s death, but of His
actual Resurrection itself, as the change of
construction shews: see below), so shall we
be also (@AAd after a hypothetical clause
serves to strengthen the inference: see
reff., and Hartung, Partikellehre, ii. p. 40)
with His Resurrection (a change of con-
368
k = 1 Cor. iv.
15 reff. Hom.
Il. a. 81, f.
1 = Acts i. 22
refi.
m Eph. iv. 22.
Col. iii. 9.
see | Cor. v.
k>? x Sic
aAdX\a Kat THC
tod (.!
TEC, OTL O
ef
tva
n Matt. xxvii.
444 Mk. J. Gal. ii. 20 onlyt. och. iii. 3 reff.
q 1 Cor. x. 13 reff. r Matt. vi. 24. ch. vii. 6 al.
XXvi. 29.
6. ins ka bef rovro B: tovro Se 179.
struction: because it could not well have
been said ciudutot Tod buotdmatos T. 0.
above, the gen.after adjectives compounded
with ovy denoting the thing actually par-
taken [cf. Kiihner, § 519, and Bernhardy,
Syntax, p- 171: who cites examples in
svvtpodos, Soph. Philoct. 203,—ovbvvomos,
Eur. Hel. 1508,—cvpuowvos, Aristoph. Av.
658,—cuuguis, Plat. Legg. iv. p. 721,—
ovvAns, ib. v. p. 7389,—ovupnoos, Cratyl.
p- 398 ], and hardly the mere figure or like-
ness of it,—and similarly it could not well
here be said ovup. TH avaocrdce, because
the dat. would not be strong enough to
denote the state of which we shall be actual
partakers. The future is used perhaps
because of the inference, as a logical se-
quence,— If, &.,....A shall = B:’—
but more probably with a deeper meaning,
because the participation in His Resurree-
tion, however partially and in the inner
spiritual iife, attained here, will only then
be accomplished in our entire being, when
we ‘shall wake up after his likeness’).
6.| Knowing (recollecting) this,
that our old man (former self, personality
before our new birth—opposed to kaivds
or véos &yvOp., Kah «tiots,—see Col. iii.
10; 2 Cor. v. 17; Eph. iv. 22—24,—not
merely the guilt of sin, nor the power of
sin, but the man. The idea is not Jewish,
as Tholuck has shewn: the passage quoted
from the Sohar-chadasch not bearing the
meaning commonly given to it,—and if it
did, that book itself being a production
probably of the sixteenth century) was (at
our baptism) crucified with Him (the
great key to our text is ref. Gal. As the
death of the Lord Jesus was by-erucifixion,
the Apostle uses the same expression of our
death to our former sinful self, which is not
only by virtue of, but also in the likeness
of, Christ’s death,—as signal, as entire, as
much a death of cutting off and putting to
shame and pain), in order that (the aim
and end of the cveravpwOijva) the body
of sin might be annulled (‘16 op. Tijs
Gpapt. belongs together, and rijs auapr.
is not to be joined with karapy. as being =
amd Tis auapr. { Theodoret, Wahl | ;—nor is
Hs oom. T. au., ‘the tolality of sin’ | Orig.
2, Theophyl. 1, Grot.]; nor ‘the substance
TIPOS POQMAIOY2.
‘avactacswe eooueba,
™ radaioc uwy
* karapynby TO P owpa TC P auapriac,
’ SouAevey tac Ty anagria’
Vi.
6 rovro ywaskov-
i aPpwroc ° cuvestaupw9n,
Trou unkére
76 yao atoQavwv * deet-
p gen., = ch. vii. 23, 24. viii. 13. Col. ii. 11.
Deut. xiii. 4 F. $ Acts xiii. 39 only. Sir.
katapynon A eth.
or essence of sin,’ after the Heb. [Rab-
binical] usage of pyp and a3-[Schottg.] ;
nor, ‘the mass of sin’ [ Thol. i.] ;—nor a
mere figure to carry out the idea of being
erucified with Christ [Calov., Wolf, Reiche,
Olsh. ., Stuart .(2), al.];—nor = 4 odpt r.
auapr.; but ‘ the body, which belongs to
or serves sin, in which sin rules or is ma-
nifested, = T& méAn, ver. 13, in which is
6 véuos THs Gmaptias, ch. vii. 28,—7d cGua
7. Oavarov, ch. vil. 24,—ai mpaters Tod
odparos, ch. viii. 13,—1d cua Tis capkés,
Col. ii. 11.” De Wette: with whom agree
Orig. (1), Theophyl. (2), Beza, Bengel,
Meyer, Tholuck, Stuart (1), al. But as
De W. further remarks, we must not under-
stand that the body is the seat of sin, or at
all events must not so understand those
words as if the principle of sin lay in the
body, which is not true, for it lies in the
will). katapynoy, might be rendered
powerless (annulled as far as regards ac-
tivityand energy. Theword occurs twenty-
five times in Paul’s Epistles [elsewhere,
Luke xiii. 7, Heb. ii. 14 only], and does
not appear to signify absolute annihilation,
but as above. Gregory of Nyssa has gone
into the meaning in his discourse on 1 Cor.
xv. 28, vol. i. p. 1825), that we should no
longer serve (be slaves to) sin (i. e. that the
body should no longer be under the do-
minion of sin, see below, ver. 12). 7.
The difficulty of this verse arises from the
Apostle having in a short and pregnant
sentence expr ressed a whole similitude,
joining, as he elsewhere does in such cases,
the subject of the first limb of the com-
parison with the predicate of the second.
Fully expressed, it would stand thus:
‘For, as a man that is dead is acquitted
and released from guilt and bondage (among
men: no reference to God’s judgment of
him): so a man that has died to sin is
acquitted from the guilt of sin and re-
leased from its bondage.’ I express dedin.
by this periphrasis in both cases, because
I believe that all this is implied in it:
‘is acquitted,’ ‘has his quittance,’ from
sin, so that Sin (personified) has no more
claims on him, either as a creditor or as
a master: cannot detain him for debt,
nor sue him for service. A larger refer-
6 —12. IIPOS POMAIOY®S. 369
Katwrat Samo tne apaptiac. Of saeinaiey ou t— 20or.v. 15.
=a ? me ae ’ eae ee
XPLoTW, sighs haus OTL Kal ouvdnoomey auTw, 9 ddrec Acts ix. eon
see Acts Xv.
" eyepOere ik
id - ‘
ort MAteEnC
w (= >? ow > , .
veKowY OUK Ere atobyncke
Vt reff.
v 2 Cor. vii. 3.
a > 2 UOre NE
Javaroc avTou ovK Ert * Kvglever. 0x6 yao améBavey, Fiiyy 0
Zz rat A - ~ ~ ~ wvrver.4.
Ty “apagria améOavev anaes Yo 8 Cy, Cn tw Dew, + & here bia,
1 Be ch. vit I.
© Noyileabe ¢
» Zovrac oe TW Dew Ev
ovrwe Kal UMELC
apaprtia,
iii. 16.
a = Heb. vii. 27. ix. 12. x. i) (1 Cor. xv. 6) oniy ¢.
constr., ch. xiv. 14. Phil. ili. 13. Wisd. xv. 15.
here only. see ch. vii. 8.
8. for de, yap ¥ tol(and F-lat) :
with B2CKL rel:
e ‘
EAUTOUC
* vexpovg ey 7H
xiv.¥. 2Cor.
| 12 1.24 1 Tim.
LoTW Gov. vi. 15 only.
xP " wn L.P. Gen.
y ace. of object, Gal. ii. 20. Rev. ae Ma z dat., Col. iii. 23 al.
= Gal. ii. 19. 1 Pet. ii. 24. c = and
a 2nd pers., 2 Cor. vii. 11 reff. e constr.,
ovv Syr. (G-lat has autem aut enim.) rec ov¢.,
txt AB!DFR n 17.—opvey CK h Thi: cuvGyocoueba F. for avtw,
Tw xpist@ D'F latt(not demid fuld tol) Syr Aug, Bede.
11. ree aft vexpouvs wey ins eva, with KL rel vss Did Thdrt Hil: bef verp. ev,
BCR! Cyr Damasc:
om ADF 17 copt «th Chr-ms Tert,.
ree at end adds tw
kuptw nuev, with CKLN rel copt Syr(but pref to xp. ino.) Chr Thl Ambrst Ruf: om
ABDF demid flor harl tol «th syr Bas Cyr Thdrt Thl-comm (c-comm Tert, Hil Aug
Pelag Sedul Bede.
ence is thus given to d<dic. than the pur-
poses of the present argument, which is
treating of the power, not the guilt of sin,
required: but that it is so, lies in the
nature of Guapria, the service of which zs
guilt, and the deliverance from whose ser-
vice necessarily brings with it acquittal.
8—ll.] This new life must be
one dedicated to God. 8.| Now
(continuing the train of argument) if
we died with Christ, we believe that
we shall also (the future as in ver. 5,—
because the life with Him though here
begun, is not here completed: and the
motevouev used more of dogmatic belief,
than of trust, though the latter meaning is
not altogether absent) live with Him.
9.] This and the following verse explain
what sort of a life with Christ is meant,
by what we know of the Resurrection-life
of Christ himself. The only difficulty
here is in ov« Ett Kkuptever, as implying that
Death had dominion over Christ, which we
know it had not: see John x. 17, 18; ii.
19; Acts ii. 24. But this vanishes, when
we remember that our Lord, by submitting
to Death, virtually, and in the act of
death, surrendered Himself into the power
of Death. Death could not hold Him, and
had no power over Him further than by
his own sufferance: but power over Him it
had, inasmuch as He died. 10.| For
(the proof of the foregoing) the death
which He died (not ‘in that He died, as
E. V., nor is 6 for ca@ 6, either here or in
ref. Gal., but the accus. objective, governed
by the eck: So also of 6 5& GH below)
unto sin He died (De Wette well remarks
that we must in expressing this verse abide
by the indefinite reference to sin in which
Vou. Il.
the death of Christ is placed ; if we attempt
to make it more definite, ‘fo7 sin,’ or ‘ to
that state, in which He suffered the punish-
ment of sin,’ we shall lose the point of com-
parison, which lies in ‘to sin’ and ‘to
God.’ If we are to expand the words
‘died to sin, we must say that our Lord at
death passed into a state in which He
had ‘xo more to do with sin’—either as
tempting Him [though in vain], or as re-
quiring to be atoned for [this having been
now effected], or as met by Him in daily
contradiction which He endured from sin-
ners) once for all (so that it is not to be
repeated: see reff.); but the life which
He liveth (see above) He liveth unto God
(indefinite again, but easily filled up and
explained: to God,—as being glorified by
and with the Father, as entirely rid of con-
flict with sin and death, and having only
God’s [properly so called} work to do,—as
waiting till, in the purposes of the Father,
all things are put under Him :—and fo | for |
God, as being the manifestation and bright-
ness of the Father’s glory). 11.] An
exhortation to realize this state of death
unto sin and life unto God with Christ.
Thus (after the same manner as Christ)
do ye also (imperative: Meyer only holds
it to be indic.) account yourselves (better
than ‘infer yourselves to be, as Chrys. and
Beza,—see reff. and on ch. iii. 28) dead
(indeed) unto sin (as ver. 2 and following),
but alive unto God in Christ Jesus (i. e.
‘by virtue of your union with Him :’ not
through {6:4 | Christ Jesus ; in this chapter
it is not Christ’s Mediatorship, but His
Headship,whichis prominent.— ev xp." Inc.,
is not [ Reiche, Meyer, Fritz. ] to be joined
with both vexp. 7H au. and (evr. Tr. 6., but
BB
370
f =ch.v.14
reff.
g ch, viii. LL. h
‘
1 Cor. xv. 53, ELC TO
HPOS PQMAIOYS.
brakobetv Taig
ML.
~
ovy ‘ Paarhevérn i . apaoria ev TW ® unre vay a
‘em Bupiate auto. '® pnd:
64. 2 Cor. k ,
ee , howe ra nerdy ¥ ULV " Owia aoukiac Ty apaoria,
on . i e ‘ oo = c \ : =
Siig) apasrioare : eavrouc TW ew WCE EK VEKOWY
vii. 19. ch. i. me 8 , 7 @é ex
My oak Cuvrac, Kal ra peXn bua o7Aa tKatoOgUYHC TW ew.
ich. i re ; ‘ ¥ > ee
ka Here to. - ajeapria yap UuwDv ov * KUOLEVCEL OU ya20e EOTE uToO
Luke ii. 22. , ’ sep SN ,
che xi. vonov, aAAd ° uO yaow.
3.v. 3.
1 Paul (here bis, ver. 19 bis. 1 Cor. vi. 15 {8ce] al22.) only, exc. Matt. v. 29, 30. “James iii. 5, 6. iv. 1. Exod. xxix.
7 al. m here bis. John xviil. 3. ch. xiii. 12. 2 Cor. vi. 7. x.4only. Jer. xxi. 4. n ver. 11.
o 1 Cor, ix. 20 reff.
12. eraxovew F.
rec autn ev Tats emO. avtov (appy a combination of the two
readings), with C’KL rel syr Chr Thdrt Thl Ge: avr, omg the rest, DF spec Iren-int
Tert Vict-tun:
Antch Damase Jer Aug Sedul Bede.
13. ree ws, with DF KL 17 rel Chr Thdrt Thl Ge:
CwyTes D'F. om ta bef 2nd pean B.
14. for Ist ov, oveeti N!:
[adAa, so BCD! FR?)
only with the latter, next to which it stands,
and of which it is literally and positively,
whereas of the other it is only figuratively
[Tp dpomp., ver. 5| and negatively true).
12,13.] Hortatory inferences from
ver. 11: from wh to Th apaptia, negative,
answering to vexpods TH au.,—then posi-
tive, answering to (avTas TG Og.
12.] Bacrrevérw answers to the imagery
throughout, in which Sin is a master or
lord. It is hardly right to lay a stress on
it, and say (as Chrys.) ovK elie Bh ob
Chrw 7 wept unde evepyelra, Grr’, 7) duap-
tla uh Baottevérw. oF yap Thy piow
HAGev dveneiv, GAAG THY mpoalperiy di0p-
@a@oa: it isno matter of comparison be-
tween reigning and indwelling merely, but
between reigning and being deposed.
But why 76 Ovqt@ bu. cduati? Orig., al.,
explain it ‘dead to sin,’ which it clearly
cannot be. Chrys., Theodoret, Grot., and
Reiche suppose the word inserted to re-
mind us of the other life, and the shortness
of the conflict, or (Theophyl.) of the short-
ness of sinful pleasures; K6llner,—to point
out that it is dishonourable to us to serve
Sin, whose reign is confined to the mortal
body ; Fritzsche, ‘quoniam, qui peccato
ministrum se preebet, adhuc in mortali cor-
pore herere nec nisi fragilis vitee meminisse
videtur ;? De Wette, Tholuck, al., that the
Apostle wishes to keep in view the con-
nexion between sin and death on the one
hand, and that ovvGiv which is freed from
death on the other. This last view seems
the most probable. See 2 Cor. iv. 11 and
note. There is considerable uncertainty
in the reading of the latter part of this
verse. That which I have adopted is sup-
ported by the primary MSS. and has the
approval of Lachmann, Tischendorf, Meyer,
grace.
txt ABC vulg(not F-lat) D?-lat Syr coptt eth arm Orig, Epiph
txt ABCX Epiph Damase.
marked for erasure by &* but the marks erased.
and De Wette. 13.] Nor render (see
reff. ;—as a soldier renders his service to his
sovereign, or a servant to his master) your
members (more particular than ‘ your bo-
dies ;’ the individual members being instru-
merts of different lusts and sins) as instru-
ments (or, ‘weapons,’ as Vulg., most of the
Greek expositors, and Luth., Calv., Beza,
Tholuck, which latter defends this render-
ing by Paul’s fondness for military simili-
tudes, and by the occurrence of dda
below, ver. 23 ;—but as De W. observes, the
comparison here is to servitude rather than
soldiership) of unrighteousness to sin;
but render (the present imperat. above
denotes habit,—the exhortation guards
against the recurrence of a devotion of
the members to sin: this aorist imperat.,
on the other hand, as in ch. xii. 1, denotes
an act of self-devotion to God once for all,
not a mere recurrence of the habit) your-
selves (not merely your members, but your
whole selves, body, soul, and spirit) to
God, as alive from having been dead (as
in vv. 4 ff. and Eph. ii. 1—5), and your
members as instruments (see above) of
righteousness to God (dat. ‘ commodi,’ as
indeed is 7H Guapt. above, the dat. after
mapiot. being there left to be supplied,
because of 77) au. following). 14.) An
assurance, confirming (by the ydp) the pos-
sibility of the surrender to God commanded
in the last verse, that sin shall not be able
to assert and maintain its rule in those
who are not under the law but under
The future cupredoe: cannot be
taken as a command or exhortation, which
use of the future would if not always, yet
certainly here, require the second person,—
and would hardly suit a personification like
auaptia. The second part of the verse
ABCDF
KLNa b
edfgh
klmno
o17
15—16.
ITPOX PQOMAIOY®S.
15 p , * € , @ > ’ \ o°¢ ‘ 7 p
Ti OUY 5 GUaPTINOWMEV, OTL OVK EGMEY UTO VvOOY PX;"7’
’ ‘ /
aX\Xa ° ure Xap ; 4 ay yéevolro.
371
ch. iii. 9.
ty ly o 7 re .
16 OUK oloare oT gh Pepatins re
rch. v. 16 reff.
k , h *¢ s , rr 2 ae 7, ~ RS
TAOLOTAVETE €avuTeuc SovrAoue él¢ = UTaKONY, dovAol EOTE sch. i-.5 reff.
~
t constr., Matt.
teen se , ” e ’ ibe 04 tis es <r mix. 11. Xr.
cu UTQAKOUVETE, ITOL auaoTlac ELC avaTtov uTmaKkoync 24.
15. rec auapryncouey, with rel Chr Thdrt, Thl He: nuaprncapev F, peccavimus am
harl D3-lat G-lat: txt ABCDKLN c mn 17 Clem.
16. ins 7 bef ove D'F demid flor harl! sah Sedul Bede.
sah arm-zoh(1805) Aug.
refers back to ch. v. 20, 21, where the law
is stated to be the multiplier of transgres-
sion,—and accords with 1 Cor. xv. 56,
Sdvapis THs auaptias, 6 vduos. The
stress is on kuptevoet: q. d. ‘ Your efforts
to live a life of freedom from the tyranny
of sin shall not be frustrated by its after
all tyrannizing over you and asserting its
dominion: for ye are not under that law
which is the strength of sin, but under
that grace (here in the widest sense, justify-
ing and sanctifying,—grace in allits attri-
butes and workings) in which is no condem-
nation,’ ch. viii. 1. It will be seen from
the above, that interpret xupiedoe: rather
of the eventual triumph of sin by obtaining
domination over us, than of its reducing us
under its subjection as servants in this life.
This is necessary, both to fit this verse into
the context, and to suit the question which
arises in the next. See Calvin’s masterly
note. So also Tholuck and De Wette.
The discussions (in Stuart and al.) as
to whether véu. is the moral or ceremonial
law, and as to whether we are bound by the
former, are irrelevant here: the assertion
being merely that of the general matter of
Fact, about which there can be no question,
that we (Christians) are not under the law,
placed in a covenant of legal obedience, but
under grace,—placed in a covenant of justi-
fication by faith and under the promise of
the indwelling Spirit—subjects of a higher
law—even the law of the spirit of life in
Christ Jesus, ch. viii. 2. Whether we are
bound by the law, and how far, depends on
how far the law itself spoke the immutable
moral truth of God’s government of the
world, or was adapted to temporary observ-
ances and symbolic rites now abolished,—
the whole of which subject is not under
consideration here. I make these remarks
to justify myself for not entering into those
long and irrelevant discussions with which
many of our commentaries are interrupted,
and the sense of the Apostle’s argument
confounded. 15—23.] The being
under grace (free from the condemnation
of sin) and not under the law, is no en-
[aAAa, so BCE’. ]
om ets Oayarov DE Syr
couragement to sin: for (vv. 16—19) we
have renounced the service of sin, and
have become the servants of righteous-
ness: and (vy. 20—23) the consequences
of the service of sin are terrible and fatal,
whereas those of the service of righteous-
ness are blessed and glorious. 15. ]
tt ovv (sc. éorly); =i obv épodpev;
ver. 1. Gpaptycwpev] Must we
imagine that we may sin? may we sin }—
the aor. because he is speaking of com-
mitting acts of sin: on the deliberative
subjunctive, see ver. 1. This question is
not, any more than that of ver. 1, put into
the mouth of an objector, but is part of
the Apostle’s own discourse, arising out
of what has preceded, and answered by
him in the following verses. 16.)
‘You are the servants either of God or of
sin,—there is no third course.’ The former
part of the verse as far as dmaxovere re-
minds them merely of an universal truth,—
that the yielding ourselves servants for
obedience to any one, implies the serving,
being (in reality) the servants of such per-
son. Then this is applied in the form of a
dilemma, implying that there is no third
service, q. d. ‘Now this must be true of
you with regard either to sin or to God,
Know ye not, that to whom ye yield
yourselves servants with a view to obe-
dience, his servants ye are to whom ye
obey, (and in this case) either (#roi—
only occurs here in N. T. #ro in alter-
natives is exclusive, cf. Herod. i. 11, d/dwuu
alpeciv, dkotépnv BovAcat TpamréoOa .
nto. Keivdy ye Toy TadTa Bovdeisayta
det ardAAvoba, Hoe Thy eue.... Isoer.
av7id. p. 317, jAGev by Fro Katnyophowy
}) katauaptupjowy, and see Hartung, Par-
tikellehre, ii. 355 f.) (servants) of sin,
unto death (‘with death as the result,’—
not physical death merely, nor eternal
death merely, but DEATH [by sin] in its
most general sense, as the contrast to [life
by ] RIGHTEOUSNESS,—the state of misery
induced by sin, in all its awful aspects and
consequences :—and so throughout this
passage and ch. vii.), or of obedience (row
Bp2
372
IIPOS POMAIOY*.
Wi,
« - 2 , .
u = ch. vil. 25." EUG Stkatoavyny 3 % Xapic de TW Dew, ¢ Ort ire Sovrot
LGor.xv.67. ° ; ;
vif, x. THC apuaortiac, vaNKovoaTeE oe * éx capdlac “ete Ov
Vl , ~ ,
v Mark xii 30, ‘ mapecoOnte “tumov ¥ cdayne, a ehevOcowbévrec Oe
ey i eo ! a MW AGG 7 3 s 19/5
Ron in, ATO THE auaptiag *EdovAwOnte TH OtKaLOGUYyY. av-
225 Peto: ce? , - ‘ €
22. Deut. Dowmvov ba da thy Sacbevaav tHe capKog UEwV.
iv. 2 4 aa Ue Oe e ef ee
yeahh MCFEA yao " maptothaarte ra “pédy vawv ° Sova ry
note. ~ > ’ ‘ ? ’ er
x Acts xxill. axalapola Kal ty * avoula "ete THY 2 avoptav, ovTwe
25. 3 Macc.
iii. 30. y Acts ii. 42 reff.
1. 21 Ald. 2 Mace. i. 27. ii. 22 only.
c¢ = 1 Cor. ii. 3 reff. d ver. 13,
24 reff. g ch. iv. 7 reff.
z Jubn viii. 32, 36.
a Acts vii. 6 reff,
e adj. here bis ouly. Wisd. xv. 7. Eur. Hecub. 137. feh. i.
h ac v.16 reff. Acts xi. 18 reff.
ch. viii. 2,21. Gal. v.2lonlyt._ Sir.
b Acts xvii. 25 reff, see ch. iii. 5.
ver. 22.
17. ins xa@apas bef kapdias A 13. 26 Chr,-mss(txty, 1), ew toto corde wth.
18. for de, ovy CR: om 37. 39. 62 lect-12 tol copt.
19. for dovAa (twice), SovrAevery F latt.
@cod, sc.—obedience to Him who alone
ought to be obeyed) unto righteousness
(with righteousness as its result ; not im-
puted merely, nor implanted merely, but
RIGHTEOUSNESS in its most general sense
as the contrast to death,—the state of
blessedness induced by holiness, and in-
volving in it, as a less in a greater, eternal
life: and so throughout this passage) ?
17, 18.] The dilemma solved for
them by reference to the matter of fact:
that they were once servants of sin, but on
receiving the gospel, obeyed its teaching :
and consequently were freed from the
service of sin, and became the servants of
righteousness :—and this in the form of a
thanksgiving to God (1 Cor. i. 14) whose
work in them it was. There is a stress
on 7Te as referring to a state past. So
Eph. v. 8: on account of which stress
apparently the uév, which would naturally
follow it, is omitted. 17. tr. .
Si8ax7s] Attr.: the simple construction
would be irnkovoate TG TUTw Tis 51d. eis
dv (or bv) mapedd0nre, ye obeyed (7. on
account of traxcon above) from the heart
(veff.) that form of teaching (so uoppwcis
ch. ii. 20: see examples in Fritzsche,
vol. i. p. 418; most probably used of the
practical norma agendi accompanying the
doctrine of the gospel; so Caly., Luth.,
Beza, Reiche:—De W. thinks it is the
Pauline form of teaching, of justification
by faith, distinguished from the Judaistic)
to which ye were delivered (this inver-
sion to the passive agrees admirably with
tUmos, as a mould, exemplar, or pattern
after which they were to be fashioned:
so kata Ta Sdyuara tvmovcOa, Arrian.
Enchir. ii. 19 [Thol.]: and Beza,—‘ hoe
dicendi genus magnam quandam emphasin
videtur habere. Ita enim significatur evan-
gelicam doctrinam quasi instar typi cujus-
om eis THY avou.ay B Syr Sedul.
dam esse, cui veluti immittamur, ut ejus
figure conformemur, et totam istam trans-
formationem aliunde provenire.’ [Thol. }
And Chrys. remarks, 7d rapadojvat, Thy
tov Oeov Bonbelay aivirrerat. See on the
construction, Winer, edn.6, § 24. 2. b).
18. éhevO. . . . . . Sukatoc.] And (this
verse is closely united with the foregoing ;
Riickert, Reiche, and Meyer think that it
might be stated as a syllogistic conclu-
sion, of which the dilemma is the major,
and the fact of ver. 17 the minor) being
freed from sin, ye were enslaved (see on
next verse) to righteousness. 19.]
For the expression éS0vAd@yTe the Apostle
apologizes: ‘it is not literally so; the
servant of righteousness is no slave, under
no yoke of bondage; but in order to set
the contrast between the former and the
new state better before you, I have used
this word :’ I speak as a man (according
to the requirements of rhetorical anti-
thesis) on account of the (intellectual, as
De W. and Thol.: not moral, as Meyer
and Olsh.) weakness of your flesh (i.e.
‘because you are capkixol and not mvevua-
tikol, and want such figures to set the
truth before you.’ Orig., Chrys., Theo-
doret, Calv., Estius, Wetst., al., take these
words in a totally different sense: ‘ZI
require of you nothing which your fleshly
weakness will not bear’): for (explana-
tory of edovA@@.) like as ye (once) ren-
dered up your members (as) servants to
impurity and to lawlessness (two divi-
sions of duapria—impurity, against a
man’s self, —lawlessness against God),
unto lawlessness (both which, a«a@. and
avou., lead to avoula, result in it: qui
justitiz serviunt, proficiunt: &vouot, ini-
qui, sunt iniqui, nihil amplius’ Bengel:
not ‘from one dvoula to another, as
(Ecum., Theophyl., Luth., Grot., Erasm.,
ise
. 17 —23. ITPOS PQMAIOYS. 373
~ d , Cs | eo ta ~ = . .
vuv © rapactyoare Ta meAn Uw * dovAa 7 dixarosivy i Paul (here bis.
I , ots , e = “ts
‘stg | aytacov. 20 Ore yap Sovdot rire ™¢ duapriac, Hcaeem
> , = ~ 9] ] exc. Heb. xii.
eAevNepor nre TH « Sucatoctyy. “| iva ovv kaprov ie joa a
[met , > Cae. = = 2. a
elyeTe TOTES “EM vlC yoy " Erauoxdveab, TO Mev yao Pees
oO , ’ U , ‘ ref, 1 Cor.
réXoc Exeivwv Oavaroc. ~ vu ds ° AevOepwHevrec ? avo xiv 20.
c is re
5 : ; lw
rhe. aap TERE P Bond perce O& TW bw, EXETE nov pe
| Ae se i" 12, iv. 21.
KagTov ymwy a ‘aytaonov, TO 33 ° ved Cony ia Jer. ii. 12.
ch. i. 16 reff.
vLOV,
de "ya v 0
€ Xaplopa TOU e0U Cw} alwvioc ray Xprorw
iii. 19. ver. 18,
1 Mace. iii. 28. xiv. 32 only.
aft ovrws ins xa: K 7 tol Syr arm Tert, Sedul.
21. rec om wey, with ACD3KLN! rel Clem Chr Thl He:
at end ins eotw F latt(not fuld).
Thdrt. for de, re(but corrd) X’.
al.: because [De W.] avoula is not an
act, but a principle), so now render up
your members (as) servants to righteous-
ness (see ver. 16) unto (leading to, having
as its result, perfect) holiness—(contrast
to dvouia, and both embracing their re-
spective consequences). 20—23.] As
a further urging of the above exhortations,
the Apostle contrasts the end of their for-
mer life with that of their present.
20.] yap introduces a motive for the fore-
going: but the verse belongs to the follow-
ing: for ver. 22 is the contrast to it.
Meyer and Fritz. think it to be an ex-
planation of ver. 19, but are certainly
mistaken. For when ye were servants
of sin, ye were free in relation to (dat. of
regard or reference, Winer, edn. 6, § 31.
1) righteousness. There is doubtless a
latent irony in the use of €Aev@epor here ;
but it must not be brought out too
strongly: it does not appear, till the end
of that freedom is declared. 21. }
‘ Well, then, ye were free: and what was
the benefit ?? ov concedes and assumes.
There are two ways of pointing :
(1) that of E. V., carrying on the ques-
tion to émasytvecde, and supplying é7”
éxetvors before ep’ ois, adopted by Chrys.,
(&e., Vulg., Beza, Grot., Estius, Bengel,
Reiche, Meyer, Fritz., Stuart, al. But
this though good as far as construction is
concerned, is inconsistent with the N. T.
meaning of kapmds, which is ‘ actions,’ the
Sruit of the man considered as the tree,
not ‘ wages, or ‘reward,’ the fruit of his
actions : see below, ver. 22, and ch. i. 13,
note. So even Phil. i. 22 (see note).
So that I much prefer (2) the punctuation
of Theod. Mops., Theodoret, Theophyl.,
Luth., Melaneth., Koppe, Flatt, Tholuck,
Rickert, Kéllner, Olsh., Lachm., Griesb.,
23 24 yao * ofoma 7g amapriac Pavaroc, TO ° Th
q Luke iii. 14,
che v.15, 16. xi. 29,
= 2 Cor. xi.
Phil. iii.
~ 19. Heb. vi
"Inoov 8. 1 Pet. iv
17. Wisd
1 Cor. ix. 7. 2 Cor, xi. 8 onlyt. Esdr. iv. 56.
for 2nd dovaAa, omAa A.
ins BD'FX% syr Chr-mss
De Wette, al., placing the interrogation
at rére, and making é@”’ ois v. émaox. the
answer. What fruit then had ye at that
time? (Things, deeds) of which ye are
now ashamed. TO pev yap TEA. eK.
0.| the reason of their present shame.
For the end (=virtually é6aéa, ver. 23,
and would be a mere repetition of kapmdés
on the first method of punctuation above)
of those things (those kapmof consisting
of sinful acts) is death (death in the
widest sense, see note on ver. 16,—phy-
sical, which has been the end of sin, in
which we all are involved,—and spiritual
and eternal, which will be the end of
actual sin if followed out). 22. ]
Contrast of your present state to that
former one: freedom from sin as a mas-
ter,—servitude (compare avOpdémuvov A€ya,
ver. 19) to God (a higher description than
merely dicatoctvn, the actual antithesis to
auaptia, ver. 18. The devil would be the
corresponding antithetical power: and
not unfrequently appears in the teaching
of Paul: but usually in casual expressions,
as Eph. iv. 27; vi. 11; 2 Tim. ii. 26, not
as the principal figure in a course of argu-
ment),—fruit (see on kapmds, above, ver.
21,—and remark tov kaprév, your fruit,
fruit actually brought forth, q. d. €xere
KapTév, Kat 6 Kapmds bua@v ayiacuds) unto
(leading unto perfect) sanctification,—
and the end (governed by éxere) life
everlasting. 23.| The ends of the
two courses placed pointedly and anti-
thetically, and the inherent difference,
that whereas death (see above) is the
wages (oy. = pay, or ration, of soldiers ;
compare the similitude in ver. 13, and
remarks there) of sin, earned and paid
down,—eternal life is no 6Wdyiov, nothing
earned, but the free gift of God to His
374 MPO PQMAIOY®. Vik
= U (Ray) ™m *H > ne > ’ 7
meh v3 TH) KUL nhov. Vil. " ayvosire, adeA pot, yww- en!
e , , oO ~ ,
ne 4 eKovow yap vopov iscsi Ort O ee " Kugtever ° TOU ad tee
o generic sing., ’ \ eo
Matt xix. 10. Pe ( q » ol7
sate ae avoarou Pep eaoy Pye vov bus mrya9 Umavdpoc
Point. yurn TH Cove avoot * déderat vou’ éav S& atofavy o
a Ss iy, st , tu ? ‘ ~ , v ~ ? S , 3w
13. Deut.” aynp, * KaTHOYyNTaL | ATO TOV VOmoV * TOU avepoe. apa
19. ¢ 5 ams N x , rs
Naim. 8, “ovv Cwvtoe Tov avepoc wary adic ! Xonuation, sav
rov. vi. 24, , \ e A
29. Sir. ix. * yévnrat avoot Pp ETEOWY tav C& atofavy o oO avip, edcufépa
only. r =] Cor. vii. 27, 39. s ch. iii. 3 reff. t ver. 6. Gal. v.4. o=ch.,
vi. 18, 22. 2 Cor. xi. 3. v gen. of reference, Mark i. 4. John v. 2) bis. 2 Cor. ix. 13 al. Winer, edu.
6, § 30.2. B. w ch. v. 18 reff. x here bis. Matt. xii. 34. xvi. 4||] Mk. James iv. 4. 2 Pet. ii.
l4only. Ezek. xvi. 38 al.
z = here 3ce only. Levit. xxii. 12.
Cuap. VII. 1. yeyyworovow Li.
3. aft (wyros, add yp G
A copt Orig, Chr,.
soldiers and servants;—and that in (not
‘through,’ —trve enough, but not implied
in év, see above on ver. 11) Christ Jesus
our Lord. VII. 1—6.] The explana-
tion and proof of the assertion ch. vi. 14,
ov ydp eore trd vdmor, GAG bd Xap:
the answer to the question of vi. 15 having
oceupied vi. 16—23. 1—4.] The
Christian is dead to the law by being
dead with Christ, and has become His.
1.] Connect with ch. vi. 14, which
is in fact the sentence immediately pre-
ceding. Reiche and Meyer connect with
vi. 23; ‘ The gift of God is eternal life in
Jesus Christ our Lord: this you can only
doubt by being ignorant,’ &e.
Krehl believes ch. vii. to be the expansion
of ‘Death is the wages of sin, —and ch.
viii., of ‘the free gift of God is eternal
life.’ But not only does this division not
hold, for much of ch. viii. regards the con-
flict with sin and infirmity,—but the pro-
minence of véuos as the subject here for-
bids the connexion with dda THs auapt.
Odvaros. The steps of the proof are
these: The law binds a man only so
long as he lives (ver. 1) :—e. g. a married
woman is only bound to her husband so
long as he lives (vv. 2, 3):—so also the
Christian being dead with Christ and alive
to Him is freed from the law (ver. 4).
aSeApot | Not addressed particularly
to Jewish Christians : see below : but gene-
rally to the Roman church. yueo-
Kovowy y. vp. AaA.| For I am speaking
(writing) to men acquainted with the
law; i.e. the persons to whom I address
this epistle are such as know the law: not
*I speak to those who know the law,’ as if
he were now addressing a different class
of persons,—which would require rots -yap
ywéorovow Thy véuov TodTS pyut, see Gal.
iv. 21. Nor does the knowledge of
y = Acts xi. 26 only.
a Denr. xxiv. 2 (4).
xen. bef worx. DF latt goth Jer.
aft o avnp ins avtys DF Syr.
éxonuarice BaacXeus, Diod, Sic. xx. 53.
er. iil. 1. b ver. 23 reff.
2. om 2nd rou F(but not G).
add 7 yuvn
the law here affirmed of the Romans prove
that the majority of them were Jewish
Christians: they may have been Gentile
proselytes. Ste 6 von. Kup. TOD
avOp.....]| that the (Mosaic: for of
that, and not of any other law, is the whole
argument) law hath power over a man
(not 6 véu. Tod &vOpeémov, ‘a man’s law,’
and xuprever absolute, ‘has dominion,’—as
Hamm. and Dr. Burton, which is very
questionable Greek and still worse sense)
as long time as he (the man, see vv. 4
and 6 :—not the law, as Origen, Erasm.,
Grot., Estius, al., which would introduce
the irrelevant question of the abrogation of
the law, whereas the whole matter in argu-
ment is the relation of the Christian to the
law) lives. 2.] For (not merely = e. g.,
but, as Thol., the example is itself the proof)
the married (ref.) woman is bound by the
law to the living husband: but if the
husband have died, she is set free from
(lit. annulled from) the law of (‘vegarding,’
compare reff. and 6 yéues Tov Aerpod, Levit.
xiv. 2) the husband (no hypallage).
3.] And accordingly (&pa otv, ‘from the
same consideration, it follows that’) while
her husband lives, she shall be called
(see ref.:—and on this use of the future,
as declaring what shall follow on a con-
dition being fulfilled, Winer, edn. 6, § 40.
6) an adulteress, if she attach herself
to (become the wife of) another man:
but if her husband have died, she is
free from the law (rod dvépés), so that
(it matters little whether tod uf is the
result or the purpose: it is better always
to keep the latter in view, and to regard
the result in such sentences as for the
moment spoken of as the purpose to which
its constituents contributed) she is not an
adulteress, though she have attached
herself to another man. So far all is
1—5.
> \ uu? 4 - U c - ‘ Ss > ‘
EOTIV aTOoO TOV VOMODV, TOU My ELVaL auTyyv
za , > Ven biel k ¢ ’ ’ Nice -
yevomevny avoot " &TEOW. 4 were adeA pot fou, Kat UMELC
da? , e ~ , Q ~ , ~ ~ ,
eGavatwlyre TW voRw ova TOU OWHMUTOC a XPLsToVvy, €lc
~ , / 7
K VEKOWY eyco0errt, tva
, (= UJ
. 2a , 6, & ab ¢_s - £3
TO yeveabar umac “ ETEPW, TW E
g sf ay ae
KapTOpoonowpEev TH ew.
"f 1 Cor. xv. 12 reff,
Wisd. x. 7 only.
e dat., ch. vi. 10, 11.
6,10 only. Hab. iii. 17.
4. kor vuers bef adeAgor pou XN.
-popera in ver 5 F.
5. nunyv D'. om Ist ev F.
clear. But when we come to the appli-
cation of the example, iis must carefully
be borne in mind, as tending to clear up all
the confusion which has here been found
by Commentators :—that the Apostle is in-
sisting on the fact, that DEATH DISSOLVES
LEGAL OBLIGATION: but he is not draw-
ing an exact parallel between the persons
in his example, and the persons in his ap-
plication. The comparison might be thus
made in terms common to both: (1) Death
has dissolved the legal obligation between
man and wife: therefore the wife is at
liberty to be married to another : —(2)
Death has dissolved the legal obligation
between the law and us: therefore we are
at liberty to be married to another. So
far the comparison is strict. Further it
will not hold: for in the example, the libe-
vated person is the survivor, —in the thing
treated, the liberated person is the dead
person. And so far from this being an
oversight or an inaccuracy, it is no more
than that to which, more or less, all com-
parisons are liable; and no more can be
required of them than that they should fit,
in the kernel and intent of the similitude.
If it be required here to apply the example
further, there is no difficulty nor inconsis-
teney in saying (as Chrys. al.) that our
first Husband was the Law, and our second
is Christ ; but then it must be carefully
borne in mind, that we are freed, not by
the law having died to us, (which matter
here is not treated,) but by our having died
to the law. It is not necessary with
Calv. and Tholuck, to suppose that in ver. 4
there is an euphemistic inversion, ‘ we are
dead to the law,’ instead of ‘ the law is dead
to us;’ indeed such a supposition would,
from what is said above, much weaken the
argument, which rests on our being slain
with Christ, and so freed from the law.
4.) So then (inference both from
ver. 1, the general fact, and vv. 2, 3, the
example), my brethren, ye also (as wellas
the woman in my example, who is dead to
the Jaw of her husband) were slain to the
liPOS PQOMAIOY®.
Ld ‘ Ld
5 Ore yap mNueV Ev TY ‘ oapKl,
(-pos, Acts xiv. 17.)
for pov, mar F.
ane
O19
x f P
potyadtwa ©1 Gor, x. 13
d Matt. x. 21
ald. in
Gospp. ch.
vill. 13, 36
(from Ps.
xliti, 22).
2 Cor. vi. 9.
1 Pet. ili. 18.
2 Chron.
X&iii. 15.
Matt. xiii. 23]. Markiv. 28. Col.i
h ch. viii, l2al. see note.
g here bis.
Kaptopoperwuey and
law (crucified, see Gal... 195-205) The
more violent word is used instead of am-
cOdvere, to recall the violent death of Christ,
in which, and after the manner of which,
believers have been put to death to the
law and sin,—and the historic aorist to
remind them of the great Event by which
this was brought about) by means of the
(crucified) Body (compare dia THS Tpos-
hopas Tov céuatos TOU Ins. XP-s Heb. x. 10)
of Christ, that you should become at-
tached to another, (even) to Him who
was raised from the dead (alluding both
to the comparison in vv. 2, 3, yernTat
avdpl érépw, and to ch. vi. 4, 5, va Ss.
aryep0n xpiotds x.T.A.), that we should
(here strictly final, as Thol., Meyer, De
W., &e. Not merely ecbatic, as Fritzsche)
bring forth fruit (alluding to KapTov,
ch. vi. 22, and at the same time [Luke
i. 42] carrying on the similitude of mar-
riage. Not that this latter must be pressed,
for there is only an allusion to it: nor on
the other hand need the least objection
be raised to such an understanding of the
words, as any one conversant with St. Paul’s
way of speaking on this subject will at once
feel: compare 2 Cor. xi. 2; Eph. v. 30—82)
to (dat. commodi, ‘ fo the honour of’) God.
5, 6.] In the fleshly state (before
we died with Christ) sinful passions which
were by the Law worked in us and brought
forth fruit to death: but now that we are
dead to the law, we are no longer servantsin
the oldness of the letter, but in the newness
of the spirit. The Law (ch. v. 20, alluded
to again vi. 14) was the multiplier of sin.
To this thought, and the inferences from
it, the Apostle now recurs, and contrasts
the state under the law in this respect,
with that of the believer in Christ. For
when we were in the flesh (= virtually,
“under the law:” see the antithesis in
ver. 6: so almost all Commentators, an-
cient and modern,—except Beza, Bengel,
Reiche, and Thol., who take it to mean
the mere fleshly state, in which the Spirit
is not yet energizing, and Ambrst., Calov.,
376
; oe Mii , -
ete Te ma0iuara TW
ii. ¥, 10. = , - n tN ~
2, "1 Pet yetro Ev TOLC peAcoty Hwy
3. al.
one T Davari
k gen. obj., ch. W
26.
1 Acts ili, 16. ieroBavdyrec ee @ q
1 Pet. i. 21. A ate
m Matt.xiv.2 gy SKaiwornre * mvEvMAaTOC Kal OU
Mk. Paul, ul) mech 218
1 Cor. x11. 6 7f v Ti our
all5. James
v. 16 only.
Isa. xli. 4. nch. vi. 13 reff. o ver. 12 reff.
2 Thess. ii. 6. rch. vi. 6. Acts xx. 19 reff.
ii. 29. 2 Cor. iii. 6.
u here only +.
w cb. iii. 4 reff.
6. rec amo8avovros (see note) :
Olsh., al., who interpret it of the state of
the unregenerate. But how does ev tH
capki denote ‘under the law ?? Some say,
on account of its car nality, as more or less
Theodoret, (Ec., Hammond, Grot., al. :
some, on account of the power of sin under
the law,—as Chrys., Theophyl., Calv., al. :
best of all is it to understand it, with
Riickert, K6llner, Meyer, Fritz., De Wette,
as pointing to the period before death with
Christ, 11 which we were sensual and sin-
ful: so that év tH capi elyat forms a
contrast with @avatwjva. But, as De
W. observes, it must not with Fritz. be
rendered ‘ quum viveremus,’ as this is never
the sense of ev [77] capr) [ elvar],—not
even 2 Cor. x. 3: nor, I may add, Phil. i.
24) the stirrings (‘passions of sins,’ ob-
jective gen., which led to sins ; not by hen-
diadys for wa@qju. Guaprwdd, which, as
always, destroys the force) of sins, which
were by means of the law (the incite-
ments,—not the sins, in this place, though
ultimately it was so, the incitement lead-
ing to the sin. The full meaning of 51a rod
yduov must be kept, ‘ which were by means
of the law :’ i. e. the law occasioned them.
Locke argues for the rendering, ‘wnder the
law, ‘in the time of the law,’ which would
destroy the force of the argument connect-
ing the law with sin, here put so strongly as
to require the question of ver. 7) wrought
(‘energized :’ not pass., but middle: see
note on Gal. v. 6) in cur members (the in-
struments of sin, ch. vi. 13) to the bring-
ing forth of fruit (see on Tod uy ver. 3:
the kaprop. was the final object of their
energizing, not the mere result. In
kaproo. here, the allusion to progeny is very
distant, if it exists at all. Meyer makes it
refer to an adulterous state, and personifies
Odvaros; but this can hardly be) unto
death (only a verbal antithesis to T@ 0e¢:
—‘ whose end was death’): 6.] But
now (opposed to dre, ver. 5) have we been
delivered (annulled) from the law, having
died (to that) wherein we were held
IIPOX PQMAIOY®.
kes ~ ‘
auaoTiwy Ta
, ¢
Ka retyoucla, WCTE
vi em . e , ' .
EOOULEV 5 O VOMOG ApaoTia 5
Eurip. Hel. 1062.
Vili
™ evnp-
g KaoTopopnaat
J 5 ‘ ~ ,
ta TOU VOMOU
rer ‘
Se TO
6 Nay UD U EN - ,
vuve oe KarnpynOnuev a7ToO TOU vomov,
"SovAevev Nuac
é /
yoapuaroc.
"pn yévowro"
= [John v. 4.] ch. i. Le
r. 2.
sch. vi. eas Ezek. xIvii. 12 only. te
(-os, ch. yi. 6.) vch. iii. 5
u iy
mwaAatoryre
i
reff,
tov Oavarov DF latt Jer: txt ABCKLX® rel am! syrr
copt goth eth arm Bas Chr Cyr Thdrt Damase Tert Ruf.
om nuas BF.
(the reading dmro8avdvros cannot even be
brought into discussion, as it appears to be
only a conjecture of Beza’s, arising from a
misunderstanding of the text [and of Chry-
sostom’s commentary, who did not read
it ],—see the analogy explained on ver. 1:
the other reading, tod @avdrov, is a cor-
rection to suit ver. 5. So that év ¢ either
refers directly to véuov, aro8avdytes being
absolute and parenthetic, or we must under-
stand éxely@ aft. amo@. I prefer the latter,
as suiting better the style of the Apostle
and the whole connexion. The omission
of the demonstrative pron. probably is
occasioned by a desire to give especial
prominence to the fact of dobavdytes,
or perhaps on account of the prepos.
amé in composition, as in ch. x. 14, was
obv emikadéowvTat eis dy ovK erloTevoaY 5),
so that we serve (not ‘should serve,’ as
E, V.: the pres. describes the actual state :
—understand ‘ God’ after serve) in the
newness of the Spirit (i.e. of the Holy
Spirit of God, who originates and pene-
trates the Christian life :—the first men-
tion of the Spirit so much spoken of in
ch. viii.) and not in the oldness of the
letter (the law being only a collection of
precepts and prohibitions, but the Gospel
a service of freedom, ruled by the Spirit,
whose presence is liberty). Kkawétns and
madadTys are not asin ch. vi. 4, cawdrynre
(wis, attributes of the genitives which
follow them, but states in which those
genitives are the ruling elements.
7—25.| An explanation of the part
which the law has in bringing out sin, by
example of the Apostle’s own case. In
this most important and difficult passage, it
is of the first consequence to have a clear
view of the form of illustration which the
Apostle adopts, and of the reason why he
adopts it. The former has been amply
treated of by almost all Commentators: the
latter, too generally, has escaped their en-
quiry. But it furnishes, if satisfactorily
treated, a key to the other, Task then first,
ABCDF
KLN ab
cedfgh
klmn
017
|
=
=
? ‘ ‘ € / ? x > S ‘ , 3 ,
adXa THY auapTiay OUK Eyvwyv €l ty ova vouovuv’ THY
11. Gal. iv.15. Winer, edn. 6% § 42. 2.
why St. Paul suddenly changes here to the
first person? And the answer is, because
he is about to draw a conclusion negativing
the question (6 véuos auaptia;) upon purely
subjective grounds, proceeding on that
which passes within, when the work of the
law is carried on in the heart. And he is
about to depict this work of the law by an
example which shall set it forth in vivid
colours, in detail, in its connexion with sin
inaman. What example then so apposite,
as his own ? Introspective as his character
was, and purified as his inner vision was by
the Holy Spirit of God, what example would
so forcibly bring out the inward struggles
of the man which prove the holiness of the
law, while they shew its inseparable con-
nexion with the production of sin ? If
this be the reason why the first person is
here assumed (and I can find no other
which does not introduce into St. Paul’s
style an arbitrariness and caprice which it
least of all others exhibits), then we must
dismiss from our minds all exegesis which
explains the passage of any other, in the
first instance, than of Paul himself : him-
self indeed, as an exemplar, wherein others
may see themselves: but not himself im the
person of others, be they the Jews, nation-
ally or individually, or all mankind, or indi-
vidual men. This being done, there arises
now a question equally important,—Of
what self is it that he speaks throughout
this passage ? Is it always the same? If so,
is it always the carnal, unregenerate self ?
oralwaysthe spiritual, regenerate? Clearly
not the latter always; for to that self the
historical account of vv. '7—13 will not ap-
ply, and still less the assertion, in the pre-
sent, of ver. 14. Clearly not the former
always: for to that the assertion of ver. 22
will not apply, nor that of ver. 25. Is it
always the complex self, made up of the
prevailing spiritual-regenerate, with the
remains of the carnal-unregenerate ? ot
always this: although this seems nearer to
satisfying the conditions: for in the descrip-
tion ver. 9, eye €Cwyv xwpls vduou Toré, and
in éy@ odpewés eit x.7.A. ver. 14, there is
no complexity, but the éyé is clearly the
carnal man. Therefore not always the
same. If not always the same, where is the
distinction? If we look carefully, the
Apostle himself will guide us to it. Having
carried on the éyé unqualified and unex-
plained till ver. 18, he there has occasion to
say ovk ole? év euol ayabdv. But heis con-
scious that, as he had written to the Ccr.
(1 Cor. iii. 16), 7d rvedua Tod Oeod oike? ev
IIPOX PQMAIOYS. ord
y X cv omitted,
TE ~ Jonn ix. 33.
Xv. 22. xix.
y =ch.i. 26. [2 Cor. x. 8.]
duiv: he therefore finds it necessary to cor-
rect himself by an explanation, what éya he
meant, and adds to év éuol,—rTovtéotiv év
TH oapKipov. Sothat ¢y# there is equiva-
lent to 7 odpt mov, i. e. ‘myself in my
state of life to the law and sin, and acting
according to the motions of sin. Again,
when the approval of the law of God is
affirmed (not the mere @éAw, which I will
treat by and by), it is not barely éy#, but to
avoid confusion, in ver. 22 the Apostle adds
Kata Tov tow GvOpwrov, and in ver. 25,
prefixes adtdés ; in both cases shewing that
(see notes below) he speaks of the complex
man, himself made up of an éow, and an
ew &vOpwros, of 6 vods and 7 capt. Are
we then justified in assuming, that up to
ver. 22 the carnal-unregenerate self is
spoken of, but after that the complex self ?
Such a supposition would not be consistent
with the assertion of the @€Aw from ver. 15
onwards: no such will existing in the car-
nal unregenerate man. I believe the true
account will be nearly as follows :—from
ver. 7—13 incl. is historical, and the éyé
there is the historical self, under the work-
ing of conviction of sin, and shewing the
work of the law; in other words, the car-
nal self in the transition state, under the
first motions towards God generated by the
law, which the law could never have per-
fected. Then at ver. 14, Paul, according to
a habit very common to him, keeps hold of
the carnal self, and still having it in view,
transfers himself into his present position,
—altering the past tense into the present,
still however meaning by ey (in ver. 14),
7 odpé pov. But, having passed into the
present tense, he immediately mingles with
this mere action of the law upon the natural
conscience, the motions of the will towards
God which are in conflict with the motions
towards sin in the members. And hence
arises an apparent verbal confusion, because
the eyé e. g. in ver. 17, of whom it is said,
ovK ETL ey® KaTepydCouat av7d, being the
entire personality, the complex self, is of
far wider extent than the éyé of whom it
is said odK oixe? ev euol, TouTéot ev TH
capi pov, ayabdy. But the latter éyd, in
this part of the chapter, is shewn to be
(vy. 17, 20) no longer properly éy#, but 7
oixovoa ev euol auaptia,—and so it passes
altogether out of sight after ver. 20, and
its place is taken by the actual then evist-
ing complex self of Paul, compounded of
the regenerate spiritual man, sympathizing
with God’s law, serving God’s law, in con-
flict with the still remaining though deca-
378
zch. i. 24
reff.
dent carnal man, whose essence it is to serve
the law of sin, to bring captive to the law
of sin. This state of conflict and division
against one’s self would infallibly bring
about utter ruin, and might well lead to
despair (ver. 24), but for the rescue which
God’s grace has provided by Jesus Christ
our Lord. And this rescue has been such,
that I, the atts eyé of ver. 25, the real
self, the nobler and better part of the man,
serve, with the vovs (see there) the law of
God: whereas it is only with the flesh, ac-
cording to which (ch. viii. 4) J do not walk,
but overcome and mortify it, that I serve
(am still subject to) the law of sin. Then
this subjection of the flesh to the law of
sin, to the SovAcia THs pOopas, is fully set
out, in its nature,—consequences to the car-
nal,—and uses to the spiritual, —im ch. viii.
Any thing like a summary of the exe-
gesis of this passage would be quite beyond
my limits. I must refer the student to com-
mentaries on this epistle alone,—and espe-
cially to that of Tholuck, where a complete
and masterly history is given. It may
suftice here to say, that most of the ancients
supposed ey to represent mankind, or the
Jews generally, and the whole to be taken
chronologically,—to ver. 9 as before the
law, after ver. 9 as under the law. This
was once Augustine’s view, Prop. 44 in Ep.
ad Rom. vol. iii. p. 2071, but he afterwards
changed it (Retract. i. 23, vol. i. p.620) and
adopted in the main that advocated above.
The default of a history of the exegesis
will be found to be in some measure com-
pensated by the account of opinions given
under the separate verses below.
7.] tt ovv ép., see note, ch. vi. 1.
6 v. Guaptia; | Is the law (not, as Jowett,
* conscience, but in our case, the revealed
law of God, which awoke the conscience
to action) sin?—not ‘the cause of sin,’
which in one sense the Apostle would not
have denied,—but sin, abstract for con-
crete, sinful, or, as Bengel, ‘causa peccati
peccaminosa.’ 6 véduos itself being ab-
stract, that which is predicated of it is
abstract also. The contrast is, 6 véuos
dy.os, ver. 12. The question itself refers
back to ver. 5, Ta maOhuata TOY auap-
Ti@y Ta 51a ToD vduov. It is asked, not
by an objector, but by the Apostle himself,
in anticipation of an objection. aXe |
Is but here in contrast to 6 vdu. Guapr.,
meaning, ‘so far from that,—or is it a
qualification of uh) yévorro, meaning ‘ but
still it is true, that....?’ Neither ex-
planation exactly suits the context, which
is, by a proper elucidation of the law’s
IIPOX PQMAIOY®S.
y \ 2? 0 ’ > “AY ’
yop ETL uptayv OUK 1] eu, EL BY oO
a ©.
vopoc EXsyev Our
working as regards sin, to prove it to be
holy. I would rather understand aAda,
but what I mean is....,—I say not
that, but.... There surely is no con-
trast to 6 véu. auaptia, see ver. 8.
ovK éyvev] ‘non cognoscebam, ni... .,
—I was living in a state of ignorance
of sin, were it not.... ‘This construction
comprehends in it otk &y éyvwy as a con-
sequence, and is therefore often said to be
put for it ; but it has its propriety, as here,
where a historical state is being described,
and the unconditional indicative is more
appropriate. Tholuck makes it = ‘non
cognoveram, ni....,’ in which case the
indie. expresses more plainly than the con-
junctive the absolute dependence of the
fact on the condition. There is some
difficulty in understanding the mutual rela-
tion of the clauses, Thy au. ovk Eyvay, and
Thy Te yap emd. ovx dev. It is well
known that Te differs from kat, in not coup-
ling things co-ordinate, but attaching things
subordinate, toa former. Thus Thucyd.i.
9 begins "Ayauéuvay Té wor Sone? ... ., OU
which Poppo remarks (cited by Thol.),
‘ Sequitur exemplum auctze Graecorum opu-
lentie . ...ductum ex rebus Agamemnonis
et causis expeditionis Trojane;’ an ex-
ample being a subordinate verification of a
general categorical statement. The ydp
also shews that the second clause is subor-
dinated to, and alleged in substantiation of
the first. Then what is Guaptia? Is it
sin in act, or sin in principle,—the prin-
ciple of sin? Not sin in act, so that ap.
ovx @yyv. should mean, ‘I had not known
sin,’ i.e. ‘had not sinned :’ as Fritz.: for
then the law would have truly and actually
been the cause of sin: nor, sin in act, so
that the meaning were, ‘ I had not known
the nature of a sinful act :’ for this would
not agree with the subordination of ém.9u-
ula below: the émé@. being more general
(wacay eém.0.) than the particular acts
which it induced. But the reference must
be to sin in principle, the principle of sin :
I had not recognized such a thing as
sin, but by means of the law. So Calv.,
Melancth., Calov., Riickert, K6lln., Olsh.,
Thol., De Wette. The law here is in
the full sense of the Mosaic law as regarded
himself,—not excluding the wider sense on
which I have insisted in the former part of
the Epistle when applied to others.
Tv Te yap ...]| For neither (‘neque
enim’) had I known (by experience :
‘known any thing of’) concupiscence (the
motions of the flesh towards sin,—whether
acted on or not,—whether consented to or
>
yi
ABCDF
KLNab
edfgh
klmn
o17
S28:
ap? a] id . 8
ETLUUMNGELC
© gvroAne
: Xwoic yao vonou auaotia © vexpa. 9 eyo OF heZwy f Xopic
7 i ,
vOMOU * TOTE.
xi. 12 bis.
d ch. iv. 5 reff.
h (subjective) here only.
7. om te F latt.
8. om de D(and lat’).
ins 7 bef auaptia &3.
Pel.
9. e(nv B: eCovy 17.
Gal. v. 13.
e = Acts xx. 19 refi.
not :—this motion he would not have per-
ceived, because he was simply moving with
it) if the law had not said, Thou shalt
not desire (reff. Exod. Deut.). ‘ Desire,’
in the above sense. The Apostle omits
all the objects there specified, and merely
lays hold of the idea contained in éméuuy-
gets. And it may well be said and strictly,
that the ‘desire’ there spoken of would
lead to all kinds of sin—therefore murder,
adultery, &c., if carried out: and that the
prohibition of desire there serves as an ex-
ample of what the law actually forbids else-
where. 8. | But (proceeding with the
development of sin by means of the law)
sin (the sinful principle or propensity, but
without any conscious personification on
the part of the Apostle,—see some excellent
remarks on personification in Tholuck)
taking occasion (apopy7, as its derivation
shews, means more than mere oppor-
tunity,—it indicates the furnishing the
material and ground of attack, the where-
with and whence to attack. The words
here are not to be joined, as Luth., Olsh.,
Meyer, with dia +. éevtoAjs: — for (1)
apopu. AaBety Sia would not express
whence the apopun is taken, as mapa or
ex, but only by what means some Go. is
taken from some source, —which would not
here suit the Apostle’s meaning, seeing that
the source itself was the commandment, —
and (2) ver. 13, 1a tod ay. Katepy., decides
the matter here,—but absolutely, as fre-
quently, see Wetst.) by means of the
commandment (not = Tod vdyov, but the
tenth commandment, the prohibition in
question) wrought in me (not ‘wrought
out,’ ‘brought intoaction,’ but ‘ originated’)
ali (manner of) concupiscence; for with-
out the law sin is (not ‘was:’ the omis-
sion of the verb substantive shews the sen-
tence tobe alocus communis,—and compare
ch. iv. 15) dead (powerless and inactive:
compare 1 Cor. xv. 56, 7 Stvayis 7. auap-
tlasdvduos). This deadness of sin with-
out the law must not be understood as
meaning that sin was committed but not
IiPOS PQMAIOYS
d , > ? \
KaTnoyacato ty euot
1 Tim. v. J4only. P. Ezek. v.7 only.
i= John ix. 13. ch. xi. 30 al.
for 2nd vouos, Aovyos L.
rec kareipyacato, with AB2CFKLX rel: txt B'D d.
aft vexpa ins nv EK latt Syr Jer Aug Sedul Ambrst Ruf-txt
379
” apopuny 8s AaBovea n aucoria Ota © THE Exon. xx.
17. Devt. v.
21. absol.,
ch. xiii. 9.
1 Cor x. 6.
e = 3 Az ' e
Tacav extOuutav
James iv. 2.
2 Kings
xxiii. 15.
“EXOovone St °tne °wrodAne nh auaoria sera
2 Cor. v. 12.
1 Tim. vi. 14.
g = James ii. 17 al.
k = but objective, Gal. iii. 23, 25.
J ce = Luke xxiii. 56.
f ch. iii. 21 reff.
emOupnons K.
recognized, the conscience being not in-
formed nor awakened: such a statement
would be true, but would not touch the
matter argued here. Erasmus (Thol.) well
explains the vexpd,—-‘Quum ante legem
proditam (but see below) queedam peccata
nescirem, quedam ita scirem, ut mihi tamen
licere putarem, quod vetita non essent,—
levius ac languidius sollicitabatur animus
ad peccandum, ut frigidius amamus ea,
quibus ubi libeat potiri fas sit. Czterum
legis indicio proditis tot peceati formis,
universa cupiditatum cohors irritata probi-
bitione ccepit acrius ad peccandum sollici-
tare.’ Compare also Prov. ix. 17, and
(Wetst.) Ovid. Amor. ii. 19. 3, ‘Quod licet
ingratum est, quod non licet acrius urit :’
and ib. ii. 4. 17, ‘ Nitimur in vetitum
semper, cupimusque negata:’ and Seneca,
de Clem. i. 23 (Thol.), ‘ Parricidz cum lege
cceperunt, et illis facinus peena monstravit :’
anda remarkable passage from Cato’s speech
in Livy xxxiv. 4, ‘ Nolite eodem loco exis-
timare, Quirites, futuram rem, quo fuit,
antequam lex de hoc ferretur. Et hominem
improbum non accusari tutius est, quam
absolvi, et luxuria non mota tolerabilior
esset, quam erit nunc, ipsis vinculis, sicut
fera bestia, irritata, deinde emissa.’
9.] Itisa great question with Interpreters,
of what period Paul here speaks. Those
whosink his own personality, and think that
he speaks merely as one of mankind, or of
the Jews, understand it of the period be-
fore the law was given: some, of Adam in
Paradise before (?) the prohibition: those
who see Paul himself throughout the whole
think that he speaks,—some, of his state as
a Pharisee: this however would necessitate
the understanding the legal death which
follows, of his conversion, which cannot
well be: some, of his state as a child, be-
fore that freedom of the will is asserted
which causes rebellion against the law as
the will of another: so Meyer, Thol., al.
Agreeing in some measure with the last
view, I would extend the limits further, and
say that he speaks of all that time, be it
380
| Luke xv. 24
(32. ch. xiv. avelnoer,
0) (Rev, xv: «
5v.r.) onlyt. 1)
m = 1 Cor. iv.
2 reff.
n ellips., ver. 5.
o = Matt. xix.
17. Deut.
Xxx. 15.
p = ch. v. 12.
y ver. § reff.
rch. xvi. 18.
1 Cor. iii. 18.
2 Cor. xi. 3.
2 Thess. ii. 3.
102
’ 5 « Fp eh et
Ou auTyC ATEKTELVEY.
v ch. ii. Ww reif. w ch. isi. 4 reff.
10. om 2nd 7 L m! 48. 77. 100 Chr-ms.
TIPO] POQMAIOY®.
/ \
“evroAn ° ayla Kal oukala Kal aya.
1 Tim. ii. 14 only. P. Exod. viii. 29 vat. only.
t wév solitar., Acts i. 1 (and note). iii. 13. Col. ii. 23. Heb. xii. 9 al.
VIL
yo St PaméMavov’ Ka ™ evpeOn pon evroAn
"sic °Zwyv, avrn “ec Oavarov. | yao apuaotia
1 apoouny AaBovea dia tHE EvroAne * eknwarnoéev ue, Kal
2 ¢
€ ut \ , Lv ee
WCTE U MEV VOMOG ayLOC, Kal
\ « a) Ny
1B 'TS ony * ayalloy
’ At , , ‘ Ww x , . , Sue € , ef
EfOl EYEVETO Oavaroc 5 BY yevotro avr 7) apuaoria, tva
Susan. 55 Theod
. s = 2 Cor. iii. 6.
Winer, § 63, ii. 2. e.
u 2 Pet. ii. 12.
13. rec for eyeveto, yeyove (corrn, the historic aor not being understood), with KL
rel Chr Cyr-c Gennad-c Thdrt ce Thl: om F: txt ABCDN Meth Damase.
mere childhood or much more, before the
law began its work within him,—before
the deeper energies of his moral nature
were aroused (see on éA8ovens below).
But (€(wy opposed, but only formally, to
verpd, and so having 6é: so Meyer and
De W.) I was alive (not merely ‘dived,’
‘went on,’ but emphatic, ‘vivus eram,’ as
Aug., i.e. ‘lived and flourished,’—con-
trasted with aré@avov below) without the
law (the law having no recognized place in
my moral existence) once; but when the
commandment (above, ver. 8) came (purely
subjective ; not ‘was enacted, ‘came in,’—
but ‘came to me, as we say, ‘came home
to me,’ ‘was brought home to me’), sin
sprung into life (not ‘revived :’ however
true it may be that sin was merely dor-
mant, the idea insisted on here, is, that
it was dead and came to life, began to
live and fiourish :—but this is not to be
compared with évéBAeba in John ix. 11;
see note there), 10.| but I died (ceased
to live-and-flourish as before,—fell into
that state of unhappiness, which ever after-
wards under the gospel he calls @évaros,
ver. 24, ch. viii. 2): and (not an
additional particular, but = ‘and so,’
—merely changing the subject from ‘I,
to ‘the commandment’) the command-
ment which was for (tending to) life
(compare ch. x. 5, 6 movhoas avTa &vOpw-
mos Cnoerar ey avrots, and reff. there:
the life is one of prosperity primarily,
but capable of, and indeed requiring [x. 5 |
a higher interpretation), this (very com-
mandment) (atry directs attention in a
marked way to the antecedent subject: so
frequently airés and exetvos: see Matt.
xxiv. 13: Winer, edn. 6,:§ 23. 4) was
found (subjective—ov« efrev bri ) EvToA}
yeyové jor Odvaros, GAN evpéOy, 7d Kat-
voy kal mapddofov tis aromlas ottws
épunvetwy, Chrys.) by me (to be) unto
(tending to) death (explained on a7éé.
above). 11.) For (explanatory how
[aara,
ver. 10 happened) sin (the sinful prin-
ciple within me) taking occasion (absol.
as in ver. 8, where see note),—by means
of the commandment deceived me (there
is a plain reference to the Tempter deceiv-
ing Eve, which was accomplished by means
of the commandment, exciting doubt of
and objection to it, and lust after the for-
bidden thing: see reff. 2 Cor., 1 Tim.),
and by it slew me (i.e. brought me
into the state of misery and death, men-
ticned in ver. 10 ;—but there is an allusion
again to the effect of the fall as the act of
the Tempter). 12.] So that (seeing
it was not the law in general, nor this par-
ticular commandment, that wrought concu-
piscence in me, but the s¢nful principle in
me taking advantage of these, which them-
Selves were given eis (wyy and not els
Odvarov) the law (indeed) is holy (ue,
as understanding a S€ to follow—* but it
was sin,’ &c.: wnich does follow in an ex-
panded form, in ver. 13), and the com-
mandment (od« émuunoers, ver. 8) holy
and just and good (Theodoret thus ac-
counts for the epithets: aytav mposnyd-
pevoev ws Td Seov diddtacay Sixatav dé,
@s Op9@s tots wapaBaTas Thy Whpoy éé-
eveykovcay’ ayabHy 5é, os (why Tots puAdr-
Tovow evtpemiGovoay. See also 1 Tim. i.
8). 13.| Did then the good (= ‘that
which was good,’ i.e. 7 évroAq, but made
abstract for the sake of greater contrast)
become death (so 6 véu., Guaptia, ver. 7)
to me? Was it, after all, the command-
ment itself that became to me this death
of which I speak ? Far from it: but
(it was) sin (that became death to me.
The construction adopted by Vulg., Luth.,
al., GAAG 7 Guapria, va parva au., did 7.
Gy. pot KarepyaCouevn [iv] Odvarov, is
hardly admissible) ;—that it might appear
(be shewn to be) sin, (by) working death
to me by means of the good (that which
was good: see above. The misuse and
perversion of good is one of the tests
10—15.
a ae , eg ~
pavyn apuaotia, dua * tov
IIPOX PQMAIOY®S.
\ ayalou jot
dsl
sMedregy atopevy = x ch. ii. 9 reff.
=ch. iii. 4.
7, 7 , Zz A 6. A
Oavaroy, va % yevnrat ee UreoPodny » apa orwAdg ti n a6. ae
e ' ‘ ~ ’ - Z 1 Cor, xii. 31.
apaorta oa a evroAnc. *“ otSapev yap ° Ore 0 vomoc ee a
iv.17. Gal.
d ,
TVEYHATUKOG éoriy, eyo a sagKivoc Elput TET PAMEVOE 4 as abETatsh
15 ray ‘ , , : 2 Cor. iv. 7,
. € N45
uTo THY auaotiay 0 yap “ kateoyalomat Ou YLvwoK pegs
(-Baddewv, 2 Cor. iii. 10. -AAdvtws, 2 Cor, xi. 23.) b = here only. (ch. iii. 7 reff.)
Cch. ii, 2. ii. 19. viii. 22, 28. 1 Cor. viii. 1,4. 2Cor.v.1. 1 John iii. 2, 14 al. dch.i. ll. 1 Cor.
xii. 1. xiv. Lal.t e1 Cor. iii. 1. 2 Cor. ini. 3. Heb. vii. i6 only. 2 Chron. xxxii.8. Ezek. xi.
19, xxxvi. 26 only. (-Kds, ch. xv. 27.) f = here only. 4 Kings xvii.17. 1 Mace. i. 15.
(Acts iv. 34 reff.)
so BCF ak m. (A uncert.) |
14. for yap, 5¢ ADL syr-marg Orig
arm Aug, Jer, :
7 awaptia bef auaptwAos DF tol arm Aug, Ambrst.
, Cyr Thdrt Aug
txt BCFKN rel vss Orig, Tit Did Chr Cyr Phot Thl Gc Aug
, Hil Ruf Ambr Bede: om eth
5 Jer).
rec gapkixos (corrn to more usual and appy more appropriate word ? but the
two are constantly confused), with K(e sil) LX&* Orig Chr Thdrt Phot Ge Thi: txt
ABCDEN! b! 0 17 Meth Ephr Nyss Bas Cyr Thdrt Damase.
whereby the energy of evil is detected ; so
that sin, by its perversion of the [ good ]
commandment into a cause [evil] of death,
was shewn in its real character as sin.
That this is the rendering is evident by the
following clause, which is parallel with it.
Erasm., Valla, Elsner, Dr. Burton, al.,
make amaptia the subject: ‘ that sin might
appear to be working death, &e.’ [so that
sin appears to have effected my death,’ &e.
Dr. Burton, most ungrammatically |: there
is no objection to this on the ground of
auapt. being anarthrous, as even Bp. Mid-
dleton himself reluctantly acknowledges ;—
the objection lies in the context, as above),
that (explains and runs parallel with the
former {fva, as in 2 Cor. ix. 3, where he
adds tothe 2nd iva, ca0ws €Aeyov) sin might,
by means of the commandment, become
above measure sinful: i. e. that sin, which
was before unknown as such, might, being
vivified and brought into energy by (its op-
position to) the commandment, be brought
out as being (not merely ‘shewn to be’)
exceedingly sinful (sinful in an exaggerated
degree—prominent in its true character as
the opponent of God). 14.| On the
change into the present tense here, see
above in the remarks on the whole section.
Hitherto has been historical: now the
Apostle passes to the present time, keeping
hold yet of the carnal éyé of former days,
whose remnants are still energizing in the
renewed man. For (by way of explaining
and setting in still clearer light the relative
positions of sin and the law, and the state
of inner conflict brought about by their
working) we know (it is an acknowledged
principle amongst us, see reff.) that the
law is spiritual (sprung from God, who is
a Spirit, and requiring of men spiritual
purity. These meanings, which have been
separately held by different Commentators,
may, as Thol. and De W. observe, well be
united): but I (see beginning of section)
am carnal (cdpxivos, stronger than capki-
Kés; carneus rather than carnalis, but it
is doubtful whether the two endings were
not used indiscriminately : see Tholuck),
sold (into slavery, see reff. : but the simili-
tude must not be exacted in all particulars,
for it is only the fact of slavery, as far as
its victim, the man, is concerned, which is
here prominent) under (to, and so as to be
under the power of) sin. Tholuck (who
differs from the view of this section advo-
cated above, yet) adds here: “The ey#
appears here in its totality as sinful, while
in vv. 16, 20 it is distinguished from sin.
That Paul does not here bear in mind this
distinction, may be justified by the maxim,
‘a potiori fit denominatio;’ the ey is a
slave, and has not his own will: as ver. 23
shews, the éyé which is hostile to sin,
the véuos Tov vods, is under coercion, and
the man is a captive. So Arrian in Epict.
li. 22: brov yap Td ey Kal Td eudy, exe?
avaykn pémew Td (Gov, ci ev oapkl, exe?
TO Kupledoy elvat, ci ev Mpoaipéoe:, exeivo
(qu. éxet ?) eivat.” The latter clause
of the verse is the very strongest asser-
tion of man’s subjection to the slavery of
sin in his carnal nature. 15.| For
(a proof of this mempao@a: under sin, viz.
not being able to do what I would, vy.
15—17) that which I perform (am in the
habit of doing) I know not (act blindly, at
the dictates of another: which is proper to
a slave. okoTotuat pnol, cvvaprd Comat,
emnpeiay UmoMevw, OVK O1da TAS UToGKEAI-
(ouat, Chrys. The meaning, ‘ J approved
not,’ introduced by Aug andheld by Erasm.,
Beza, Grot., Estius, Semler, al., is not sanc-
tioned by usage,—see note on 1 Cor. viii.
3,—and would make the following clause
almost atautology): for (explanation of last
382
g here onlyt.
Xen. Anab.
v. 8. 8.
h = 1 Tim. i.
18. iv. 4. see
below ().
i=ch. xi,
k ver. 13.
1 here 3ce.
vii. ¥, 11.
} Cor. ili. 16.
aa hs 16.
s a Ozer ety
ape oe?
17
” kaXoc. vuvt al
? \ ic.
ch. AAAa |" otkovea
eee he Ne x '
ouKet Ev EOL,
1 Tim. vi. 16 only. n Acts xix. 4 reff.
X- 65. Polyb. iv. 38.7. iii. 57.8.
1 Thess. v.21 only. Amos v.14.
IIPOS PQMAIOY®S.
? ‘ a , ~ ; , , eS ~ ~
ov yao oO OéAw, Tovro TOaGow, aXX 0 pis@, TOUTO TOW.
6 , v « > 02 - =
EL Oe O OU eho, Tae ee
ouK ert eyo
' ey enol dmapria,
x TouTéoTW ev ry oapxi fou, ayalov.
°rapaKerat pot, TO oe *
Xen. Anab. vii. 3. 22.
VIEL
g 7 = ‘ e
salt Tw VOUW OTL
‘ cateoyaZouat auto,
18 io \ ca
olda yao OTL OUK
TO
‘
kateoyaceabat Pro
o here bis only +. Sir. xxxiv. (xxxi.) 16. Hom. Od.
p here bis. 2Cor. xiii. 7. Gal. vi. ¥.
15. om 1st tovro DF goth Meth, Pelag Ambr, (copt om both): ins ABCKLN® rel
vulg Orig Meth, Chr Thdrt Aug.
16. ouvpnpet DEN.
17. [addAa, so BDFL. }
Ambrst and follg ver).
18. ins ro bef ayaboy F Meth, Cyr.
adk\Aa &.
for akon, Kadoyv cot F.
for otkovoa, evoixovoa BR am Ambrst (evokes am
for 5¢, yap, and for radov, aryafov F.
ree (for ov) ovx evpioxw, with DE KL rel arm-marg Chr Thdrt Thl ec Jer Sedul: txt
ABCR vulg Syr copt arm Meth Procl Cyr gr-mss- mentd- -by-Aug Augszepe-
assertion, shewing how such blind service
comes to pass) not what I wish, that doI
(this @¢Aw is not the full determination of
the will, the standing with the bow drawn
and the arrow aimed; but rather the zz-
clination of the will,—the taking up the
bow and pointing at the mark, but without
power to draw it:—we have 6€A in the
sense of to wish, 1 Cor. vii. 7, 32; xiv. 5;
2 Cor. xii. 20), but what I dislike (= od
@éAw, ver. 19: no distinction in intensity
between 6éAw and «uic@), that I do (no dis-
tinction here between rpdocow and mae, as
apparently in Johniii. 20,21, wheresee note:
for they are interchanged in vv. 19, 20).
The Commentators cite several parallel pas-
sages from profane writers: e. g. Seneca,
Hippol. 604, ‘ Vos testor omnes ccelites, hoc
quod volo, me nolle ;°—Epictetus, Enchiri-
dion ii. 26, éwel yap 6 auaptdvwy od Oércx
Guaprdave, GAAG KatopOa@oat, SHAov sre
® mev O€rAet ov Tore?, Kal 0 wh O€AEL Tole:
—the well-known lines of Ovid, Met. vii.
19, ‘aliudque cupido, Mens aliud suadet :
video meliora proboque, Deteriora sequor :’
—Plautus, Trinummus iii. 2. 31, ‘Scibam
ut esse me deceret, facere non quibam
miser :?’—&e. 16.) But-if (= ‘now
seeing that ;? takes up the foregoing and
draws an inference from it) what I wish
not, that I do, I agree with (bear witness
to) the law that it is good (viz. ‘in that
the /aw prohibits what Z a/so dislike,—the
law and Lare asone in proscribing the thing,
—the law, and my wish, tend the same
way ’). 17.) Now however (‘ quod
autem quum ita sit ,’ xo¢ of time, as Grot.,
‘nune post legem datam,’—or Koppe, ‘ ex
quo Christianus factus sum’) it is no
longer (not a chronological, but a logical
sequence, ‘it can no more be said, that;’ see
reff.) I that perform it (xarepy. as recalling
vv. 8—15), but sin that dwelleth in me.
Here the eyd is not the complex respon-
sibleself, by which the evil deed is wrought,
and which incurs the guilt of working it :
but the se/f of the W111 in its higher sense,
the @rw a&vOpwros of ver. 22. The not
bearing this in mind has led to error in
interpretation and doctrine: e. g. when it is
supposed that the Christian is not respon-
sible for his sins committed against his spi-
ritual will and higher judgment ; whereas
we are all responsible for the épya of the
sin that dwelleth in us, and it is in this very
subjection to and involution with the law of
sin in our members, that the misery consists,
which leads to the ery in ver. 24.
18.] An explanation of the oikotoa év
éuol auaptia of the last verse. For I
know (by experience, detailed in the next
verse) that there dwells not in me, that
is, in my flesh, (any) good (thing). I
said, sin that dwelleth in me, because I feel
sure, from experience, that in me (meaning
by ‘me’ not that higher spiritual self in
which the Spirit of God dwells, but the
lower carnal self: see on this important
limitation the remarks at the beginning of
the section), dwells no good thing. And
what is my proof of this? How has expe-
rience led me to this knowledge ? For
(the proof from experience) the wish (to
do good) is present with me (rap., not
metaphorical, see reff., but, as mpoxetuae in
Homer, used commonly of meats served up
to, lying before, any one); but to do that
which is good, is not (the absence of eipicxw
in ABCN, and the variations of yiwdéonw
€xw,—and besides, the somewhat unusual
termination of the sentence with od,—are
toostrong presumptionsof its beinganinter-
w. ABCD
KLNa
edfg
_» im
o17
a
—
16—25.
A ”
Pxadovov. }9
20
- oo ,
KakoYv, TOUTO TPAGOW,
- i of ‘
Tow, ' OVvK ETL Ey * katepyaZouat avto, dAX #
2 , Wye /
Ev euMol auaoTia, 21 q
> \ ~ ‘
EUOL TOLELY P TO P KaNov, ¢ Ort EOL
22 t
4 e ’ ~
pt avOowror, 23° B)érw oe” érepov VOMOV Ev TOIC * nédeolv is.
évros GvAp., Plat. Rep. ix. p. 589.
vv. 3, 4al. x ch. vi. 13 reff.
19. ins rovro bef tow C ¢ vulg Jeraiqg Ruf-comm.
IIPOX PQMAIOY®.
4 \ - , -~ -~ ‘ ‘
ouynooat yao TW vouw TOU Beov KaTa TOV
v = and constr., Heb. x. 25.
385
ov ydo 0 02\w Tow ayabov, adXa 0 ov OéXw 4 = Acts xix.
19. XxXvii.28.
et O& 0 ou bédX\w [e o|, TOUTO 1 Garon, xX.
Donen oe r= Heb. vii.
OLKOVOA 16...
sch ii. 9 reff.
evplokw doa Tov “vopoy TW OéXovre ee
iii. 1). LU.
> To * Kakov magaKetrat, Herod. iii-36.
2 ro Med.
136.
* tow u Eph. iii. 16.
see 2 Cor. iv.
1 Pet.
iii. 4. 6
w = Matt. viii. 21-
[adAa, so BD'N. | for
ov eho, pow F vulg-sixt(with F- lat) Thdrt Aug, Ruf-comm: om G.
20. rec aft @cAw ins eyw (corrn for emphasis :
with AKLX rel syr copt goth Thdrt Gc Augsepe :
Chr-ms, Cyr Thl-comm Ambr Pelag Aug, Ambrst.
21. om ot: to mapaxerta F.
22. for Qeov, kupiov 34: voos B.
polation, to allow of its retention) (present
with me). 19.] And this od zapa-
KeioOa of the doing good is shewn by my
acts, in that I do not the good that I wish
(to do), but the evil which I do not wish,
that I do. 20. ] The inference of ver.
17 restated, with the premiss of ver. 16 in
the place of vuy) 6€:—but its meaning is
now clearer and deeper than then; we know
now that the éyé which does not the evil
thing, is the better éyé of the ow tvOpw-
atos,—whereas the €uoi in which sin dwells
and rules, though included in the complex
self, is the lower éyé, 7 odp— wov. And
so the way is now prepared for at once set-
ting forth the conflict within us between
these two. 21.| I find then (i.e. as
appears from what has been detailed) the
(this) law (presently to be defined as the
law of sin in my members, and exemplified
in the following words: so Tod phuatos
Tov Kuptov, ws édeyev, Acts xi. 16:—rTav
Adywyv Tod Kuplov Ingod, bt adTbs eimev,—
Acts xx. 35 (De W.). This is the view of
Calv., Beza, Grot., Estius, Wolf, Winer,
Meyer, De Wette, al. It cannot well be
referred to the Mosaic law, as, with various
forced arrangements and constructions,
Chrys., Theophyl., Theodoret, Tholuck,
Olsh., Fritz. Kéllner ; the great objection
being, that All these do violence to the con-
text. Tholuek’s remark, that had vépov
meant as above, it would have been anar-
throus, or todTov Toy vopoy, is sufficiently
answered by the above examples: and the
dative after eipicxw, to which he also ob-
jects as inadmissible in any language, i is
Justified by Soph. Cd. Col. 966, od« by
efevpurs euol | duaptias dvetdos ov €v,—
and by Plat. Rep. iv. p. 421, eT Epa << TOES
ptaAakiy ectphkayev, ‘alia invenimus nos-
or for conformity with eyw below ?),
om BCDF b o latt Syr wth arm
adda BD!R.
tris custodibus observanda,’ Ficin.) to me
(for myself) wishing to do good, that
(consisting in this, that) evil is present
with (see above, ver. 18) me.
22, 23.] Explanation of the conflict above
alleged to exist. For I delight in (cvv not
signifying participation with others, but as
perhaps in cuvAvmovpevos, Mark iii. 5, and
in the phrase cvvo1da por ; denoting ‘apud
animum meum. Thol. cuvndoma is &
stronger expression than stun, ver. 16)
the law of God after the inner man
(= vows, ver. 25,—see reff.—and compare
Peter’s 6 xpumtds Tis Kapdias &vOpwros,
ref. 1 Pet. But not merely the mental
and reasoning part of man :—for that
surely does not delight in the law of God :
—it is absolutely necessary to presuppose
the influence of the Holy Spirit, and to
place the man in a@ state of grace before
this assertion can be true. And it is sur-
prising to find Commentators like Tholuck
and De Wette, while they acknowledge that
cuvjdouma is stronger than cvupnut, yet
denying the gradual introduction of the
spiritual man in the description of this
conflict. True, THE SPIRIT is not yet in-
troduced, because purposely kept back until
treated of as the great Deliverer from this |
state of death ; the man is as yet described |
as compounded of the outer and inner man,
of 7 odp~ and 6 vods, and the operations
of the two are detailed as if unassisted,—
even the term wvedua for the human spirit ©
being as yet avoided,—but all this is done,
because the object is to set the conflict and
misery, as existing even in the spiritual
man, in the strongest light, so that the
question in ver. 24 may lead the way to the
real uses and blessed results of this conflict
in ch. viii.); but I see (= ‘find ’—as if he
384
IIPOD PQMAIOY2.
VEE
’ , Zz
a uerconly t- fou y RU LGT ORT Se neaes TW “vom TOU v0os fou, kat oe
z Luke xxi
ae anim nadwridovra ME [ev] Te vou *Th¢ auapriac Tw OvtTe &
iii. 6 only
3 ae Vili. rolc * wéXeoly Mov. baNavernipaese eyo évOpwroc" ric Me
46. (-tos, ey ’ ~ , ~ , , 5d id
Luke iv. Ss a Piety!
18 phige PucEeTal éK TOU OWMATOC TOU Oavarou TOUTOU, Xaptc
-Tevew, Eph. iy. 8 only. -oa, ib. and Rev. xiii. 10 bis only.) a genit., = ch. vi. 6 reff. b Rev.
iii. 17 ovly. Isa. xxxiii, 1. (-pta, ch. ili. 16. -petv, James iv. 9.) c = and constr., Luke i, 74. 2 Cor.
i. 10 al.
23. avriotpar. K. atxuad. (Omg Me) TW VOM. TOV voos mov Tw ovTi A.
ev, with (A)CL rel syrr Meth, Cas Chr Cyr ec Thi:
coptt goth Clem Thdrt.
Exod. vi. 6. w.c7ro, Matt. vi. 13. ch. xv. 31 al.
Ps. cxxxix. 1. d = ch. vi. 17 reff.
rec om 2nd
ins BDF KX b!' ckmno 17 latt
25. rec for xapis Tw Oew, evxapisTw Tw Oew (see notes), with AK LN’ rel syrr goth Orig,
Chr ce Thl:
7 xapts Tov Geov D vulg Thdrt-comm/(appy) lat-ff, 7 xapis Tov kupiov F:
txt B 213 sah eth Meth Orig,, and x. 5¢ tw 6. C? (C! uncert) X-corr! 10. 17. 31. 73.
were a spectator of that which is going on
within) a different law (differing in kind
and aim, not &AAos merely) in my
members (= év 77) capri pov, ver. 18),
warring against (ayTioTp. is not to be
joined with BAérw so as to = aytictpated-
eo9a1, though that would be an allowable
construction, see Acts vili. 23; 1 Cor. viii.
10,—but BAémw—ov forms an independ-
ent sentence antithetic to ovv7dopuai—
&vOpwrov) the law of my mind (the con-
sent viz., to the law of God, which my
mind yields; not = the law of God, any
more than the different law in my mem-
how > the Jaw of sin,—but both meaning
the standard or rule set up, which inclina-
tion follows :—the one in the voids, in har-
mony with the law of God,—the other in
the méAn or oapé, subservient, and causing
subservience, to the principle or law of
sim), and bringing me (the whole complex
self—the ‘me’ of personality and action)
into captivity with (év, not exactly ‘ by
means of,’ but pointing out the department
in which, the investiture with which, the
taking captive has place. Nor would the
simple dative be ‘by means of, as Chrys.,
Theodoret, Theophyl.,—but merely ‘Zo
the dat. commodi aft. atxuadr.) the law
of sin (the sinful principle, of resistance to
God’s law, 7) amapria as awakened and set
energizing, ver. 9, by that law) which is
in my members. Commentators haye
much disputed whether the €repos vduos,
and the véuos THs auapt., both ev rots
méAcow pov, are different, or the same.
The former view is held by Calv., Beza,
Kéllner, Riickert, De W.: the latter by
Reiche, Meyer, Fritz., Tholuck. It ap-
pears to me (see above) that the identity
cannot be maintained without introducing
great confusion into the sentence.
24.) The division of the man against him-
self, —his inward conflict, and miserable
state of captivity to sin in the flesh, while
with the mind he loves and serves the law
ot God. From this wretched condition,
which is a very death in life, who shall
deliver him? cepatos cannot well be
figurative, ‘ wntversitas vitiorwmn,’ or ‘mor-
tifera peccati massa, but must, on account
of the part which 7 odpé and 7a wéAn have
hitherto borne, be /éteral. Then, how is
tovtov to be taken? Some (Syr., Erasm.,
Calv., Beza, Olsh., Winer) join it with
oéuatos, and (not Winer) justify the
construction as a Hebraism: but Winer has
refuted the notion (edn. 6, § 34. 3. b) of
a Hebraism, and the arrangement has no
Greek example. It can only be joined with
@avarov ;—-and that most fitly, as the state
which he has been describing is referred to
by tod Qavarov tovTov. Then the body
of this death will mean, ‘the body whose
subjection to the law of sin brings about
this state of misery,’ compare capa Tis
auaptias, ch. vi. 6. From this body, as
the instrument whereby he is led captive to
the law of sin and death, he cries out for
deliverance: i. e. to be set free, as ch.
viii. 2, from the law of sin and death.
Some Commentators, misled by the notion
of a Hendiadys (céuaros Tod 0. = Ovntod
oéuatos),a most fruitful source of error in
exegesis, have imagined that the verse im-
plies a wish to be delivered from the body
(by death), and expresses a weariness of life.
The ery is uttered, as De Wette well
observes, in ful/ consciousness of the deliver-
ance which Christ has effected, and as lead-
ing to the expression of thanks whieh fol-
lows. And so, and no otherwise, is it to be
taken. 25. | The rec. edxapioT@ has but
slender authority, and in thegreat variety of
readings, itisnoteasy todetermine. 7 xapis
Tov deov is evidently a correction to answer
to tis above; so that our choice lies be-
tween xydpis Ta 0. and xadpis 5& Te O.
The sentence is (not, of course, construc-
tionally, as the var. readg 7 xdpis Tod
Geo0, but logically) an answer to the pre-
ceding question : Thanks to God (who hath
accomplished this) by means of Jesus
Christ our Lord. This exclamation and
24, 25.
ABCDF
KLN ab
cedfgh
kimn
017
385
ET. fe. IIPOX PQMAIOYS.
~ ~ ‘aes ~ ~ ~ , ra ~ ” 7
zw Dew dia Incov yotsrov tov Kvoiov huwy. ° apa © ou £2. 1sre"
aos re = \ f og 8 iy , , ~ ~ a\ \ see 2 Thess.
auTocg éyW TW éy vol OUAEVW VOMW Jeou TY) be OaOKL ii.2.
u t Piet 5 g = Acts xx.
Mis e U LNG! ” ~ ,
vom auaoriac. VITL. ! odd: apa vuy ° Kkaraxptma y th 6 1s
es eS oe mln ON As \ , = ~ ji , ~ only t.
TOL EV YOLOTW Inoov' “o yap vouog TOU TVEVMATOC THC iver. 10. Rev.
Ezek. xxxvii. 5.
om
80. 93 copt arm Meth Cyr Paulin Jer. eyw bef avtos D!(and lat) vulg.
wev FN! latt lat-ff
Cua. VIII. 1. om vuy D! Syr eth arm Cyr Jer Victorin Preedest. rec at end
ins my KaTa capKa mepimarovow (so far, with AD? vulg Syr goth arm Bas Chr lat-ff)
ahAa Kata mvevua (supplied from ver 4, from a misunderstanding of the argument :
see notes), with D?K LN? rel Thdrt (ce Thl: om BCD!FR! coptt eth Orig-schol Ath
Cyr Dial Ruf Aug.
thanksgiving more than all convince me,
that Paul speaks of none other than him-
self, and carries out as far as possible the
misery of the conflict with sin in his mem-
bers, on purpose to bring in the glorious de-
liverance which follows. | Compare1Cor.
xv. 56, 57, where a very similar thanks-
giving occurs. dpa ovv «.7.A. | These
words are most important to the under-
standing of the whole passage. We must
bear in mind that it had begun with the
question, Is THE LAW sIN? The Apostle
has proved that it is NoT, but is HOLY.
He has shewn the relation that it holds to
sin, viz. that of vivifying it by means of
man’s natural aversion to the command-
ment. He has further shewn, that in him-
self, even as delivered by Christ Jesus, a
conflict between the law and sin is ever
going on: the misery of which would be
death itself, were not a glorious deliverance
effected. He now sums up his vindication
of the law as holy ; and at the same time,
sums up the other side of the evidence
adduced in the passage, from which it
appears that the flesh is still, even in the
spiritual man, subject (essentially, not prac-
tically and energetically) to the law of sin,
—which subjection, in its nature and con-
sequences, is so nobly treated in ch. viii.
So then (as appears from the foregoing),
I myself (I, who have said all this against
and in disparagement of the law; 1, who
write of justification by faith without the
deeds of the law: not ‘ Z alone,’ without
Christ, as opposed to the foregoing,—as
De Wette, Meyer : nor, ‘ego idem,’ I, one
and the same person, as Beza, Erasm.,
Caly., Olsh.: nor ‘idle ego,’ as Grot., Thol.
See, for the meaning given above, ch. viii.
26 [avTd 7d mvedual; ix. 3; xv. 14;
2 Cor. xii. 13, in all which places [see on
ch. xv. 14] it has the same force) with
my mind (indeed) (6 vots = 6 ow ap.
as in ver. 23) serve the law of God (cf.
Vou. II.
cuvndoua, ver. 22), but with my flesh
the éy# of ver. 18; and the odpé through-
out of ch. viii.) the law of sin. It re-
mains to be seen how this latter subjection,
which in the natural man carries all with
it, is neutralized, and issues only in the
death of the body on account of sin, 7”
those who do not walk after the flesh, but
after the Spirit. Cuap. VIII. 1—89.]
In the case of those who are in Christ
Jesus, this divided state ends in the glo-
rious triumph of the Spirit over the flesh :
and that (vv. 1—17), though incompletely,
not inconsiderably, even here in this state,
—and (vy. 18—80) completely and glo-
riously hereafter. And (vv. 31—39) the
Christian has no reason to fear, but all
reason to hope; for nothing can sever him
Srom God’s love in Christ. 1—17.]
Although the flesh is still subject to the
law of sin, the Christian, serving not the
Jlesh, but walking according to the Spirit,
shall not come into condemnation, but to
glory with Christ. 1.] There is there-
fore (an inference from ch. vii. 25, because
with their mind, and that mind dwelt in
and led by the Spirit of Christ, they
serve, delight in, the law of God) now
(this viv is emphatic, and follows upon
the question and answer of vii. 24, 25,
rebus sie stantibus,—now that a de-
liverance has been effected from the body
of this death, by Christ. This is certain
from the ydp which follows, setting forth
the fact of the deliverance) no condemna-
tion (reff. ; = the penal consequence of sin
original and actual) to those (who are) in
Christ Jesus. The expression év xp. Inc.
refers particularly to the last place where
God’s gift of life eternal in Christ Jesus
our Lord was spoken of, ch. vi. 23,—and
generally to all that was said in that chap-
ter of our incorporation into and union
with Him. The words py) kata odpra
MepimaTovalv, AAG Kata mvedua, ‘walking
: Cec
rs
386
k ch. vi. 18 reff.
l see Acts xiv.
8 reff. constr.
nom., see
Heb. viii. 1.
acc., 2 Cor. m «
xii 17. vouou, éy W
m = Feb. ii. 18. E
n = 2 Cor. xiii.
‘Cwine & Ev Xprary "Inoov *
IIPOS POMAIOYS.
rig duaprtiac Kal TOU Oavarov. 3
*% SEs ~ ,
nrevdipwoev * sa puke TOU appa 3
0
«
€auTOV
2. *oe BEN spec Syr Chr,(but mss vary) Aug; nuas copt eth Dial Meth: pe
ACDKL rel vulg syr sah goth eth Chr Thdrt Ge Thl Tert Jer Ambr.
as they do not according to the flesh but
according to the Spirit, are probably a
gloss introduced from ver. 4, right enough
in sense (see there), but out of place here,
because this moral element of ‘those in
Christ’ is not yet brought in: the present
assertion is general, and is made good in
detail by and by. See digest. 2. |
For (a reason why there is no condemna-
tion) the law (norma, method = influence,
as in €tepov vduoy, ch. vii. 23,—used here
perhaps for sharper contrast to the yduos
apapT. below) of the Spirit of life (the.
Lord and Giver of life—life used in an
incipient higher sense than €(wy in ch. vii.
9,—see below) freed me (aor., referring to
the time of his conversion. There is no
stronger proof to my mind of the identity
of the speaker in the first person through-
out with the Apostle himself, than this
extension of that form of speaking into this
chapter: nothing more clearly shews, that
there he was describing a really existing
state within himself, but insulating, and as
it were exaggerating it [as so often], to
bring out more clearly the glorious de-
liverance to follow). in Christ Jesus (I
follow the more regular grammatical ar-
rangement in taking év xp. “Ino. with the
verb. Thus also Thol. and De Wette.
It may be taken [ notwithstanding the
absence of the art., at which indeed only
tiros will stumble] with (ws, as Luther,
which seems to suit ch. vi. 23,—or with
Tov my. T. ¢, as Piscator and Flatt,—or with
6 vou. t. 7. T. (, as Calv.) from the law
of sin (vii. 25) and death (death again
here bears a higher meaning than in "ch.
vii. We are now on higher ground :—
Katakpia having been mentioned, which
is the punishment of sin, death now énvolves
that, and is not only temporal misery, but
eternal ruin also. This ‘law of the Spirit
of life’ having freed him from the law of
sin and death, so that he serves another
master, all claim of sin on him is at an
end—he is acquitted, and there is no con-
demnation for him). 8.] For (ex-
planation of ver. 2, shewing the method of
this liberation) that which was not in the
power of the law (the construction is a
nominativus pendens, as in ref. Heb., in ap-
position with the following sentence, 6 Oeds
k.T.A.: SO Riickert, Meyer, Fritz., De W.,
Tholuck: Winer, § 32. 7, makes it an ace.
governed by éeroinoev understood [stating
however in edn. 6, the nom. pendens as
an alternative]: Olsh. al., make it an acc.
absol. or supply card: Camerarius and
Beza, dia 3—but the above seems the
simplest. 7d Gdvvat. TOU vopov may
mean either, ‘that part of the law which
was impossible,—‘ could not be obeyed,’
—as Tb yvwotdy Tov Geod, ch. i. 19 ;—or,
‘the inability of the law’ =7 advvaula
T.V.,aS TO xpnoTov Tov Beod, ch. ii. 4;—
or, ‘ that which was unable to be done by
the law.’ Of these, the first is out of the
question, because yéuos must be the sub-
ject of év & 700. x.7.A. :—the second would
give the first clause the meaning, ‘that
wherein the inability of the law shewed
itself, viz. its powerlessness 5:4 7. capicés.
The third yields by far the best meaning :
see below on 6: 7. o.) in that (this clause
gives a reason and explanation of the a5v-
vatov, see however the note on ref. Heb.)
it was weak (the Apostle keeps in mind
his defence of the holiness of the law
undertaken in ch. vii., and as Chrys. ob-
serves, doxe? mev Bia Badrewy Tov véduoy, et
dé T1s axpiBas TPoseXol, kal opddpa avrdy
eTOLVEl « - o0dE yap eimre Td movnpoy TOU
vdjov, AaB: od advvarov’ Kal mdAw év
@ joGever, ode, ev & exakodpyer, ev &
emeBovAeve. Hom. xiv. p. 563) through
the flesh (i. e.in having to act through the
flesh : not, ‘on account of the flesh,’ i. e
of the hostility, or weakness of the flesh,
which would be 8:a thy odpra. The flesh
was the medium through which the law,—
being a véuos évtoAtjs capkivyns, Heb. vii.
16,—wrought, and oi év capki the objects
on which. So the gen. here is similar to
that in 2 Cor. ii. 4, eypawa buty did moA-
Ay Saxpvwr, and 1 Pet. v. 12, 5? dAlyav
éypaya, indicating the state in or medium
through which, the action is carried on),
—God (did) sending His own Son (the
stress is on €avrod, and the word is preg-
nant with meaning :—His own, and there-
fore like Himself, holy and sinless. This
implication should be borne in mind, as
the suppressed antithesis to auapr., three
times repeated afterwards. Another anti-
thesis may be implied—éavrod, and there-
Witt...
ABCDF
KLNa bh
kimn
017
yao l advvaroy tov c4fgh
" nobévec ota TC oaokoc, 0 Occ Tov
a
? =. .2a =. -™
allusive to
3, 4.
vlov ménpag € év ° opowopare c sapKoc ‘ anaoriag Kal
apaoriac
fore spiritual, not acting merely through
the flesh, though in its likeness, but bring-
ing a higher spiritual life into the man-
hood) in the likeness of the flesh of sin
(the flesh whose attribute and character
was SIN. ‘The gen. is not = auaptwAod,
but implies far more—the belonging to and
being possessed by. De Wette observes,
‘The words év 6mompm. oapk. au. appear
almost to border on Docetism; but in
reality contain a perfectly true and con-
sistent sentiment. odpt Guapt. is flesh
{human nature, John i. 14; 1 John iv. 2;
Heb. ii. 14:] possessed with sin: the Apostle
could not then have said év wapki au. with-
out making Christ partaker of sin: nor
could he have said merely ev capxi, for
then the bond between the Manhood of
Jesus, and sin, would have been wanting :
he says then, ev duoidu. cap. au.,—mean-
ing by that, He had a nature like sinful
human nature, but had not Himself a sin-
Jul nature,—compare Heb. iv. 15: ov
yap €xomev apxtepea uty Svvduevoy cur-
madjoa Tals aoGevetas ua@y, TeTe:pac-
pévoy S€ KaTa Tavta Ka? duowTynTa xXwpls
opaptias. The likeness must be referred
not only to odpt, but also to the epithet
Ths au. :—it did not however consist in
this, that He took our sins [literally] on
Himself, and became Himself sinful [as
Reiche ], which would not amount to like-
ness of xature,—but in this, that He was
able to be tempted, i.e. subjected to sen-
suous incitements, e. g. of pazn, which in
other men break out into sin, but in Him
did not.’ See Phil. ii. 7, and siote.
capé is not = cGua, but as in Johni. 14,
the material, of which man is in the
body compounded),—and on account of
sin (to be joined with wéuas, not as
Chrys. al. Vulg., with xaréxpwev: least
of all as Luther, “und verdammete die
Stinde in Fleisch durch Siinde.’ The
‘for, or ‘on account of” sin, is at present
indefinite, and not to be restricted to
Christ’s death as a sin-offering, which is
not just now the subject. ‘On account of
sin’ then, = to put away sin, as reff.
Hleb.), condemned sin in the flesh (not
‘the sin which was in the flesh,’ which
would probably [not certainly | have been
Thy év tr. o., and which is against the
context, in which au. is throughout an
absolute principle. Katékpivev is
Kkatakpya ver. 1. Hence it
has been taken to mean that God con-
demned, punished, sin in the flesh by the
* KaTéxpivev THY auapriay Ev Ty caoKkl,
ITPO2 PQOMAIOYS. 387
q och. :. 23 reff.
TEL p constr., Phil.
\ iii. 21 bis.
iva TO q= Heb. x. 6,
18. Nam.
viii. 8. Lev. v.11. rch. ii. 1 reff.
death of Christ : so Orig., Erasm., Calv.,
Melancthon, Calov., Olsh., al.
can hardly be the meaning here, for several
reasons. 1. The Apostle ‘is not speaking of
the removal of the guzl¢, but of the practice
of sin, and of the real fulfilment of the law
in those who are in Christ. It is this which
even in ver. 1 is before him, grounding as
he does the oddéy katdxpiua on the dov-
Actw vdum Acod—on the new and sanctify-
ing power of the Spirit by Christ,im spite
of the continued subjection of the flesh to
the law of sin. 2. The context shews that
the weakness of the law was, its having no
sanctifying power ;—it could arouse sin,
but it could not condemn and cast it out.
This indeed is the burden of ch. vii. The
absence of justifying power in the law has
already been dealt with. 3. The following
verse clearly makes the fulfilling the &-
Kalwua of the law no matter of mere im-
putation, but of mepimateiy kata mvedua.
We must then look for the meaning of
Katakpivew in the effects and accompani-
ments of condemnation,—victory over, and
casting out of sin. See, for example, John
xii. 31, where «plots Tod Kécpou TovTov is
explained by 6 &px@v tod Kdcmov TovTou
exBaAnOjoeta: ew, and ib. xvi. 1l. As
early as Ireneus [ Her. iii. 20. 2, p. 214]
this was seen to be the sense: ‘ut con-
demnaret peceatum, et jam quasi condem-
natum pr ojicer et illud extra carnem ;’—so
Chrys., évixnoev avr hy, Thy Ovrom aris
eféAvoe.—Cicum. 2, mas ebFipe ; Karaplvas
adriy—tar beigas aAodoav. mas ov Eddw
ral Hrrnrat 5 3 ev TH cap avT ov. m™pos-
revo yap BovAnbetoa K. iT) igxvoara EGAw
Ke array cu,—and Theophyl. [rhy oda |
nylace K. earepdvease, Karaxplvas Thy
Gmaptiay ev TH capri mposdnpdcton Kah
Seltas bri ov pboet Guaptwrdds 7 odpé.
And so, in modern times, Beza, Vitringa,
Bengel, the Schmidts, Rosenm., Meyer, De
Wette, Tholuck, Locke, Stuart, al., and
mainly Grot., Reiche, and Fritz., who how-
ever render it « interfecit ’ or ‘ supplicio af-
fecit,’ and understand the occasion to have
been the Death of Christ,—though the
condemnation of sin is owing to His sin-
lessness, not to His sacrifice. I have dwelt
at length on this question, as being very
important to the right apprehension of the
whole chapter, in ‘this part of which xoé
the justification, but the sanctification, of
Christians is the leading subject. It is a
strong confirmation of the above view, that
God’s condemnation of sin in the flesh by.
Cc2
But that-
388
r / ~ ,
Sicateija TOU ak
es.
al. oa peat
tch.i.8, 4(reff.). ¢
uch, vi. 4 reff.
v constr., Matt.
xvi. 23. Luke t
ii. 49. ch. ii.
14. Thauc.
viii. 31.
w = Matt. xvi.
23 4 Mk, ch.
xii. 16.
Phil. iii. 19,
Col. iii, 2.
1 Mace. x. 20,
x here 3ce. ver.
27 only t.
2 Mace. vii.
21. xiii. 9 only.
r=—ch. 1.32
reff.
~, ns B iii. 8
ae ibis ole esd
‘
Kata _ apKa ovrec
\
kata ‘mvevpa
y
\ hens 2
Kal ” slonvn.
Ovvarat’
y = ch. ii. 10 reff.
Gal. v.20. Eph. ii. 15,16. Jamesiv.4 only. Gen. iii. 15.
vi. 13 Theod.
vii. 32, &c.
1 Chron. xxix. 24.
1 Thess. iv. 1.
7. for dioti, ott F.
8. ins Tw bef dew D.
Christ is stated in ver. 3 as the ground of
[ver. 2] my being freed from the law of sin
and death: because, viz. Christ’s victory
over sin is mine, by my union with Him
and participation in His Spirit. ev TH
gapxt is not ‘in His flesh, or ‘by means
of His flesh, as Orig., Syr. [ Peschito ],
Beza, Grot., Reiche, Oish., al., but ‘in the
flesh, which Christ and ourselves have in
common), 4.| in order that (the pur-
pose of God’s condemning sin in the flesh)
the requirement of the law (=all its re-
quirements [statutes], but here combined
in one for the sake of more distinct objec-
tivity. The variations in interpretation of
ver. 3 have given rise to corresponding ones
here. But here the matter has been more
complicated still by the Vulg. rendering
dicalwua, ‘ justificatio,’ which has thrown
the weight of the Romanist interpreters on
the side of « justitia imputata.’ The usage
of the word itself would preclude any such
reference here, besides the considerations
urged in the note above) might be fulfilled
in us (find its full accomplishment ;—not
merely = ‘be performed by us,’—for the
Apostle has a much deeper meaning, viz.
that the aim of God in giving the Law
might be accomplished in us, in our sancti-
ication, which is the ultimate end of our
emption, Eph. ii. 10; Coli. 22. The
passive is used, to shew that the work is not
ours, but that of God by His grace, Olsh.,
Thol., De Wette) who walk (not ‘ walking
as we do, which would be anarthrous,—
but a description of a// those of whom the
above is true) not after the flesh but after
the Spirit (who, notwithstanding that we
are bound up with a capt auaprias, do not
walk in our daily life according to, or led
by, the véuos Tis Guaprias 6 év rots méAe-
ow nuoy, but according to and led by the
vémos TOD mvevuaros THs Cwhs, in Christ
Jesus—members of Him, and participating
IIPOL PQMAIOY®S.
StrAnow)n Ev Hur ic wn
mrnowIn Ev Huy Tog _py
> ‘
aX\\a
‘ra rng oaoKoc
‘ra tov wvebuaros,
~ A , 4 \
Tne oapKkoc Gavarog, ro be *
72 Sore ro *
c ch. ii. 28 reff.
2 Tim. ii. 4. Prov. xii. 21.
for Suvatat, ovvatrat &}.
WIL,
t N
Kata
Bind ot
ou yap
Ww ~ e A
poovovatyv, ot oe
= poovnua
poovnna TOU myebpaToc Con
pdvnua TC sapkoc *tyOpa etc
» hel
t s “
kere TVveuua.
x ‘
TO Sie
en ens aes , - be
Oeov TW yao VOW TOU Qeov ovy UTOTAGGETAL, OUOE yap
8 € \c? c \ow arth 22 t > ou
ol oe Ev OAOKL OVTEC Dew apeaat Ov ouvavrTal,
z2=ch.i.21. 1 Cor. xv. 9. a Lake xxiii. 12.
w. €, here only. b Luke ii. 51 al. Dan.
d Acts vi. 5 reff. ch. xv.1, &c. 1 Cor.
re)
in that victory over sin which He obtained,
by which the power of sin in our flesh is
broken). 5.| For (explanation of the
last) those who live according to the flesh
(ovtes not quite = wepimarobtytes, but
nearly :—the latter is the evidence of the
former, and a consequence of it: of Kata
gdpKa ovres = of oapkivor) mind (‘think
of, ‘care for, and strive after,’ see reff.)
the things belonging to the flesh (its
objects of desire): but those (who live)
according to the Spirit (= of mvevuaritol,
see above), (mind) the things belonging
to the Spirit (the higher aims and objects
of desire of the spiritual life).
6.] For (the spiritual man cannot seek the
things of the flesh, because) the mind
(thoughts, cares, and aims, as above) of
the flesh is (ends in—the copula [=], as
when it joins the two signs of an algebraic
operation ;—‘ amounts to, being worked
out’) death (not merely physical, nor mere
unhappiness, as sometimes in ch. vii., but
as in ver. 2, in the largest sense, extending
to eternity); but the mind (thoughts,
cares, and aims) of the Spirit, is (see
above) life and peace (in the largest
sense, as above). In this argument there is
a suppressed premiss, to be supplied from
ver. 2; viz. ‘The Spirit is the Spirit of life.’
Hence it follows that the spiritual man can-
not mind the things of the flesh, because
such mind is death. The addition cat eipyvn
seems to be made to enhance the unlikeli-
hood of such a minding,—the peace of the
Spirit being a blessed contrast tothe tumult
of the fleshly lusts, even in this life.
7.]| Because (reason why the mind of the
flesh is death) the mind of the flesh is
enmity (contrast to eipjvn above) against
God (it being assumed that God is the
source of Cwy, and that é@pa against Him
is the absence of all true peace): for it is
not subject (or, ‘does not submit itself,
4
ABCDF
KLN a b ©
edfgh
kimn_
017
5—11.
IIPOS PQMAIOY®S.
389
e - \ , ’ Ves \ > ‘ ’ , of .
9 dueic St ovK Eaté “ev SoapKi adda * ev mvevmatt, " elarep © 5,John iv.
mvevaa Qeov
| ee iv G > 7 ? -
OUK EXEL, OUTOG OUK EOTLY AUTOU.
ei ‘ \ ~ \ ‘ e ’ \ \ ~ S
ULV, TO MEV OWMa vékK POV cua auaprTlayv, TO O€ Tvsvuua Cw xv.l
‘ , cy \ ‘ ~ ~ k» , . 2
out dukatocvvnr. 1 él oe TO TvEvsa TOU EeyelpavToce [rov | es i
é < i. 6.
EL Ep Oli: ee Os i = =
OLKEL EV UVULY. EL OF TLC TVEULA YPLOTOU
. Eph. vi.
18. Col. i. 8.
see Hs 2 i. 10.
10° ’ \ ‘ ’ iv. 2 al.
f ch. iii. 30.
ét Oe KXplarac €v weet.
1 Cor, viii. 5.
oO.
fi. 3 only.
, ~ k? ~ ’ ~~? ore ae) , >
Insovuv EK VEKOWD : OLKEL EV ULV, oO eyerpac Xploroyv EK g ch. vii. 17
~ 1 , \ \ om \ , Cove ‘ < _ reff.
vEKOWY Cworomoet Kat Ta@ Oynra OWwsaTa ULWV, dua TOh Math AER
2. or.
vii. 9. i1 Cor. vii. 40. Jude 19.
m ch. vi. 12 reff.
9. [adda, so BD!X.]
10. om e de xp. ev vu. F.
dg m.]
aft cwua ins eotw F.
for (wn, Gy F vulg(not am fuld harl') arm.
k 1 Cor. xv. 12 reff. Ich. iv. 17 reff.
[Sa, so ABCD FL
11. ins rov bef ing. ABN! 0: om CDFKLN' rel (Clem) Cyr-jer Chr Thdrt @e Thi.
rec ins roy bef xpioroy, with KL rel Hipp Thdrt (He Thl: om AB(C)D!3FR!
er-lat-ff.—for xpirrov, xp. inc. A(aft verp.) D'N (aft vexp.) gr-lat-ff: mo. xp. C(aft
vexp.) vulg copt 2th: tov moovy lect-13, toy kupiov 114. 115, 7. kup. nu. mo. xp. Syr:
txt BD3FKL rel syr sah Thdrt Dial-with-Maced Ce Thl Iren-int Did Tert, Hil.
om kat AN 39. 47.
perhaps better) to the law of God,—for
neither can it be (this was proved in ch.
vil.) : 8.] but (takes up the other
and inferential member of the proposi-
tion, answering to a suppressed pév pre-
ceding,—7d wey gdpdynua .t.A. Calv.,
Beza, al. render it ‘therefore,’ and so
E. V., ‘so then, erroneously) they who
are in the flesh (as their element of
life and thought: nearly = kata odpra
tyres above, which however denotes the
rule which they follow. In 2 Cor. x.3, the
two are distinguished: év capk) yap mept-
TATOUYTES OV KATA TapKa oTpaTevdueda) Can-
not please God. Melancthon remarks
(Thol.),—* Hic locus maxime refutat Pela-
gianos et omnes qui imaginantur homines
sine Spiritu Sancto legi obedire.’ 9. ]
But (oppos. to of kat. odp. bytes) ye are
not in the flesh (see above), but in the
Spirit, if so be that (‘provided that ;’
not ‘since,’ as Chrys., Olsh., al., which
would be émeirep: Chrys. tries to prove
elmep = ewelmep here by adducing ref.
2 Thess., where, however, as here, the
meaning is, ‘if so be that,’ ‘if at least.’
That this is the meaning here is evident by
the exception which immediately follows).
But (this must be rightly understood : for)
ifany man has not (ov«, and not un, be-
cause it belongs to the verb and not to «i.
De W. See Winer, edn. 6, § 55. 2. d)
the Spirit of Christ (=v. @cod above.
Obs. here that wv. @cod, mv. xpioTov, and
xpiotdés, are all used of the Holy Spirit
indwelling in the Christian), he is not His
(belongs not to Him, in the higher and
blessed sense of being united to Him as a
member of Him). 10.]| But (con-
trast to the last-verse) if Christ is in you
elz 81a Tov evorkouvros avtov mvevmatos (see notes), with ACN
(= mv. be0d oike? ev du., see 2 Cor. ili. 17),
the (your) body indeed is dead on account
of sin (still remains dead, see 2 Cor. iv.
11—14, under the power of death physi-
cal [and eternal ?] because of sin which
it, per se, stands in, and serves), but the
(your) spirit (tiv Wuxi A€yet, os mvevpa-
TiKnhy dn, yeyernuevny. Schol. ap. Mat-
thei [Thol.]: or rather perhaps he uses
mvedua, regarding our spirits as possessed
and penetrated by God’s Spirit) is life
(this would hardly be said if only our
human spirits were meant, but the de-
scription would be in the adjectival form)
on account of righteousness (not here the
imputed righteousness of justification,
which is not now under treatment, but
the implanted righteousness of the sancti-
fication of the Spirit. This appears not
only from the context, but also from the
51a. Guapriav, which answers to it).
11.] But (5¢ takes up and continues the
supposition in the former verse, with
which in fact this is nearly identical, but
with the important additional particular
[whence the contrast] tod éyefpayt. K.7.A.)
if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus
from the dead, dwells in you (which
Spirit is therefore powerful over death,
and besides renders you partakers of
Christ’s Resurrection), He who raised
Christ from the dead (the personal name,
Jesus, reminds more of the historic fact
of the resurrection of the one Person,
Jesus: the official and mystical name,
Curist, of the body of which He is the
Head and we the members,—all raised
with Him by the one Spirit dwelling in
all) shall quicken (not merely éyepe?, be-
cause it is not merely the resurrection of
30 - I1POX PQMAIOY®S. Viti.
n2Cor. vi.16. ™¢ 5 nia 5 ae a 1207 TS Bane 4
eaeti i evoikouy avrou mvevpa ev vpely. aga ° ovr, adeX pot,
2 Tim. 1. 5, - ~ ‘ , ~
laonly” Lev. mepeker ag comev ov Ty sapKt Trov ‘Kkata ‘oaoxa Cyv.
XXv1. 32.
ch. v. 18 reff. 13 pee = Bike e 7 - ° ‘
pel i-14 ref él yap ‘kara aagKa Crs, © wedAere aToOvnoxew’ OE
c r.,1 : = , oe ,
vx isee mvevpate tac ‘ paket tou cwpatoc “ Oavaroure, * Cyoecbe.
rc re
s= mca Xxi. 27, XXviii. 6. t — Acts xix. 18 reff. uch. vii. 4 reff. v = Heb. x’
38. xii. Y.
Dial-with-a-Macedonian (cited by Wetst. The Maced. says, otrws ov yeypamrat Ata
TOV, GAAG Aid 7d, dy ody Tov ev 4) Sebrepov aur l-ypapoy ebpebf eopadpmevoy map Opiv
° - to which the Orthodox replies, éxouev Setar Ort ev Grows apxatois avtuypa-
Gis oUTw Keira’ ered St voulCers TOVTO avTiAcydpmevoy elvat, TANpopophOntt kad eE KAANS
ypadixhs amodelicws. Maced. einé, rodto yap avTiAéyerat) syr copt eth Clem Hipp
Cyr-jer Ath, Bas, Epiph, Chr, Cyr Mac Augsepe Did Ambr Vig: txt BDFKL b ef g
hklno17 latt Syr sah Orig, Meth Chr, Thart Sevrn Max (e-comm Thl Iren-int
Tert Hil Ambrst Ruf Jer Aug, “Ambratig Pelag Fuld Sedul.
13. for Tov cwuaros, Tns capxos DF latt Orig
Did Ruf Pelag Ambrst Sedul Bede:
the body which is in the Apostle’s view,—
see below) even your mortal bodies (the
higher phase of the (woroeiv takes place
in the spirit of man: and even of that
which takes place in the body, there are
two branches—one, the quickening it from
being a tool of unrighteousness unto death
[eternal ],—the other, the quickening it out
of death [physical] to be a new and glori-
fied body. And the kat joined with @vnra,
here, signifies that the working of the
mvedua Cworoodv shall not stop at the
purely spiritual resurrection, nor at that
of the body from dead works to serve the
living God, but shall extend even to the
building up the spiritual body in the future
new and glorious life), on account of His
Spirit which dwells in you. Here the
reading is much disputed, whether it be
the acc. or gen.: see var. readd. The
gen. can only mean, ‘by means of,’
‘through,’ His Spirit, &e.: this the ace.
may include, (it not being specified for
what reason it is on the Spirit’s account,
and leaving it open to be His presence,
or His agency,) but must be rendered ‘ on
account of,’ or ‘because of, His Spirit,
&e. Thus both may imply that the Holy
Spirit is the agent in the quickening ; but
the gen. cannot bear the other meaning,
that God will quicken, &c. because of His
Spirit, &e. Hence in dispute with the
Macedonians, who denied the divinity of
the Holy Spirit, the gen. reading was im-
portant to the orthodox, as expressing
agency, and that alone. But if seems
pretty clear that the variation was older
than the time of this heresy, and, how-
ever it may then have been appealed to,
its origin cannot be assigned to any falsi-
fication by either of the then disputant
parties. As to how far the Holy Spirit
is the direct Agent in the resurrection
» Iren-int Tert Did Cypr Ambr Aug Jer
txt ABCKLN rel sah Orig, Chr Thdrt.
of the body, see note on mvedua (wor.,
1 Cor. xv. 45, and on 2 Cor. y. 5. Here,
His direct agency cannot be in any way
surprising, for it is the whole process of
bringing from death to life, extending
even to the mortal body, which is here
spoken of—and unquestionably, ‘the Lord
and Giver of Life’ is the agent throughout
in this quickening. ‘ Non de ultima resur-
rectione, que momento fiet, habetur sermo,
sed de continua Spiritus operatione, que
reliquias carnis paullatim mortificans, coe-
lestem vitam in nobis instaurat.’ Calv. :—
but perhaps ‘non sodwm de ultima resur-
rectione,’ would have been more correct :
for it certainly is one thing spoken of.
12, 13.; So then, brethren, we are
(inference from the assurance in the last
verse) debtors (we owe fealty: to what
or whom, he leaves the reader to supply
from ver. 11), not to the flesh, to live
according to the flesh (Chrysostom well
explains the qualification, Tov Kata c. ¢..—
Kat yap TOAAG QT} dpelrouer, Td TpEepev
airhy, 7d OdAmewy, To avanrave, To Ge-
pamevey voootcay, Td mepiBadAew, Kat
Hupla Erepa ActToupyety. ty’ ody ph vo-
ulons ort Tabrny avaipet Thy Siakoviav,
cindy obK éop. O. TH oap., epunvevet
aitd A€ywy TOU K. o. tay . TOUTETTL
Bb) wWoi@uey avThy Kuplavy THs Cwhs THs
nuetépas. Hom. xv. p. 113): for if ye
live according to the flesh, ye will
(uéAdere of the certain end of your present
course) die (¢jv and é&mroéy. here in their
full and pregnant sense, involving body and
soul here and hereafter: but not to be un-
derstood as excluding the carnal from any
resurrection—only from that which is truly
¢jiv,—any more than the spiritual are
exempted from ald death, but only from
that which is truly @dvaros): butif by the
Spirit ye slay (abolish, annul) the deeds
ABCDF
KL&a b
edfgh
, kKlmn
017
-_"
pac i iti
12—15.
M4 Gcor yao mvevmate Aeov
Oeov. | ov yao ¥ eAaPere °
poPov, adda 9 eAaPere “!
z constr., lias. 3 7 13. Eph.i.17. 2 Tim.i. 7.
Exod. xx b = ch. v. 16 reff.
d = Gal. vi. e Gal. iv. 6.
IPOS PQMAIOYS.
wv
ayovrat,
* wveuua
* rvevua ~
c
f Mark x. 48 L. Ps. Ixxvi. 1. cvi. 6, &e.
391
a
ovrot * viol sia w =and
iii. 6.
p constr., Gal.
SovAciac wadw Pee 38: 2 Tim.
d?> #7 ef y & ver. 19 reff.
Ev w koa- rar vii. 15
aver. 21. Gal. iv. 24. v.1.
ver, 23. ch. ix. 4. Gal. iv. 5.
e ’
violeciac,
Heb. ii. 15 only.
Eph. i. 5 only ft.
14. rec e:ow viot 9eou (corrn of order, as is also v. @. et.), with KL rel Chr Thdrt
Tren-int :
ut. Oe. ero. ACDN fuld eth Orig, Damase Cypr Cassiod Gaud: txt BF am(with
demid al) Syr Orig, Did Hil, Aug Ruf Bede.
15. [ adda, so ABCR.]
(hardly as Thol. ‘sensu obseceno,’ but as
Col. iii. 9, the whole course of habits and
action which has the flesh for its prompter)
of the body (= ris capxés, but here con-
crete to give more vivid reality : compare
7a epya THs capkds, Gal. v. 19), ye shall
live (not péAdAete Gv, this Life being no
natural consequence of a course of mortify-
ing the deeds of the body, but the gift of
God through Christ : and coming therefore
in the form of an assurance, ‘ ye shall live,’
from Christ’sApostle. On ¢jjv,seeabove).
14. | For (ground of the assurance con-
tained in (joeoGe) aS many as are led by
(reff. ;—the slaying the deeds of the body
by the Spirit, implies the being under the
Spirit’s guidance) the Spirit of God, these
(emphatic—‘these and no others’) are
Sons of God. vids 0. differs from tévoy
@. in implying the higher and more mature
and conscious member of God’s family, see
Gal. iv. 1—6, and note on 6. Hence our
Lord is never called réxvov but always
vids feod. This latter, applied to a Chris-
tian, signifies ‘one born of God’ in its
deepest relation to him,
taker of His nature, 1 John iii. 9; 1 Pet.
i. 23 (Tholuck, similarly Olsh.).
15, 16.] Appeal to the CONSCIOUSNESS of
the Christian to confirm the assertion (as-
sumed for the moment that he zs led by
God’s Spirit) that he is a son of God.
For (confirmantis) ye did not receive (at
your becoming Christians) the spirit of
bondage (=‘the Spirit which ye received
was not a spirit of bondage. my. is not
merely aspirit, a disposition, but evidently
refers to the same my. which afterwards is
av. viobec., and avtd tb mv. ‘The Apostle
seems however in this form of expression,
both here and elsewhere, see reff., to have
combined the objective Tvetua given to
us by God with our own subjective
mvedua. In the next verse they are sepa-
rated) again (it has been imagined here
that the méAw must refer to a former
bestowal of the avedua SovAcias, and con-
sequently that the reference is to the
O. T. dispensation. In this two different
sets of Commentators have found diffi-
culties ; (1) those, as Chrys.,—who would
hold from John vii. 39, that the Holy
Spirit was absolutely not given under
the O. T., and (2) those, as Coeceius, who
holding Him to have been given, deny that
His character was mv. Sovdrctas. But
there seems to me to be no occasion to go
back for the reference of méAw to the
O. T. The state of the natural man is
dovAela: the Holy Spirit given to them,
the agent of their birth into, and sustainer
of, a new state, was not a mv. dovAclas
méAw eis ¢., a spirit merely to retain
them in, or take them back into their old
state, viz.a state of slavery : —to whom, or
whether to different masters, is not here in
question, but the state merely—the object
of the gift of the Holy Spirit was not to lead
them dack into this) towards fear (so as to
bring about or result in fear, see ch. vi. 19.
maAw can hardly, as De W., be taken with
eis pdB.), but ye received the Spirit of
(the Spirit whose effect was, see above)
adoption (this stricter meaning, and not
that of mere sonship, is plainly that in-
tended by the Apostle, both here and in
reff. So Fritz., Meyer, Olsh., Harless on
Eph. i. 5, Tholuck: on the other hand
Luther, Winer, Riickert, De Wette, al.,
see on ver. 23. Of course, the adoption to
be a son involves sonship, but not the con-
verse), in whom (compare év mvevmartt
ch. ii. 29, and ver.9. Luth. and Tholuck,
‘through, by means of, whom:’ but 7d
mvevua=— Him iz whom, not merely Him by
whom, not being merely an external agent,
but an indw elling g and pervading pow er) we
cry (the earnest expression of supplicating
prayer, see reff. LXX) Abba, Father (I
have said, on ref. Mark, that 6 mar. does
not appear to be a mere explanation of
wax, but to have been joined to it in one
phrase, as a form of address: expressing
probably, a corresponding ‘my father,’
‘ax, in the Heb. expression. Luther, to
express the familiarity of Abba, renders
‘lieber Vater,’ ‘dear Father’) See on
the whole, the strictly parallel place, ref.
392
g on as above
Mark
{: 3 36 only.
h absol., Acts
- 19 reff. Wa ,
ch. ii. 15. ix. .
ety Kal KAnoovopot
k = Acts xvii. \ pa
16 reff. Oe Xelrsrou
1 = ver. 21. ch.
IIPOS PQMAIOY=
Couey oe “ABBa® oO warTnp.
k ~ o > A 1 y 19 ~ 17 ’ St ,
| TVEULATL Tw OTL EOMEV TEKVA €Ovu. €l O& TEKVA,
ov p 7 ed \
elTEp OvvTaoy OMEV, tva Kal
V Edt.
160 92 ach 2S ~ i ~
avTO TO TVEULA GUMLaOTVOEL
a KAnpovopnot piv Oeov, ° ovyKAnpovonot
9 guvdoéac0u-
m ch.
ix. 8. John i, 12. xi. 52. Phil. ii.15. 1 John iii. 1, 2,10. v. 2. (see Gal. iv. 28, 81. Eph. v. 8.)
iv. 13 reff. n Eph. iii,6. Heb. xi. 9. 1 Pet. iii. 7 only t. ( -élv, Sir. xxii. 23.) o ver. 9 reff.
p 1 Cor. xii. 26 onlyt. 1 Kings xxii. 8 Symm. q bere only t.
16. at beg ins wore D: aft avro ins yap 115. 124 vulg(demid harl' mar!: not am)
Cyr Thdrt Thl Ruf Pel.
17. for Ist KAnpov., cvvKAnpovouor D!.
pev A. |
Gal. 16.] And this confidence is
grounded on the testimony of the Spirit
itself. So Chrys.: od yap amd ris pwrvijs
ioxupl Copan udvov, only, GAAG Kal ard
Tijs aitias ag’ hs n povn TikTeTaL . . 2.
ov yap Tov xaplopatés eat 7H pwri)
pdvov, GAAG Kal Tod BdvTos Thy Bwpeay
mapakAyjtov' avTds yap judas ouros édl-
date 51a TOD xaplopatos oUTH pPbéyyerOat.
Hom. xv. p. 579. This verse being with-
out copula, is best understood to refer to
the same as the preceding, and the asser-
tion to concern the same fact as the last
verb, xpaCowev,—as if it were adrot Tod
TY. GupapTupovyTos k.T.A., grounding
that fact on an act of the indwelling Spirit
Himself. See again Gal. iv. 6. The
Spirit itself (not ‘idem Spiritus,’ as Erasm.
and similarly Luth., Reiche, al.: the avré
expresses the independence, and at the same
time, as coming from God, the preciousness
and importance of the testimony) testifies
to our spirit (see ch. ii. 15, and note: not
‘una testatur:’ the abv in composition does
not refer to T@ mv. ju., but to agreement in
the fact, as in ‘contestari,’ ‘ confirmare ’)
that we are children of God. What is
this witness of the Spirititself? Allhave
agreed, and indeed this verse is decisive for
it, that it is something separate from and
higher than, all subjective inferences and
conclusions. But on the other hand it does
not consist in mere indefinite feeling, but
in a certitude of the Spirit’s presence and
work continually asserted within us. It
is manifested, as Olsh. beautifully says, in
His comforting us, His stirring us up to
prayer, His reproof of our sins, His draw-
ing us to works of love, to bear testimony
before the world, &e. And he adds, with
equal truth, “On this direct testimony of
the Holy Ghost rests, ultimately, all the re-
generate man’s conviction respecting Christ
and His work. For belief in Scripture itself
(he means, in the highest sense of the term
‘belief,’ =‘ conviction personally applied’)
has its foundation in this experience of the
divine nature of the (influencing) Principle
which it promises, and which, while the
[ovyracx., so AB!'CDFRN.—ovurracxo-
believer is studying it, infuses itself into
him.” The same Commentator remarks,
that this is one of the most decisive pas-
sages against the pantheistic view of the
identity of the Spirit of God and the spirit
of man. However the one may by reno-
vating power be rendered like the other,
there still is a specific difference. The
spirit of man may sin (2 Cor. vii. 1), the
Spirit of God cannot, but can only be
grieved (Eph. iv. 30), or quenched (1 Thess.
v. 19), and it is by the infusion of this
highest Principle of Holiness, that man be-
comes ONE SPIRIT with the Lord Himself
(1 Cor. vi. 17). téxva Beov | Here,
(not viol) because the testimony respects
the very ground and central point of son-
ship, likeness to and desire for God: the
testimony of the Spirit shewing us by our
yearnings after, our confidence in, our re-
gard to God, that we are verily begotten
of Him. 17.| CONSEQUENCES of our
being children of God. But (announcing
a result, asin a mathematical proposition :
‘but, if &e.’) if children, also heirs
(which is the universal rule of mankind :
but «Anp. here must not be carried to the
extent of the idea of heir in all directions :
it is merely the one side of inheriting by
promise, which is here brought out: the
word referring back probably to ch. iv.
13, 14, the promise to Abraham) ;—heirs
of God (as our Father, giving the inherit-
ance to us), and joint-heirs with Christ
(whom God has made kAnpovdémov rdavtar,
Heb. i. 2). Tholuck remarks: ‘ It is
by virtue of their substantial unity with
the father, that the children come into
participation of his possession. The Roman
law regarded them as continuators of his
personality. The dignity of the inherit-
ance is shewn (1) by its being God’s pos-
session, (2) by its being the possession of
the Firstborn of God. By the Roman law,
the share of the firstborn was no greater
than that of the other children,—and the
N. T. sets forth this view, making the re-
deemed equal to Christ (ver.29),and Christ’s
possessions, theirs; 1 Cor. iii. 21—23; John
ABCDF
KLNa b
edfgh
klmn
017
16—19.
eign IB "AoyiConat yao. Ore ovk “aka tra * wafhpare ©
iseesipee a dobav 7
IlPOS PQMAIOY=
393
t = and constr.
TOU ch, ii. 3 rei. i
(iii. 28.)
vuv Bs : " mpoc TH * aToKa- s here only.
5 t= Gen. xxiii.
9. 1 Chron.
AvPOnvat ° Ele nuac. 1 yao ° a@oKapacokia THe " Krigewe ey
Proy. iii. 16. viii. 11. Sir. xxvi. 15. (see note ) uch. vii. 5 reff. v ch. iii. 26 reff.
w = Jer. xxiii. 28. xX = ver. 13. w. inf. aor., Gal. iii. 23. Rev. i. 19. iii. 2. xii. 4. transp. of
words, Gal. iii 23. 1 Cor. xii. 22. y lL Pet. voi: z= ch. ii.7 reff. a = Luke
ee 30, ch. i. 18. bie = here only. c Phil. i. 20 only +t. (-ketv, Ps. xxxvi. 7 Aq.
Jos. B. J. iii. 7. 26. Polyb. xvi. 2.8 )
18. for yap, 5¢ A 9 wth: ergo Ambrst.
xvii. 22. In the joint-heirship we must
not bring out this point, that Christ is the
rightful Heir, who shares His inheritance
with the other children of God: it is as
adoptive children that they get the inherit-
ance, and Christ is so far only the means of
it, as He gives them power to become sons
of God, John i. 12.” If at least (see
above on ver. 9) we are suffering with
Him, that we may also be glorified with
Him: i.e. ‘if (provided that) we are found
in that course of participation in Christ’s
sufferings, whose aim and end, as that of
His sufferings, is to be glorified as He was,
and with Him. But the e%meg does not
regard the subjective aim, q.d. ‘If at least
our aim in suffering is, to be glorified,’—
but the fact of our being partakers of that
course of sufferings with Him, whose aim
is, wherever it is found, to be glorified with
Him. Thol. takes the iva as dependent
on ovykAnp. (= éste), and efrep curt. as
quasi-parenthetical; but the above seems to
me more satisfactory. The connexion
of suffering with Christ, and being glori-
fied with Him is elsewhere insisted on,
see Are bim. mie Wis 1 Pets ive Lsis-v.. I
This last clause serves as a transition
to vv. 18 —30, in which the Apostle treats
of the complete and glorious triumph of
God’s elect, through sufferings and by
hope, and the blessed renovation of all
things in and by their glorification.
18.] For (= this suffering with Him in
order to being glorified with Him is no
casting away of toil and self-denial, seeing
that) I reckon (implying, ‘I myself am one
who have embraced this course, being con-
vinced ’) that the sufferings of this pre-
sent period (of trial and sorrow, contrasted
with the period of triumph following the
mapovota of Christ) are insignificant (odK
tia = dvdtia,—no gen. or verb under-
stood. &fo0s and aydtios are found in
the sense of ‘worthy (or unworthy) to be
compared with’ in the classics : so Hom.
Il. 6. 234, viv 8 ov@ EéEvds Gtr eopev
“Extopos, and Plato, Protag. [Wetst.],
avakia éort T dryabes Tav Kak@v, and
again tls &AAn avatla, Hdovy mpos Admny
éorty;) in comparison with the glory
which shall be revealed (uéAd. put first,
d= Mark xvi. 15. (ver. 3Y.) Judith xvi. 14.
as in reff., but apparently not, as De W.,
for the sake of emphasis. Thol. cites
Demosth., p. 486. 10, ev rots obo: vdéuos
kupiots, in which there is no emphasis, as
neither in ref. 1 Cor. atrokak., at the
amokdAviis of Christ. On the sentiment,
see 2 Cor. iv. 17) with regard to us (not
merely 7uiy, as spectators, but eis nuas,
as the subjects of the revelation ; the E. V
is not far wrong, ‘iz us,’ taking the eis in
a pregnant sense as #v knptcowy eis Tas
ovv., Luke iv. 44). Bernard amplifies this,
—de Convers. ad Cleric. ¢. xxi. 37 (30), vol.
i. p. 494,—‘non sunt condigne passiones
hujus temporis ad preeteritam culpam quee
remittitur, non ad prasentem consolationis
gratiam que immittitur, non ad futuram
gloriam qu promittitur nobis.’
19 ff. | The greatness of this glory is shewn
by the fact that ALL CREATION, now under
the bondage of corruption, shall be set free
Srom tt by the glorification of the sons of
God. For (proof of this transcendent
greatness of the glory, not, as De W., of
the certainty of its manifestation, though
this secondary thought is perhaps in the
background) the patient expectation
(hardly = 7 ofd5pa mposdoxia, as Chrys.,
whom Luther and E. V. follow ; but better
mposdoxla eis TO TéeAos,—the amd denot-
ing, as also in dmrexdéxermu, that the ex-
pectation continues till the time is ex-
hausted, and the event arrives) of the
Creation (= all this world except man,
both animate and inanimate: see an ac-
count of the exegesis below) waits for
(see above) the revelation of the sons of
God (‘ revelatur gloria: et tum revelantur
etiam filii Dei.’ Beng. vioy, not Tékvwr,
because their sonship will be complete, and
possessed of all its privileges and glories).
% «tlo.s has been very variously
understood. There is a full history of the
exegesis in Tholuck. De Wette sums it
up thus: “The Creation,—i. e. things
created,— has by many been erroneously
taken in an arbitrarily limited sense ; e. g.
as applying only, I. to inanimate creation,
as Chrys., Theophyl., Caly., Beza, Aret.,
©“mundi machina, Luther, the Schmidts,
al., Fritz., ‘mundi machina, cali sidera,
aer, terra :’—against this are the words
94
e ch. ii. 5.
1 Cor. i. 7
2 Thess. i. 7
al. Sir. xi.
‘ h , €
ry yap UaTaloTyTL YH
f Matt. v.9. Luke vi.35 xx. 36. ver.14. Gal. iii. 26.
v.5. Phil. iii. 20. Heb. ix. 28. 1 Pet. iii. 20 onlyt.
i. 2. (-odoWat, ch. i. 21.) i ver. 7 reff.
19. om Tov F.
ovxX éxovoa and cuvotevdter Kk. cvywdlvei,
implying life in the xrios,—
these down to mere personification is surely
arbitrary :—and one can imagine no reason
why bestial creation should be excluded.
Il. to living creation: (1) to mankind ;
Aug., Turret., all., take it of men not yet
believers: (2) Locke, Lightf., Hammond,
Semler, of the yet unconverted Gentiles :
(3) Cramer, Gersdorf, al., of the yet un-
converted Jews: (4) Le Clere, al., of the
converted Gentiles: (5) al., of the con-
verted Jews : (6) al., of all Christians :’—
“but,” as he proceeds, “‘against (II.) lies
this objection, that if the Apostle had
wished to speak of the enslaving and free-
ing of mankind, he hardly would have
omitted reference to sin as the ground of
the one and faith of the other, and the
judgment on unbelievers. But on the
other hand we must not extend the idea
of Ktiots too wide, as Theodoret, who in-
eludes the angels, Kéllmer, who under-
stands the whole Creation, animate and
inanimate, rationalandirrational, and Olsh.,
who includes the unconverted Gentiles :
nor make it too indefinite, as Koppe and
' Rosenm.: ‘tota rerum universitas. The
right explanation is, all animate and in-
animate nature as distinguished from
mankind : so Irenzus, Grot., Calov., Wolf,
Riickert, Reiche, al., Meyer, Neander,
Schneckenburger, Thol.” The idea of the
renovation and glorification of all nature
at the revelation of the glory of our re-
turned Saviour, will need no apology nor
seem strange to the readers of this com-
mentary, nor to the students of the fol-
lowing, and many other passages of the
prophetic Word: Isa. xi. 6 ff.; Ixv.17 ff. ;
Rev. xxi. ; 2 Pet. iii. 13; Acts iii. 21.
20.| Explanation of ‘the REASON WHY
all creation waits, ¥c. For the Creation
was made subject to vanity (= 5am, Ps.
XXxix, 6,—where (xxxvill. 5) the hee
have 7a otmmavta patadryns. So also
Eccles. i. 2 and passim. It signifies the
instability, liability to change and decay,
of all created things) not willingly (‘cum
a corruptione natura res omnes abhor-
reant.? Bucer in 'Thol.) but on account
of (dud is so far from losing its proper
meaning by the reference of Tov bmordé-
avTa to God, as Jowett affirms, that it
gains its strictest and most proper mean-
IPOS POMAIOY®S.
thy °amokaAuy rev ‘vim tov beov
4 kriste
Rev. xxi.
20. for ovx exouvca, ov Oedouco, F.
for to set ~
VISE.
> , ~
E amexdty eT at, 20 ™
i € PA , k € ~ ° sf
sie ie ovyx © skovca adXa
g here &c., 3ce. 1Cor.i.7. Gal.
i ‘= here (Eph.iv.17. 2 Pet. ii. 18) only. Eccles.
k 1 Cor. ix. 17 only. Exod. xxi. 13 only.
ep B'D'ER.
ing by that reference: see ver. bl. He
is the occasion, and His glory the end,
of creation’s corruptibility) Him who sub-
jected it (i.e.God. Chrys., al., interpret
it of Adam, who was the occasion of its
being subjected ; and at first sight the acc.
with d:¢ seems to favour this. But I very
much doubt whether this view can be borne
out. For (1) does not trordtavra imply
a conscious act of intentional subjugation,
and not merely an wnconscious oecasioning
of the subjugation ? Thus we have it said
of God, ref. 1 Cor. ” mavTa yap vrératev
iad Tovs médas avTov: bray Bé «K.T.A.,
djAov bre extds TOU trotagavTos coe
Ta mdvra. And (2) the acc. aft. dia is
in reality no reason against this. He is
speaking of the originating cause of this
subjection, not of the efficient means of it.
He says that creation was not subjected
éxovoa, 1.e. dia TO O€Anua EavTHs, but
dia toy bwotdtavta. At the same time
such a way of putting it, removing as it
were the supreme will of God to a wider
distance from corruption and vanity, and
making it not so much the worker as the
oceasion of it, as well as this indefinite
mention of Him, is quite intelligible on
the ground of that reverential awe which
so entirely characterizes the mind and
writings of the Apostle. If the occasion
pointed at by tmordta: be required, I
should hardly fix it at the Fall of man,
but at his creation, in the eternal counsels,
—when he was made capable of falling,
liable to change. The explanation of 6
tmotagéas as meaning ‘the devil’ [Locke,
al.], hardly needs refutation. See Matt.
x. 28, and note),—in (‘on condition of,’
‘in a state of, —see ch. iv. 18, and note on
ep’ @, ch. v. 12) hope (ém éeAmid: must not
be jomed with émordtavra, because then
the é€Amis becomes the hope of the tro-
tdéas,—but with brerayn, being the hope
of the brotayetca), because (not ‘ that,’
after €Amts,—for then it is not likely that
avT} 7 Ktlots would be so emphatically
repeated: the clause now announces a new
fact, and thus the emphasis is accounted
for. To suppose the whole clause subjec-
tive to the édtris, would be to attribute to
the yearnings of creation, intelligence and
rationality,—consciousness of itself and of
God) the creation itself also (not only
we, the sons. of God, but even creation
ABCDF
, KLNab
edfgh
klmn
017
20—23.
Sid Nip ise. re
la TOV vmorasavra,
/ \ e ~
2 ofSapev yao oT Taca 7
IIPOX POQMAIOYS.
Min éAdmiot, 2! dre
* kriotc ” eAevOcowOhaerat avo tHe ° douXstac tHe p0oeac
sic trHv TedevOeoiav tne ‘80k wy * rE v * Acov
Enc twv *téxvwy tov * Osov.
399
. ea ) lact., 1 Cor
= :
Kat autTy 7 xv.27 & Heb.
ii. 8, from Ps.
viii. 6. Eph.
i. 22. Phil.
iii. 21.
m ch. iv.18
d ’ t , \
Ktlotc ‘ouvorevaler Kal ” CUV= nth yiis reff
’ vw ¥ Ct rae | , bog 3 ‘ \ 0 ver. 15 reff.
WOVE ayol TOU Vvuv 23 Ou ,LOVvOV Oé, aAdXAa Kal Doh eal
2,50. Gal.
> \ ‘ ? ‘ - , A e ~ \ a Gal si
avrot thy * aTaoxnv TOV TVEVUATOS EXOVTEC NMEIC Kal eet te
’ Ns” ee - a , tas is ’ ce? , 4. ii. (12, bis)
auTOl EV EAUTOLC oTEvaComer, vioQectav ATEKOEY OMEVOL, - -_ 5
onah ii. 7.
q 2 Cor. iii.17. James i. 25. ii. 12al. Lev. xix. 20. r ver. 18. s ver. 16 reff. t here
only t. u here only t. v=ch.i.13. 1 Cor.iv. 11. 2Cor. iii. 14. Gal.iv. 2 al.
w Phil. i. 5. x ch.v.3. 2 Cor. viii. 19 al fr. ych. xt. 16. xvi. 5. 1 Cor. xv. 20, 23.
xvi.15. 2 Thess ii.13. Jamesi.18. Rev. xiv.4only. Exod, xxii. 19 al. fr. z Ist pers.,
2 Cor. iii. 1 reff.
b vef. 15 reff.
21. Stor: D' FR. om 7 F.
22. for yap, 5¢ A: om eth.
@duver I,
e ver. 19.
a Mark vii. 34. 2 Cor. v. 2, 4.
[ovvorevacer, so BIDE 17.)
Heb. xiii. 17. James y.Yonly. Isa. xxiv. 7.
for cuvw65.,
28. rec 2nd «at bef nuers, with (DF)KL 17 rel Chr Thdrt,(readg x. nu. avr. before)
(Ee: txt ACN copt Damase.—DF transpose kar nuers avroe and ka avtor: B Epiph
have kat avto: both times: for other variations see Scholz.
om viobeciavy DE Ambrst.
ovot.) D f 38. 72.
itself) shall be delivered from the bond-
age of corruption (its subjection to the
law of decay, see Heb. ii. 15) into (preg-
nant: shall be delivered from, Sc., and
admitted into) the freedom of the glory
(beware of the fatal hendiadys : ‘thefreedom
of the glory’ is not in any sense = ‘the glo-
rious freedom ;’ in the latter, ‘ glorious’ is
merely an epithet whereby the freedom is
characterized, as in ‘ His rest shall be glo-
rious:* in the former the freedom is de-
scribed as consisting in, belonging to, being
one component part of, the glorified state
of the children of God: and thus the
thought is carried up to the state to which
the freedom belongs) of the children
(réxywv and not vidv here, perhaps as em-
bracing God’s universal family of creation,
admitted, each in their share, to a place in
incorruptibility and glory). 22. | For
we know (said of an acknowledged and
patent fact, see ch. ii. 2; iii. 19; vii. 14)
that the whole creation groans together
and travails together (not, groans and
travails with us or with mankind, which
would render the od pdvoy 5é aAAd of the
next verse superfluous. On the figure in
cvvwdiver see John xvi. 21, note) up to
this time (= from the beginning till now :
no reference to time future, because ofda-
nev ydp expresses the results of experi-
ence). 23.] The text here is in inex-
tricable confusion (see var. read.), but the
sense very little affected. But (moreover)
not only (the creation), but even ourselves,
possessing (not ‘who possess,’ oi Exov7es,
but ‘though we possess’) the firstfruit of
the Spirit (i.e. the indwelling and influences
of the Holy Spirit ere, as an earnest of the
full harvest of His complete possession of
ouvoTtevatomey (or
us, tyedua and odpé and ux, hereafter.
That this is the meaning, seems evident
from the analogy of St. Paul’s imagery re-
garding the Holy Spirit: he treats of Him
as an earnest and pledge given to us, Eph. i.
14; 2 Cor. i. 22; v.5, and of His full work
in us as the efficient means of our glorifica-
tion hereafter, ver. 11; 2 Cor.iii.18. Va-
rious other renderings are,—(1) ‘the first
outpouring of the Spirit, in point of time,
—Wetst., Reiche, K6ln., Mey.,al..—which
would be irrelevant: (2) ‘the highest gifts
of the Spirit, as the Schmidts, al. The
gen. mv. may be partitive, or subjective :—
the firstfruits of the Spirit,—which Spirzé
is the harvest,—or the firstfruits of the
Spirit,—which the Spirzt gives :—or even
in apposition, the firstfruits of the Spirit,
i.e. which consist in (the gift of) the
Spirit. 1 prefer the first, from analogy—
the Spirit being generally spoken of as
given, not as giving,—and God as the
Giver), even we ourselves (repeated for
emphasis, and 7ue7s inserted to involve him-
self and his fellow-workers in the general
description of the last clause. Some{ Wolf,
K6lln.] have imagined the Apostles only
to be spoken of : some, that the Apostles
are meant in one place, and all Christians in
the other) groan within ourselves, await-
ing the fulness of our adoption (aexd.,
as above, ver. 19, but even more strongly
here, ‘ watt out,’ wait for the end of. Our
adoption is come already, ver. 15, so that
we do not wait for 7, but for the full mani-
festation of it, in our bodies being rescued
from the bondage of corruption and sin.
This which in Gr. is expressed by the verb,
in Eng. must be joined to the substantive.
The omission of the art. before viod. is pro-
396
d ch. iii. 24 reff.
e = 2 Cor. iv.
18 (4 times).
f 1 Cor. xv. 29,
30.
£ Heb. xii. 1.
ch. ii. 7 reff.
i 1 Cor, xi, 25
rett.
k Luke x. 40
only. Gen.
Xxx. 8 vat.
Exod. xviii.
22, Num, xi.
L7en eS:
Ixxxviii. 2l only. (dv7:A., Acts xx. 35.)
23. Lukei.62. Acts xxii. 50.
12 (bis). 1 Pet. iv. 13 only.
24. ins 7 bef BAemouevn F 55.
47},
éxez) latt.
a
THY
Levit. ix. 5 vat.
ITPOS PQMAIOY2.
d? , ~ , ¢ =
aToAvTowow TOV GWUATOC TYUWY.
] Matt. viii. 17.
1 Thess. iv. 1. principally L.P. Winer, edn. 6, § 18.3.
Vill.
24 ™ yap tAriot
éoWOnuev, éAmic SE ° BAETOuéN OvK oT EAmic’ O yao
Bree ric, ‘ri [Sat] edaiZa; Ma oe 0 ov [3Aéroner,
eAmiZonev, ® Oe * dropovne °amexdeyouea,
i «¢ id
261 catrwe
Se \ ‘ ~ k , pom) (ee ’ er
é Kal TO TvEvma * GuvavTiAauPaverat TH | aoOeveta Huwr.
ms \ , , N ~ > yd > >
TO yao TL moocevgoue0a ° Kalo det ovK oidanev, adr
1 Cor. ii. 3 reff. m art., Mark ix.
© 2 Cor. viii.
om 7: B!(added by original scribe: see table) 8
rec aft tT: ins kat, with ACKLN: om BDF 47-marg(noting 7d madady ottws
for eAmiCet, urowever AN! 47-marg Cyr: exspectat syrr Ambr,.
26. rec rats acdeverats (see note), with KL 17 rel yss Chr Thdrt Ge Thi: 77s
denoews F: txt ABCDN m vulg Syr Cyr-jer Damase lat-ff.
mposevioucba, DKL rel
Orig Naz Cyr-jer Mac Chr, Damase (ic: mposevxoueda F: txt ABC Chr, Thdrt, Thi.
bably on account of its preceding its verb,
—viod. amexd. = amekd. Thy viod., for
emphasis’ sake), the redemption (in appo-
sition with vio@., or rather with the fulness
of sense implied in vio8. arekd., q. a. ‘ ex-
pecting that full and perfect adoption
which shall consist in...) of our body
(not, ‘rescue from our body, as Erasm.,
Le Clere, Reiche, Fritz.,al.,— which though
allowable in grammar,—see Heb. ix. 15,—
is inconsistent with the doctrine of the
change of the vile and mortal into the glo-
rious and immortal body,—Phil. ii. 21;
2 Cor. v. 2—4,—but the [entire ] redemp-
tion,—rescue,— of the body from corruption
and sin). 24, 25.| For (confirmation
of the last assertion, proving hope to be our
present state of salvation)—in hope were
we (not ‘are we, nor ‘have we been’)
saved: i. e. our first apprehension of,
and appropriation to ourselves of, salvation
which is by faith in Christ, was effected in
the condition of hope: which hope (Thol.)
is in fact faith in its prospective attitude,
—that faith which is irdéoracis eAmiCo-
pévwv, Heb. xi. 1. The dat. eAmid: is not
a dat. of reference,—‘according to hope,
—but of the form or condition. Now
hope that is seen (the object or fulfilment
of which is present and palpable) is not
hope: for that which any one sees, why
does he [at all] hope for? If kat is to
stand in the text, it conveys, after an
interrogative word, a sense of the utter
superfluity of the thing questioned about,
as being irrelevant, and out of the ques-
tion. ‘Qui interrogat tl xp) mposdoxar ;
expectat aliquid, sed dubius est quid eve-
niat. Qui interrogat tl xp) kal mpos-
doxay ; desperat de salute, nec eam usquam
exspectari posse existimat.’ Bremi in De-
mosth. Phil. i. 46, cited in Hartung, Par-
tikellehre, i. 137. 25.| But if that
which we do not see, we hope for, with
patience we wait for it. Patience (en-
durance) is the state, in which,—through
which as a medium,—our waiting takes
place: hence 8 dmouovijs, as eypava
bu. 81 modAA@v Saxptav, 2 Cor. ii. 4.
26.| Likewise (another help to
our endurance, co-ordinate with the last
—our patience is one help to it, but not
the only one) the Spirit also (the Holy Spi-
rit of God) helps our weakness (not, helps
us to bear our weakness, as if the weakness
were the burden, which the Spirit lifts for
and with us,—but, helps our weakness,—
us who are weak, to bear the burden of
ver. 23. And this weakness is not only
inability to pray aright, which is only an
example of it, but general weakness. This
has been seen, and the reading consequently
altered to the plural, which was at first per-
haps a marginal gloss). For (example of
the help above mentioned ;—the 76 binding
together the clause,—see reff.,—and here
implying ‘ exempli gratia,’ —‘ for this viz.
what to &c.’) what we should pray as
we ought (two things ;—what we should
pray,—the matter of our prayer ;—and how
we should pray it,—the form and manner
of our prayer) we know not: but the Spirit
itself (Thol. remarks,—ai7é brings into
more prominence the idea of the mvedua,
so as to express of what dignity our Inter-
cessor is,—an Intercessor who knows best
what our wants are) intercedes (i7ép here
does not intensify the verb, as in d7ep-
viukav and the like, and as Mic., Erasm.,
Luth., Bengel, render it,—but implies
the advocacy,—‘ convenire aliquem super
negotio alterius,’ as Grot.,—to express
which the irép 7u@v of the rec. has been
inserted) with groanings which cannot
be expressed:—i. e. the Holy Spirit of
God dwelling in us, knowing our wants bet-
ter than we, Himself pleads in our prayers,
raising us to higher and holier desires than
24—28.
IIPOS PQMAIOYS.
397
ps here only t.
aro TO veld UmEpEvTUY Xaver Vorevaypoic " adaAnroc’ 4 Acts vii
~ only. Job iii.
27 6 oe * EPEUYWY Tac Kapoluc oloev rl TO “ ppovnpna TOU A potas ive
5 = ee a r here only ¢.
= Ney
ig ti OTL 5 lane Qeov * eveuyniiee unto “aylov. 5 aed 8.
28 o{Sapev O& Ort TOLC “ayarwow tov * Peov wavra ° GUVEOYEL * Vii52.
1 Cor. ii. 10.
1 Pet.i. 11. Rev.ii. 23 only. Prov. xx. 27. t vv. 6, 7 reff. u 2Cor. vii. 9—11,
v Acts xxv. 24 reff. weh.i.7 al. fr. Acts ix. 13 reff. x 1 Cor. viii. 3 reff. y Mark
ih 20. 3} Cor. xvi. 16. 2Cor.vi.l. James il. 22 onlyt. Esdr. vii. 2. 1 Mace. xii. l only. (-yos,
ch. xvi. 3.
rec aft vmrepevtvyxaver ins vrep nuwy, with CKLN? 17 rel vulg D3-lat Syr Cyr-jer
Chr Thdrt Augsepe Did Epiph Jer:
Epiph Damase Aug).
27. [epevywy (not epav.) B, so Vere expr:
evytvyxavi &.
we can express in words, which can only
find utterance in sighings and aspirations :
see next verse. So De W., Thol., Olsh.
Chrys. interprets it of the xdpioua of prayer,
—and adds, 6 yap Toradrns Katakimdels xd-
PlTOS, EGTHS META TOAATS THS KaTavéews,
MeT& TOAAGY TOY OTEVayLaY TOY KaTa
didvoway TH Veg mposTintwv, Ta TuUpepovTa
maw 7Tet:—similarly (ec. and Theophyl.
Calv. understands, that the Spirit sug-
gests to us the proper words of acceptable
prayer, which would otherwise have been
unutterable by us: and similarly Beza,
Grot. aAadntors may bear three
meanings—1, wnspoken: 2, that does not
speak,—mute (see LXX, Job xxxviii. 14;
Sir. xviii. 33 compl.): 3, that cannot be
spoken. The analogy of verbals in -ros in
the N.'T. favours the latter meaning: com-
pare avexdinyntos, 2 Cor. ix. 15,—a&pfnros,
2 Cor. xii. 4,—avexAdAnrtos, 1 Pet. i. 8
(Thol.). Macedonius gathered from
this verse that the Holy Spirit is a crea-
ture, and inferior to God, because He
prays to God for us. But as Aug. Tract.
vi. in Joan. 2, vol. ili. p. 1425, remarks,
‘non Spiritus Sanctus in semetipso apud
semetipsum in illa Trinitate gemit, sed in
nobis gemit, quia gemere nos facit.’ No
intercession in heaven is here spoken of, but
a pleading in us by the indwelling Spirit,
of a nature above our comprehension and
utterance. 27.] But (opposed to
aAadAhToirs—* though unutterable by us’)
He who searcheth the hearts (God) know-
eth what is the mind (intent, or bent, as
hidden in those sighs) of the Spirit. A
difficulty presents itself in the rendering of
the next clause. If 67: be causal, because
He (the Spirit) pleads for the saints ac-
cording to the will of God, it would seem
that. ofdev must bear the meaning ‘ ap-
proves,’ otherwise the connexion will not be
apparent; and so Caly. and Riickert have
rendered it. Hence Grot., Reiche, Meyer,
Fritz. render é71, ‘that, and construe,—
‘knows what is the mind of the Spirit, —
that He pleads with God (so Reiche and
Fritz., and Winer, edn. 6, § 49. d, for kara
om ABDFR! arm Orig,(always adds tw ew)
epav. NX. | utepeytuyxaver L 73:
0.) for the saints : justifying the repetition
of @edy, implied before, by 1 John iv. 8, 6
Bh ayar@v ove eyyw Toy Oedv, bt 6 Beds
ayarn éoriv. But I must confess that the
other rendering seems to me better to suit
the context: and I do not see that the or-
dinary meaning of ofSev need be changed.
The assurance which we have that God the
Heart-Searcher interprets the inarticulate
sighings of the Spirit in us, is,—not strictly
speaking, His Omniscience,—but the fact
that the very Spirit who thus pleads, does
it kaTa& Oedy,—in pursuance of the divine
purposes and in conformity with God’s good
pleasure. So that, as its: place before the
verb would suggest, kata Oedy is emphatic,
and furnishes the reason of the oldev, A
minor objection against the explicative dr:
is, that we have ofSauev bre immediately
following. All these pleadings of the
Spirit are heard and answered, even when
inarticulately uttered : we may extend the
same comforting assurance to the imper-
fect and mistaken verbal utterances of
our prayers, which are not themselves an-
swered to our hurt, but the answer is
given to the voice of the Spirit which
speaks through them, which we would ex-
press, but cannot. Compare:2 Cor. xii.
7—10, for an instance in the Apostle’s own
case. 28.| Having given an example,
in prayer, how the Spirit helps our weak-
ness, and out of our ignorance and discou-
ragement brings from God an answer of
peace, he now extends this to all things—
all circumstances by which the Christian
finds himself surrounded. These may seem
calculated to dash down hope, and surpass
patience ; but we know better concerning
them. But (the opposition seems most
naturally to apply to ver. 22, the groaning
and travailing of all creation) we know
(as a point of the assurance of faith) that
to those who love God (a stronger desig-
nation than any yet used for believers) all
things (every event of life, but especially,
as the context requires, those which are
adverse. To include, with Aug. de Corrept.
et Grat., c. ix. [24], vol. x. p. 930, the sins °
398 IPQ PQMAIOYS. VIll.
, 2 > , ~ \ ’ b - *
zech.xiiia * 7 ec 7 ayalov, rote Kata * ro0bcow KAnrote ovew. ABCDF
a rie xxvii. 29 ¢% a c t wd , e , ~- KLNab
13 reff. OTt OUC TPOEYVMW, Kal TOOWOLOEV cuppoopouc TNC cd fgh
b ch. i.7 al. klmn
ech, xi. 2. Acts xxvi.5. 1 Pet. i. 20. 2 Pet. iii. 17 onlyt. Wisd. vi. 13. viii. 8. xviii.6. (-yvwors, Acts ii. 23.) 017
dl Cor. ii. 7 reff.
e i iii. 21 onlyt. (-@ifer@ac, Phil. iii. 10.)
28. *aft cuvepye ins 0 Osd¢ ABN (Orig,):
(Cyr-jer) Chr Thdrt Gc Thi Lucif Aug Ambr.
om CDFKL rel vulg Clem Orig,
ins To bef ayafov Lafk 48. 57.
72. 73. 74. 109. 177 lect-8 lect-13 Clem Orig, Cyr-jer Chr-ms Thl.
of believers in this mdyra, as making them
‘humiliores et doctiores,’ is manifestly to in-
troduce an element which did not enter into
the Apostle’s consideration ; for he is here
already viewing the believer as justified by
Saith, ‘dwelt in , by the Spirit, dead to sin)
“work together (cuvepyei, absolute, or aA-
AfjAos implied: not, ‘work together for
good with those who love God, —‘ loving
God’ being a ‘working for good’ which,
though upheld by Thol., seems to me harsh,
and inconsistent with the emphatic posi-
tion of tots ay. t. 8. Surely also in that
case mdévta would have been Ta mavta, all
things, as one party working, set over
against of ayama@vres 7. 0., the other party
working: whereas mavtTa ouvepyet gives
rather the sense of all things co-operating
one with another. ~ Ifthe reading of ABR
be adopted, we ahead understand either
(1) that God causeth all things to work,
&e.: taking cuvépye as from cuvépyw,
concludo : or (2) that, as Syr. renders it,
“in every thing He helpeth them for good.”
But in this last case, we should require ta
mavrTa) for (towards, to bring about) good
(their eternal welfare ;— the fulfilment of
the purpose of the aydrn tr. beod H ev
XpicT@ "Inood Tr. kup. judy, ver. 39),—to
those who are called (not only invited, but
effectually called—see below) according to
(His) purpose. In this further deserip-
tion the Apostle designates the believers
as not merely loving God, but being be-
loved by God. The divine side of their
security from harm is brought out, as
combining with and ensuring the other.
They are sure that all things work for their
ood, not only because they love Him who
worketh all things, but also because He
who worketh all things hath loved and
chosen them, and carried them through the
successive steps of their spiritual life. The
calling here and elsewhere spoken of by the
Apostle (compare especially ch.ix. 11) is the
working, in men, of ‘the everlasting pur-
pose of God whereby before the founda-
tions of the world were laid, He hath de-
creed by His counsel seeret to us, to deliver
from curse and damnation those whom He
hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and
to bring them by Christ to everlasting sal-
vation.” Art. X. of the Church of England.
To specify the various ways in which this
calling has been understood, would far ex-
ceed the limits of a general commentary.
It may suffice to say, that on the one hand,
Scripture bears constant testimony to the
fact that all believers are chosen and called
by God,—their whole spiritual life in its
origin, progress, and completion, being from
Him : —while on the other hand its testi-
mony is no less precise that He willeth all
to be saved, and that none shall perish ex-.
cept by wilful rejection of the truth. So
that, on the one side, GOD’s SOVEREIGNTY,
—on the other, MAN’S FREE WILL,—is
plainly declared to us. To receive, believe,
and act on both these, is our duty, and
our wisdom. They belong, as truths, no
less to natural than to revealed religion :
and every one who believes in a God must
acknowledge both. But all attempts to
bridge over the gulf between the two are
Futile, in the present imperfect condition of
man. The very reasonings used for this
purpose are clothed in language framed on
the analogies of this lower world, and wholly
inadequate to describe God regarded as He
isin Himself. Hence arises confusion, mis-
apprehension of God, and unbelief. I have
therefore simply, in this commentary, en-
deayoured to enter into the full meaning of
the sacred text, whenever one or other of
these great truths is brought forward ; not
explaining either of them away on account
of possible difficulties arising from the re-
cognition of the other, but recognizing as
fully the elective and predestinating decree
of God where it is treated of, as I have
done, in other places, the free will of man.
If there be an inconsistency in this course,
it is at least one in which the nature of
things, the conditions of human thought,
and Scripture itself, participate, and from
which no Commentator that I have seen,
however anxious to avoid it by extreme
views one way or the other, has been able
to escape. See, for a full treatment of the
subject, Tholuck’s Comm. in loc.
29, 30.] The Apostle now goes backward
from KAnrots, to explain how this CALLING
came about. It sprung from God’s fore-
knowledge, co-ordinate with His fore-deter-
mination of certain persons (to be) con-
formed to the image of His Son, that
Christ might be exalted as the Head of
the great Family of God. These persons,
thus foreknown and predetermined, He, in
the course of His Providence actually, but
29—82.
f-_% 2 ~ te. > ~ g ’ ‘ oe SN h les
€tKOVOC TOV VLOU GAUTODV, ic TO ElLVaL AUTOV TPWTO
IIPOS PQMAIOYS.
399
f Matt. xxii.
= 20. ch. i.
’ i = > - 2 a \ d , De f
toxov év ‘modXAowg adeApoic. “ove be Toowptaev, 2), 1 Ory,
, Ni Loe 4 a \ a ) ey 2 , 1 2Cor.iv.4
ToUTOUc Kat — EkaAeoEv’ Kal ovc * EKaAEGEV, TOVTOUE Kal al. Gen. i
ae U 4 a ei h2 , , \ 7 Behr
édikalwaev’ oc O& | ediKalwoev, ToUTOUG Kal ™ EdokacEv. fie 1l Te
3lnm e- ne - . - u me N CaN Coa Col. i. 15, 18.
Ti ovy Epoupev TOOC TaUTaS EL O Oeoc UTEP MWY, Heb. 1-6. xi.
, o Cee ga IG oF sie ae > z * 28. xii. 23.
tic °xal nor; 82 O¢ ye Tov totov viou ovK ? Eepetoarto, oat he
iv. 4al. i Matt. xx. 28. Heb. ii. 10. ix. 28. k =ch.ix.11. 1 Cor. vii 15. Gal. v. 8.
Eph. iv. 1. 2 Thess. ii. 14 al. Ich. ii. 13 reff. m = (of Christ), John vii. 39 and
passim. Of as, here only.
30. Gal. ii. 21. v. 23.
80. for mpowpicev, mpoeyvw A.
see Esth. iii. 1. vi. 6, 7. 5
pch. xi. 21 reff. Gen. xxii. 16.
n ch, iii. 5 reff. o = Matt. xii.
kat ous edix. A eth.
82. os ovde viov td.0v epero. I; os ovde Tov idiov viov epeio. D, inse ye aft os D3.
in His eternal decree implicitly, called,
bringing them through justification to
glory ;—and all this is spoken of as past,
because to Him who sees the end from the
beginning,—past, present, and future, ARE
NOT, but ALL IS ACCOMPLISHED WHEN
DETERMINED. Because whom He fore-
knew (but in what sense? This has been
much disputed: the Pelagian view,—‘ eos
quos presciverat credituros,’ is taken by
Orig., Chrys., (e., Theophyl., Augustine
(prop. 55, in Ep. ad Rom. vol. iii. p. 2076),
Ambr., Erasm. in paraphrase, Calov.,
Reiche, Meyer, Neander, and others; the
sense of fore-loved, by Erasm. in commen-
tary, Grotius, Estius, the Schmidts, &e.:
that of fore-decreed, by Thol. edn. 1, and
Stuart,—which however Thol. in subse-
quent editions suspects to be ungram-
matical without some infinitive following,
and prefers a sense combining foreknow-
ledge and recognition-as-His :—that of
elected, adopted as His sons, by Calvin,—
* Dei autem preecognitio, cujus hic Paulus
meminit, non nuda est prescientia, ut
stulte fingunt quidam imperiti, sed adop-
tio qua filios suos ab improbis semper dis-
crevit,’—Riickert, De Wette, al. That this
latter is implied, is certain: but I prefer
taking the word in the ordinary sense of
foreknew, especially as it is guarded from
being a ‘nuda prescientia’ by what fol-
lows: see below and Gal. iv. 9), He also
pre-ordained (His foreknowledge was not
-a mere being previously aware how a series
of events would happen: but was co-ordi-
nate with, and inseparable from, His having
pre-ordained all things) conformed (i. e. to
be conformed) to the image of His Son
(the dat. and gen. are both found after
words like odumoppos ; compare sduguTos,
ch. vi. 5. The image of Christ here
spoken of is not His moral purity, nor His
sufferings, but as in 1 Cor. xv. 49, that en-
tire form, of glorification in body and sane-
tification in spirit, of which Christ is the
perfect pattern, and all His people shall be
partakers. To accomplish this transforma-
tion in us is the end, as regards us, of our
election by God; not merely to rescue us
from wrath. Compare 1 John iii. 2, 3;
Phil. iii. 21: and on the comprehensive
meaning of noppy, Phil. ii. 6,7,—where it
expresses both ‘ the form of God’ in which
Christ was, and ‘the form of a servant’ in
which He became incarnate), that He
might (or may, as Calv., but the refer-
ence in the aorists is to the past decree of
God) be firstborn among many brethren
(i.e. that He might be shewn, acknow-
ledged to be, and glorified as, tHE SON oF
Gop, pre-eminent among those who are
by adoption through Him the sons of God.
This is the further end of our election, as
regards Christ; His glorification in us, as
our elder Brother and Head) : 30. | but
whom He fore-ordained, those He also
called (in making the decree, He left it
not barren, but provided for those circum-
stances, all at His disposal, by which such
decree should be made effectual in them.
éxaddeoev, supply, els thy éavTov
Baoirelay nat Sdtav, 1 Thess. ii. 12; other
expressions are found in 1 Cor. i. 9;
2 Thess. ii. 14; 1 Tim. vi. 12; 1 Pet. v.
10): and whom He called, these He also
justified (the Apostle, remember, is speak-
ing entirely of God’s acts on behalf of the
believer : he says nothing zow of that faith,
through which this justification is, on his
part, obtained): but whem He justified,
them He also glorified (He did not merely,
in His premundane decree, acquit them of
sin, but also clothe them with glory: the
aorist edéfacey being used, as the other
aorists, to imply the completion in the
divine counsel of all these, which are to
us, in the state of time, so many successive
steps,—simultaneously andirrevocably. So
we have the perfect in John xvii. 10, 22).
31—39.] The Christian has no
reason to fear, but all reason to hope ;
Jor nothing can separate him from God’s
lovein Christ. 31.] What thea shall
we say to these things (what answer can
the hesitating or discouraged find to this
behalf of the believer)? If God is for us
array of the merciful acts of God’s love on
400 IIPOS PQMAIOYS. VIII.
ch. iy. 26 ref. Nagao ae , q : vTO " yy, ABCDF
Pais ae aXXa vireo nov wavroy TapiowKEev avToV, TwC OVX! ABCDF
16. ‘or. ii. \ ‘ oe s e @ ’ ! ?
12. 2 Cor. Kal OVY aUuTW Ta TavTa uly " yaploerat ; a3 tic ° a’ aioe
ii. 7,10 al. 5 \ 7 = - ee =e
LP 2 Mace. kadége Kata “exAektwov “Oeov; Oedc 0‘ dtkawwv; ** rig 017
s Acts xix.38 ¢
reff. constr., O
y KaTaKolvay 5 Xptoroc 0 atofaver, * nadXov oe [Kai]
here only. ’ r - ~ ~ a \
Soph. Phi- od @ def
loet. B98, " eyep Oeic, oc Kal Zor év deka TOU Qeou, oc Kal
t Matt. xx. 16. 35
b , 5) A ~
KwWoloet avo TrC
w Matt. xxvii.
y ver. Il.
a=and w.
w. a7, ver.39. Heb. vii.
* evrvyyave UTED Naw 3 Tic nuac
Isa. XxViii. 16. u Col. iii.12. Tit.i.1. gen., ch. i. 6, 7. v ver. 30.
3. (John viii. 10, 11.] ch. ii. 1 al. Esth-ii. 1. x =Gal. iv. 9. Eph. iv. 22. v.11.
z = Eph.i.20. Col. iii. 1. Heb. i. 3. viii. 1. x. 12. xii. 2. 1 Pet. iii. 22 only. IDs. xv. ll.
tmép, Heb. vii. 25. (Acts xxv. 24 reff.) b Matt. xix. 6. Ezek. xlvi. 19.
26. Wisd. i. 3.
[adaa, so BD'FR. | om ta D'P.
34. aft xpioros ins imvovs ACF LN 17 vulg copt eth arm Cyr Did Damase Ruf Aug,
Maximin: om BDK rel syrr Chr Thdrt Cyr-jer Gc Thl. rec ins Ist Ka, with
DFKL rel latt(but not am!) syr Iren-int Cyr-jer Chr Thdrt Thl Ge Hil Ambr Aug
Maximin: om ABCX gk 117 Syr copt Did Damase Ruf Victorin. (a: is left out in B
ed Mai, as in the collations of Btly and Beh; but Mai has got into some confusion with
regard to Bch’s reading.) aft eyep@. add ex vexpwy ACN}(om X32?) 17 copt eth
Chr Damase Thl. om kat (bef ectiv) ACN! b ¢ o copt vulg D!-lat Iren-int Cyr-jer
Chr Thdrt Did Cyr Thl Ruf: ins BDF KLN? am harl? syrr Ge Thl Maximin Ambrst.
XXiv. 22, &c.
ch. xvi. 13 al.
om tov Bo.
(and this He has been proved to be, vv.
28—30,—in having foreknown, predesti-
nated, called, justified, glorified us), who
(is) against us? 32.| (God) Who
even (taking one act as a notable example
out of all) did not spare His own Son (His
owN,—His vids wovoyervhs, the only one of
God’s sons who is One with Him in nature
and essence, begotten of Him before all
worlds. No other sense of idfov will suit
its position here, in a clause already made
emphatic by ye, in consequence of which
whatever epithet is fixed to viod must par-
take of the emphasis), but delivered Him
up (not necessarily eis @dvarov only, but
generally, as €dwxev, John iil. 16: ‘largitus
est, quem sibi retinere poterat,’ as Tho-
luck, from Winer) on behalf of us all (so
that every one of us believers, even the
most afflicted, has an equal part in Him.
Of others, nothing is said here), how shall
He not (how can it be that He will not)
also with Him (in consequence of and in
analogy with this His greatest gift: it is
a question ‘a majori ad minus’) give
freely to us all things (all that we need
or hope for; or even more largely, all
created things for ours, to subserve our
good, and work together for us: compare
1 Cor. iii. 22)? 33.| The punctua-
tion of these verses is disputed. Many
(Aug., Ambr., Reiche, Kdéllner, Olsh.,
Meyer, De Wette, and Griesb., Knapp,
Lachmann) follow, in vy. 33, 34, the un-
doubted form of ver. 35, and place an in-
terrogation after each clause, as in the
text; while Luther, Beza, Grot., Wolf,
Tholuck, al., make @eds 6 dix. and xpiords
6 dod. k.7.A. the reply to and rejection of
the questions preceding them. The former
method is preferable, as preserving the form
of ver. 35, andinvolving no harshness of con-
struction, which the other does, in the case
of xpiotds followed by the two participles.
Who shall lay (7) any charge against
the elect of God (éyxaAéw usually with a
dat. see reff.)? Shall God (éeyadécet),
who justifies them (Chrys. strikingly says,
ovK eime “eds 6 apels GuapThuata,” GAN
® TOAAG peiCov jy Beds 6 Sikaray. dra
yap 7 Tov SikacTod Whdos Slkatoy amo-
phyn, kal SixastT0d TowovTov, Tlvos w&k.os 6
katnyopay ; Hom. xvi. p. 129)? Who is
he that condemns them (the pres. part.
as expressing the official employment, ‘is
their accuser,’ is better than the fut., as cor-
responding more closely with dicai@v)? (Is
it) Christ who died, yea who rather is also
risen, who moreover is at the right hand
of God, who also intercedes for us? “All
the great points of our redemption are
ranged together, from the death of Christ
to His still enduring intercession, as reasons
for negativing the question above.” De W.
35.| Who (i. e. what: but mase.
for uniformity with vv. 33, 34) shall se-
parate us from the love of Christ? Is
this (1) owr love to Christ, or (2) Christ's
love to us, or (3) our sense of Christ's love
to us? The first of these is held by Origen,
Chrys., Theodoret, Ambr., Erasm., al. But
the difficulty of it lies in consistently inter-
preting ver. 37, where not our endurance in
love to Him, but our victory by means of
His love to us, is alleged. And besides, it
militates against the conclusion in ver. 39,
which ought certainly to respond to this
question. The third meaning is defended
by Calvin. But thesecond, asmaintained
by Beza, Grot., Est., al., Thol., Reiche,
338—d8. IIPOS POMAIOY®S. 401
ee ~ a Gg ~ Neo Garr& , nq pala ke
ve cet Lid TOV XptoTou ; OruLte N oTEvoyXweta 2) dw yLoc ae
Mo pee Fauiseare Te louie ti vi Gie et BG Adc . tt
?) (oc N yuLNoTne YH ~ KivOUvVOC H payaipa y KAUWE e Pant, 2 Cor.
/ ve ; ma) , e Q e M27 only,
Yytypamrat OTl EveKEVY GOU ‘ Bavarovmucba oAnv THY nuéoav, f Acts xi, 28 al,
2 Cor. xi. 27,
kl » U jue bs m _ > oo , ev. i. 18
EAoytaolnuev we Too(3a Ta “ opayne. 37 aXX’ ev rov- ae Gene
~ ne = ‘ on , oe - Xkvili. 48
TOLC WaOolV UTENVIKWUMEV ola TOU ayaTyoavToc yneac. only. pehs
38 Pp , ‘ ” q , ” q , ” § iatin ay a0
TETELOMAL YAO OTL OUTE Qavaroc ovre Cw, oure ones
” ” r? ’ ” qs 2 ~ ” qt , CxXiv. 3.
ayyéXot ours ‘aoyat, ovre % évect@ra ovre méXXovra, b 7 Matt x. 84.
er, UX. .
ich. vil. dreff. Psa. xiii. 22. k = ch. ix. 8 reff. 11 Cor. iv.1. 2Cor.s.2. Job xli. 20.
m Acts vili 32. James v. 5 only.
o of Christ, Gal. v. 20.
2 Mace. ix. 27.
vii. 27 Theod.
l.c. Isa. xxxiv, 2,6. yen., Zech. xi. 4. n here only ¢.
p constr., ch. xiv. 14. xv. 14. 2Tim.i. 5, 12.
r = (see note) 1 Cor. xv. 24. Eph. i. 21 al.
t Acts xxiv. 25 reff.
Eph. v. 2.
q so 1 Cor. iii. 22.
s = 1] Cor. vii. 26 reff.
ace. and inf.,
Dan.
85. aft Ts ins ovy F latt(not am) Ruf Sedul.
Oeou THS Ev xXpioToU inoov B. om 2nd 7 D.
86. rec evexa (so rxx-B), with CK Thdrt Damase Ge Thl:
ABDFLN mn 17 Clem Orig Meth Chr.
87. Tov ayarnoavta DF latt.
38. ayyedos DF Aug, Ambrst: not Hil Augyepe al. aft ovre apyat add oure
efovoin (see Col ii. 15 al) C fn 46. 73. 80. 109. 121 syr-w-ast: pref, D. Tec ouTeE
Suvauers bef ovre eveotwra o. wu. with KL rel vulg Syr goth Chr Thdrt Ge Thl Aug:
txt ABCDFN m tol syr copt Orig Eus Ephr Cyr Damase lat-ff (our. Suv. has been
suspected as spurious | Hritz., Tholuck, in De Wette]: but no mss omit it, unless
for rov xpiotov, Beov N al: tov
txt (so x1xx-A)
Lappy | 121 [ Mtt) and one or two lat-ff who have ovre ctovota).
Meyer, De Wette, appears to me the only
tenable sense of the words. For, having
shewn that God’s great love to us is such
that none can accuse nor harm us, the Apos-
tle now asserts the permanence of that love
under all adverse circumstances—that none
such can ‘affect it,—nay more, that it is
by that love that we are enabled to obtain
the victory over all such adversities. And
finally he expresses his persuasion that no
created thing shall ever separate us from
that Love, i.e. shall ever be able to pluck
us out of the Father’s hand. 86. |
The quotation here expresses,—‘all which
things befall us, as they befell God’s saints
of old,—and it is no new trials to which we
are subjected :—What, if we verify the an-
cient description ?’ 37.| But (ne-
gation of the question @Atis.... udxa-
pa;) in all these things we are far the
conquerors (hardly, ‘more than conque-
rors: the bwép intensifies the degree of
vikGyv, as in breprepiocevery and the like,
but does not express a superiority over
vikay) through Him who loved us (i. e. so
far from all these things separating us from
His love, that very love has given us a glo-
rious victory over them). The reading
dia Toy 2yarhocavTa Mas would amount to
the same in meaning :—‘on account of Him
who loved us’ implying, as in vv. 11, 20,
that He is the efficient cause of the result.
It is doubted whether ‘ He who loved
us’ be the Father, or our Lord Jesus Christ.
This is, I think, decided by 7 d@yamréyrt
huads kal AovoavTi Huds .... ev TO alucte
Wore LY:
avtov, Rev, i. 5. The use of such an ex-
pression as a title of our Lord in a doxo-
logy, makes it very probable that where
unexplained, as here, it would also desig-
nate Him. 38.] For I am per-
suaded (a taking up and amplifying of the
dmepviK@uev—our victory is not only over
these things, but I dare assert it over greater
and more awful than these) that neither
death, nor life (well explained by De W.
as the two principal possible states of man,
and not as = ‘any thing dead or living,’
as Calvin and Koppe), nor angels, nor
principalities (whether good or bad ; apx4
is used of good, Col. i. 16 ; ii. 15 [see note | ;
of bad (1 Cor. xv. 24.?), Eph. vi. 12; here,
as Eph. i. 21, generally. &yyeAar, abso-
lutely, seems never to be used of bad angels:
if it here means good angels, there is no ob-
jection, as Stuart alleges, to the rhetorical
supposition that they might attempt this
separation, any more than to that of an
angel from heaven preaching another
gospel, Gal. i. 8), nor things present nor
things to come (no vicissitudes of time),
nor powers (some confusion has evidently
crept into the arrangement. Ephr. Syr.
reads, or. apxal ott. é€ovolar ot. eveor.
ovr. MEAA. oT. Suvdwers oT. ByyeAor;
Basil, obre ayy. ott. apx. or. eLouc. ovr.
duvduers oT. evegt. ovr. uEAA. I follow, with
Griesb., Lachm., Tischdf., the very strong
consent of the ancient MSS.), nor height
nor depth (no extremes of space), nor any
other created thing («riots cannot here be
the whole creation, as Chrys.,— Aéyer To1-
Dp
402
tu == Matt.
xxiv. 29 |].
1 Pet. iii. 22. x
Tea. xxxiv.
4.
v2Cor. x. 5
only. Job
XXiv, 24.
Jndith x, 8.
xiii. 4 only.
w Eph. iii. IS al. Isa. vii. 11.
xiii. 9. 1 Tim. i. 10.
Eph.iv. 25. Ps, xiv. 2.
20. 1 Tim. ii. 7.
z ver. 39.
39. om tis DF latt syrr.
obrév éorw* el Kal BAAN ToTalTy KTLoIS HY
bon % dpwuevn, bon 7H vonTh, ovdev ay
he Tis aydrns exelyns améornoe,—but
any creature, such as are all the things
named) shall be able to sever us from the
love of God which is in Christ Jesus
our Lord (here plainly enough God's
love to us in Christ,—to us, aS we are
in Christ, to us, manifested in and by
Christ).
Cuap. IX.—XI.] The Gospel being now
established, in its fulness and freeness, as
the power of God unto salvation to every
one that believeth,—a question naturally
arises, not unaccompanied with painful dif-
ficulty, respecting the exclusion of that
people, as a people, to whom God’s ancient
promises were made. With this national
rejection of Israel the Apostle now deals:
first (ix. 1—5) expressing his deep sym-
pathy with his own people: then (ix.
6—29) justifying God, Who has not (vv.
6—13) broken His promise, but from the
first chose a portion only of Abraham's
seed, and that (vv. 14—29) by His un-
doubted elective right, not to be murmured
at nor disputed by us His creatures: ac-
cording to which election a remnant shall
now also be saved. ‘Then, as to the rejec-
tion of so large a portion of Israel, their
own self-righteousness (vv. 30—33) has
been the cause of it, and (x. 1—13) their ig-
norance of God’s righteousness,—notwith-
standing that (vv. 13—21) their Scriptures
plainly declared to them the nature of the
Gospel, and its results with regard to
themselves and the Gentiles, with which
declarations Paul’s preaching was in per-
Sect accordance. Has God then cast off
his people (xi. 1—10)? No—for a rem-
nant shall be saved according to the elee-
tion of grace, but the rest hardened, not
however for the purpose of their destruc-
tion, but (xi. 11—24) of mercy to the
Gentiles : which purpose of mercy being
Sulfilled, Israel shall be brought in again
toils proper place of blessing (xi. 25—82).
He concludes the whole with a humble
admiration of the unsearchable depth of
God’s ways, and the riches of His Wisdom
(xi. 83—36).
IPOS PQMAIOYS.
ovre “Suvapec, * ovre ‘ Vpwna ovre “ Balloc, ovre tic
Ktioic etéoa Suvnserar nuac * ywptcat aro TNC * aya-
ane tov *Ocou rng ev Xotsrw "Inoou Tw Kol NOY.
IX. 1 °’AdnOeav Aéyw ° Ev XoLorys ov ° Wevdonat,
x = ch, i. 25. (vv. 19, oo) ae iv. 13.
ce = 2 Cor. xii. ]9. Eph.iv. 17.
for Tw kupiw, Tov kvptov ACF.
VIII. 39.
Judith ix, 12.
h.v. 6. 2 Cor. xiii. 13.
—c
y =ch.
b = 2 Cor. sii. 6.
d 2 Cor. xi. 31. Gul. i.
In no part of the Epistles of Paul is it
more requisite than in this portion, to bear
in mind his habit of INSULATING the one
view of the subject under consideration,
with which he is at the time dealing. The
divine side of the history of Israel and the
world is in the greater part of this portion
thus insulated: the facts of the divine
dealings and the divine decrees insisted on,
and the mundane or human side of that
history kept for the most part out of sight,
and only so much shewn, as to make it
manifest that the Jews, on their part, failed
of attaining God’s righteousness, and so lost
their share in the Gospel.
It must also be remembered, that, what-
ever inferences may justly lie from the
Apostle’s arguments, with regard to God’s
disposal of individuals, the assertions here
made by him are universally spoken with
a national reference. Of the eternal salva-
tion or rejection of any individual Jew there
is here no question: and however logically
true of any individual the same conclusion
may be shewn to be, we know as matter of
fact, that in such cases not the divine, but
the human side, is that ever held up by the
Apostle — the universality of tree grace for
all —the riches of God’s mercy to all who
call on Him, and consequent exhortations
to all, to look to Him and be saved. De
Wette has well shewn, against Reiche and
others, that the apparent inconsistencies of
the Apostle, at one time speaking of absolute
decrees of God, and at another of culpability
in man,—at onetime of the election of some,
at another of a hope of the conversion of
all,—resolve themselves into the necessary
conditions of thought under which we all
are placed, being compelled to acknowledge
the divine Sovereignty on the one hand, and
human free will on the other, and alter-
nately appearing to lose sight of one of
these, as often as for the time we confine
our view to the other.
IX. 1—5.] The Apostle’s deep sympathy
with his own people Israel. The subject
on which he is about to enter, so unwel-
come to Jews in general, coupled with their
hostility to himself, and designation of him
as a mAdvos (2 Cor, vi. 8: compare also
IX. 1—3.
* cuupaptupovenc frot THC
IIPOY PQMAIOY®.
403
f
OUVELONTEWC yak év TVEDMATL ech. ii. 15. viii.
16 onlyt.
eos eo , Im 3
st oe 2 OTL Avrn OL EOTLV peyadn Kal © adiaheurrog SS 12
Deu OL ale 2 f S k All gute i.3
‘o UV?) a] ded la oie ih ale We! ava gua eivat © only t. (-wsy
‘ ch. i. 9.)
c hi Ti 10
avtoc eyo aro TOU XPtor yu uTep TY pe fLOv, cake ade
viii. 18. i Acts xxvii. 29 reff. imperf., = Acts xxv. 22 reff. k Acts xxiii. 14. 1 Cor.
xii. 3. xvi. 22, Gal.i. 8, only. Deut. vii. 26, 1 =ch. vii. 2 Cor. xi. 3. Col. ii. 20.
2 Thess. i. 9.
Cuar. IX. 1. aft xpictw add imoov D'F
2. rns kapdias K 17. 219).
3. evxouny DKLe¢k1n17 Thdrt-mss :
rec autos eyw bef avadeua eva, with CKL
92
PCOraiel 7 selte a7 3 iV. Uy) 2is svat, 2 als);
causes him to begin with a rpotapatrnots
or deprecation, bespeaking credit for sim-
plicity and earnestness in the assertion
which is to follow. This deprecation and
assertion of sympathy he puts in the fore-
front of the section, to take at once the
ground from those who might charge him, in
the conduct of his argument, with hostility
to his own alienated people. I say (the)
truthin Christ (as a Christian,—as united to
Christ; the ordinary sense of the expression
ev xpio7@, so frequent with the Apostle.
It is not an oath, ‘dy Christ,’—for though
ev With duvuue bears this meaning, we have
no instance of it where the verb is not ex-
pressed),—I lie not (confirmation of the
preceding, by shewing that he was aware
of what would be lad to his charge, and
distinctly repudiating it),—my conscience
bearing me witness of the same (the ctv
in composition, as in reff., denoting accord-
ance with the fact, not joint testimony) in
the Holy Spirit (much as ev xpic7@ above :
—a conscience not left to itself but in-
formed andenlightened by the Spirit of God.
Strangely enough, Griesb., Knapp, and
Koppe take these words also for a formula
jurandi, and connect them with od wevdo-
pou), that (not because, or for, as Bengel:
ér1, as in 2 Cor. xi. 10, introducing the
matter to which the asseveration was di-
rected,—I say the truth, when I say, that
..) I have great grief and continual
sorrow in my heart. The reason of this
grief is reserved for a yet stronger descrip-
tion of his sympathy in the next verse.
3.] For I could wish (the imperf. is not
historical, alluding to his days of Phari-
saism, as Pelag. and others, but quasi-
optative, as in refi. ‘I was wishing, had
it been possible,—nixdurny ei evexapet, ei
évedéxero, Phot. The sense of the imperf.
in such expressions is the proper and strigt
one (and no new discovery, but common
enough in every schoolboy’s reading): the
act is unfinished, an obstacle intervening.
So in Latin, ‘faciebam, ni... ,’? the com-
dD
Ps-Ath Ambrst. for 2nd ev, ovy F.
evat bef avabeua &.
txt ABDFN syr
evxomat 41.
rel vss Ath Thdrt Cypr:
pleted sentence being, ‘faciebam, et per-
fecissem, ni . Di that I myself (on avrds
éyé see ch. vii. 25; it gives emphasis, as
éya Mataos, Gal. v. 2: ‘I, the very per-
son who write this and whom ye know’)
were a curse (a thing accursed, avabepa
in the LXX = 07, an irrevocable devotion
to God, or, a thing or person so devoted.
All persons and animals thus devoted were
Gen’ to death; none could be redeemed,
Levit. xxvii. 28,29. The subsequent scrip-
tural usage of the word arose from this. It
never denotes simply an exclusion or ex-
communication, but always devotion to per-
dition,—a curse. Attempts have been made
to explain away the meaning here, by under-
standing excommunication, as Grot., Ham-
mond, Le Clere, &e. ; or even natural death
only, as Jerome, al. : but excommunication
included cursing and delivering over to
Satan:—and the mere wish for natural
death would, as Chrys. eloquently remarks,
be altogether beneath the dignity of the pas-
-sage. Perhaps the strangest interpretation
is that of Dr. Burton: “St. Paul had been
set apart and consecrated by Christ to His
service; and he had prayed that this devo-
tion of himself might be for the good of his
countrymen :”—it is however no unfair
sample of a multitude of others, all more or
less shrinking from the full meaning of the
fervid words of the Apostle) from Christ
(i. e. cut off and separated from Him for
ever in eternal perdition. No other mean-
ing will satisfy the plain sense of the words.
dé in the sense of dd, making Christ the
agent of the curse, would be hardly adinis-
sible: still less the joining,—as Carpzov
and Elsner,—daé with nixéunyv. On this
wish, compare Exod, xxxii. 32) in behalf
of (in the place of; or, if thus I could be-
nefit, deliver from perdition) my brethren,
my kinsmen according to the flesh.
The wish is evidently not to be pressed as
entailing on the Apostle the charge of incon-
sistency in loving his nation more than his
Saviour. It is the expression of an affec-
tionate and self-denying heart, willing to
D 2
404 IIPOS PQMAIOY=. IX.
Lu ~ ~ ‘ , a , , ?
m chai 7 TOV CUYYEVWY MOU "Kata " oapKa, 4° oiriwéc ecaty Lopa- ABCDF
Nad
xxv. 45. - = c e ’ nue - R : .
nich. i 8 fi nAtrat, wy 1 viobecta Kat 1 1008a Kat at " Scabnkat Kat eateh
o = Acts &. 5 m
og ’ Nig eat ’ \ e
Webiwiliaine ot vonobecta Kal 9 Aarosia Kat al
reff. ty / Nityz, G ec ‘ A om Min ff €
eel iz.) ou TATEOEC, Kal & @v O KpLoTo¢ TO KaTad GOdOKG, O WV
Exod. xl. 34.
yeep , Rae Shae ~ > id » tees 9 he
ERE: val." €7L TAVTWVY Ococ zy evioynto¢ ELC TOUC ALWVAC, ALLY. --annv
r= Actsiii.25. | : . c
vil. 8. Heb. passim. (plur., Gal. iv. 24. Eph. ii. 12 only.) Gen. xvii. 2 al. shereonly+t. 2 Mace. vi. ABDF ©
93 only. (-Yeretv, Heb. vii. 11. -T5, James iv. 12.) t John xvi. 2. ch. xii, 1. Heb. ix. 1,6 only, KLRab
Exod, xii. 25, 26. u see ch. iv. 13. xv. 8. Gal. iii. 16. Vv absol., Acts vir. Iv rell. cdf g hd
w = Eph. iv. 6al. xch.i. 25. 2 Cor, xi. 31. Ps. Ixxxviii. 52. y (sve note.) as above (WwW). k] mn
Mark xiv. 61. Lukei.(8. 2Cor.i.3. Eph.i.3. 1 Pet. i. 3 only. 017
a emayyediat, Sy olf
a
goth Chr Ruf Ambr, Pac. vro DG. om adeAd. uw. Tov B!: ins B?-marg(see
table). om 2nd pou D'F Cyr lat-ff: add twy DF a? Syr Cyr Thdrt.
4, om wy 7 vi00. to emayyeAia Az om kat at G1a8. Kk. 7 vouod. L.
BDF demid harl? Ath Chr-mss Cypr Ruf-ms Jer,
harl! tol) syrr copt goth Epiph Chr Thdrt Phot Hil.
emayyedia I.
5. om ao F.
om to F Epiph Cyr, Thdrt,.
om kat F Hippol Cypr Pelag (not Iren Aug).
om @eos Ephr Cypr-ed Hil-ed, Leo,: but it is
y diabnKy
Sedul: txt CKN rel latt(inclg am
n emayyeAta D Chr-mss :
for to, Ta C!:
in most gr-lat-ff, and 6 &y &e is cited by very many fathers as in apposition to 0 xpioTos.
(The various punctuations Se see in notes, and more particulars in Wetstein and
Scholz.)
surrender all things, even, if it might be so,
eternal glory itself, if thereby he could ob-
tain for his beloved people those blessings
of the Gospel which he now enjoyed, but
from which they were excluded. Nor does
he describe the wish as ever actually formed;
only as a conceivable limit to which, if ad-
missible, his self-devotion for them would
reach. Others express their love by pro-
fessing themselves ready to give their life
for their friends ; he declares the intensity
of his affection by reckoning even his sp?-
ritual life not too great a price, if it might
purchase their salvation. 4.| Not only
on their relationship to himself does he
ground this sorrow and this self-devotion :
but on the recollection of their ancient pri-
vileges and glories. Who are Israelites
(a name of honour, see John i. 48; 2 Cor.
xi. 22; Phil. iii. 5); whose (is) the adop-
tion (see Exod. iv. 22; Deut. xiv. 1; xxxii.
6; Isa. i. 2 al.), and the glory (perhaps
their general preference and exaltation, con-
sequent on the vioecla,—but far more
probably, as all the other substantives refer
to separate matters of fact, —the Shechinah
or visible manifestation of the divine Pre-
sence on the merey-seat between the che-
rubims : see reff.), and the covenants (not,
the two tables of the law,—as Beza, Grot.,
al.,—which formed brt one covenant, and
are included in vouo@ecta; nor, the Old
and New Testament Covenants,—as Aug.,
Jer., Calov., Wolf,—see Gal. iv. 24 ff. :
but the several renewals of the covenant
with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and finally
with the whole people at Sinai:—see Gen.
xy. 9—21; xvii.4,7, 10; xxvi. 24; xxvili.13;
Exod. xxiv. 7, 8 al.), and the law-giving
(‘si alii Solonibus et Lycurgis gloriantur,
quanto justior est gloriandi materia de Do-
mino!’? Caly. vowod. is both the act of
giving the Law, and the Law thus given),
and the service (ordinances of worship :
see ref. Heb.), and the promises (probably
only those to the patriarchs, of a Redeemer
to come, are here thought of, as the next
two clauses place the patriarchs and Christ
together without any mention of the pro-
phets. So Abrahanvis described, Heb. vii. 6,
as Tov %xovta Tus emaryyedias),—Whose
are the fathers (probably to be limited to
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob:—so De W.,
but Stephen gives of wat. a much wider
meaning in Acts vii. 11, 12, 19, 39, 44,
and so apparently Paul himself, Acts xiii.
17. In all those places, however, except
Acts vii. 19, juaev follows, whereas here
the word is absolute: so that the above
limitation may be true),—and of whom
is Christ, as far as regards the flesh
(+d,—ace., as also in ch. xii. 18,—implies
that He was not entirely sprung from them,
but had another nature: q. d. ‘on his
human side, —‘ duntaxat quod attinet ad
corpus humanum, as Erasmus), who is
God over all (prob. neuter; for Tad WaVTQ,
not of mdvres, is the equivalent nominative
in such sentences: see ch. xi. 36) blessed
forever. Amen. The punctuation and
application of this doxology have been much
disputed. By the early Chureh it was ge-
nerally rendered as above, and applied to
Christ,—so Iren., Tert., Orig. h.1., Athan.,
Epiph., Chrys., Theodoret, Theophyl., He.
Wetstein has, it is true, collected passages
4—6.
6
a= here only. see James i. 1]. = wimrecv, Luke xvi. 17. dcam., Josh. xxi. 43 (45). Judith vi. 9.
xi. 1 reff.
from the fathers to shew that they applied
the words 6 ém) mavtwy Oeds to the FATHER
alone, and protested against their applica-
tion to the Son; but these passages them-
selves protest only against the erroneous
Noetian or Sabellian view of the identity of
the Father and the Son, whereas in Eph. iv.
5, 6, eis KUptos, and cis Qeds Kk. maThp
mavrwv, 6 éwl mavtwv, are plainly dis-
tinguished. That our Lord is not, in the
strict exclusive sense, 6 éml mdvtwv Oeds,
every Christian will admit, that title being
reserved for the Father: but that He is ém
mdvtwy Oeds, none of the passages goes to
deny. Had our text stood é& ay 6 xp. Td
Kata odpka, 6 em mavtwy Beds 6 evAoyHToS
els Tovs ai@vas, it would have appeared to
countenance the above error, which as it
now stands it cannot do. The first
trace of a different interpretation, if it be
one, is found in an assertion of the emperor
Julian (Cyril, p. 321. Wetst.) rv your
*Incovv ote MavAos érdAunoer eimeiy Ocdy,
ovTe Matéatos oiire Mapkos, aA’ 6 xpyno-
Tos Iwdvyns. The next is in the punctua-
tion of two cursive MSS. of the twelfth
century (5 and 47), which place a period
after cdpxa, thus insulating 6 dy em may-
Tov....aunv,and regarding it as a dox-
ology to God over all, blessed for ever.
This is followed by Erasm., Wetst., Sem-
ler, Reiche, K6lIner, Meyer, Fritzsche,
Krehl, al. The objections to this rendering
are, (1) ingenuously suggested by Socinus
himself (Thol.), and never yet obviated,—
that without one exception in Hebrew or
Greek, wherever an ascription of blessing
is found, the predicate evAoyhros (73)
precedes the name of God. (In the one
place, Ps. Ixvii. 19 LXX, kvdp. 6 6. evAoyn-
Tés, evAoynTds Kup. Tmepay Kab” jucpar,
which seems to be an exception, the first
eva. has no corresponding word in the Heb.
and appears to be interpolated. So Stuart,
and even Eichhorn, Einleit. ins A. T. p.
820. In Yates’s vindication of Unitarian-
ism, p. 180, this is the only instance cited.
Such cases as 8 Kings x. 9; 2 Chron. ix.8;
Job i. 21; Ps. exii. 2, are no exceptions, as
in all of them the verb ¢% or yévorro is
expressed, requiring the substantive to
follow it closely.) And this collocation of
words depends, not upon the mere aim at
perspicuity of arrangement (Yates, p. 180),
but upon the circumstance that the stress
is, in a peculiar manner, in such ascriptions
of praise, on the predicate which is used in
a pregnant sense, the copula being omitted.
IPOS PQMAIOYS.
405
> mae ©. ie Oe a? , € , ~ ~ ,
ovy * oloy O& Ort “ExmémTwKEV O ” NOyoe rou "Qeov' ov * bee oly:
6, § 62. 6.
b Acts
(2) That the év, on this rendering, would
be superfluous altogether (see below). (8)
That the doxology would be unmeaning
and frigid in the extreme. It is not the
habit of the Apostle to break out into irre-
levant ascriptions of praise; and certainly
there is here nothing in the immediate
context requiring one. If it be said that
the survey of all these privileges bestowed
on his people prompts the doxology,—
surely such a view is most unnatural: for
the sad subject of the Apostle’s sympathy,
to which he immediately recurs again, is
the apparent inanity of all these privileges
in the exclusion from life of those who
were dignified with them. If it be said
that the incarnation of Christ is the ex-
citing cause, the 7d kat& capkd comes in
most strangely, depreciating, as it would
on that supposition, the greatness of the
event, which then becomes a source of so
lofty a thanksgiving. (4) That the ex-
pression evAoyn7bs eis Tovs ai@vas is
twice besides used by Paul, and each time
unquestionably not in an ascription of
praise, but in an assertion regarding the
subject of the sentence. The places are,
ch. i. 25, €Adtpevoay TH KTioer mapa
Toy Krloavta, bs eat evAOYyNTdS Eis TOUS
aiavas. dufv,—and 2 Cor. xi. 31, 6 debs
kK. wathp 7. Kup. "Inaod oidev, 6 dv evdo-
yntos eis Tos ai@vas, bts ov Wevdouar:
whereas he twice uses the phrase evAoynTds
6 @eds as an ascription of praise, without
joining eis tods ai@vas. (5) That in the
latter of the above-cited passages (2 Cor.
xi. 31), not only the same phrase as here,
but the same construction, 6 éy, occurs,
and that there the whole refers to the sub-
ject of the sentence. I do not reckon
among the objections the want of any con-
trast to 7d Kata odpxa, because that might
have well been left to the readers to supply.
Another mode of punctuation has been
suggested (Locke, Clarke, al.), and indeed
is found in one MS. of the same date as
above (71): to set a period after mdvtwy
and refer 6 @y éml ravtwy to Christ, under-
standing by mdytwy all the preceding glo-
rious things, or the marépes only, or even
‘all things.’ This lies open to all the
above objections except (5), and to this in
addition, that as Bp. Middleton observes,
we must in that case read 6 6eds. Va-
riety of reading there is none worth notice :
the very fathers generally cited as omit-
ting eds, having it in the best MSS. and edi-
tions. Crell (not Schlichting, see Thol.
406
¢ John viii. 33,
37. (Actsiil.
25. vii, 6, 6.) ©
ch. xi. J}.
2 Cor. xi. 22.
Gal. iii. 24.
4am + 16. -
sa. xli. 8. n ee
dGey.xxi.12, OAPKOC, TauTa
= Isa. xIviii. 2?
, , /
OQnoeray cor oméopua.
1,
e Acts xix. 4
refi.
fch. viii. 16
reff. wee EPS 8 EC rg
g Gal. iv. 28 Kat toTal TY appa vioc.
only. eC t
h ch. ii. 26 (reff.}. iv. 3, &c. viii. 36. Acts xix. 27. Wisd. ix. 6.
1, xix. 23. j see John xiv. 23.
IIPOX PQMAIOY 2.
‘ete oméoua.
Xx:
’ : ’
yao mavrec ol €& Icoand, ovrot IooanX* 7 ove Ort Etow
omzopa © APoaanu, mavrec rékva, add’ "Ev "loaak
e Ae of b) ‘ , ~
TOUT EeEgTLY, OU TA TEKVA TIC
fe =f ma, \ N / -
réxva tou Qsov, adAa ta *tékva HE
emayyeAlac B Aoyilerau :
9 exayyeXtac yao
e 7, = i SS ‘ i ‘ j - i. ,
O Aoyog ouroc, ‘Kata tov ‘katooy | tovroy eXsvoomat
10% oy povoy 8é, adda Kal
i GEN. xviii. 10 (see note). see Acts xii.
k ch. v. 3, 11. viii. 23. 2 Cor. viii. i¥.
6. for 2nd icpana, tcpandertat DF latt(not tol) Nys Chr-ms,(and Mtt’s mss.) (c-
comm Aug, Ambrst: txt ABKLN rel Orig, Ces Chr-ed Thdrt He Th] Augsepe Tich.
7. wak &.
8. aft Tour ect add ot: B\(sic: see table)X? m 116 Orig).
70. 114. 120.
9. omoD.
p- 484, note, edn. 1842) proposed (and is fol-
lowed by W histon, Whitby, and Taylor) to
transpose 6 év into dv 6;—but besides the
objection to the sense thus arising, ebAoyn-
zés would probably in that case (not neces-
sarily, as Bp. Middleton in loc.) have the
art.: not to mention that no conjecture
arising from doctrinal difficulty is ever to be
admittedin the face of the consensus of MSS.
and versions. The rendering given
above is then not only that most agreeable
to the usage of the Apostle, but the only
one admissible by the rules of grammar
and arrangement. It also admirably suits
the context: for, having enumerated the
historic advantages of the Jewish people,
he concludes by stating one which ranks
far higherthanall,—that from themsprung,
according to the flesh, He who is God over
all, blessed for ever. duny implies no op-
tative ascription of praise, but is the accus-
tomed ending of such solemn declarations
of the divine Majesty; compare ch. i. 25.
6—13.] God has not broken his
promise: for He chose from the first but
a portion of the’ seed of Abraham (6—9),
and again only one out of the two sons of
Rebecca (10—13). 6.| Not however
that (obx ofoy Se, drt = ov Totoy BE A€yo,
oiov 611. ..., ‘but Ido not mean such a
thing, as that ....,' or ‘ the matter how-
ever is not so, as that....’ De W. cites
from Athen. vi. p. 244, obx ofoy Badi¢er,
and from Phrynich. p. 332, obx ofov dpyl-
Couat, ina similar sense. The rendering,
‘it is not possible that, would require or-
dinarily oféy ve with an infinitive,—and
St. Paul is asserting, not the impossibility,
however true, of God’s word being broken,
but the fact, that it was not broken) the
word (i.e. the promise) of God has come
to nothing (see reff., so Lat., eacidit) ;
viz. by many, the majority of the nominal
Israel, missing the salvation which seemed
om tov F m 672.
to be their inheritance by promise. For
not all who are sprung from Israel (=
Jacob, according to Tholuck: but this does
not.seem necessary: Israel here as well as
below may mean the people, but here in
the popular sense, there in the divine idea),
(these) are Israel (veritably, and in the
sense of the promise). 7.) Nor,
because they are (physically) the seed of
Abraham, are all children (so as to in-
herit the promise), but (we read), ‘In Isaac
shall thy seed be called” (i.e. those only
shall be called truly and properly, for the
purposes of the covenant, thy seed, who
are descended from Isaac, not those from
Ishmael or any other son. Tfol. renders
kadeiv here by erywecten, ‘to raise up’) :
8.] that is (that amounts, when the facts
of the history are recollected, to saying)
not the children of the fiesh (begotten by
natural generation, compare John i. 13, and
Gal. iv. 29) they are the children of God;
but the children of the promise (begotten
not naturally, but by virtue of the divine
promise [Gal. iv. 23, 28], as Isaac) are
reckoned for seed. 9. | For this word
was (one) of promise (not, ‘ For this was
the word of promise,’ i.e. ovTos yap 6 A.
THs emayy. ‘The stress is on émayyeAlas :
the children of promise are reckoned for
seed: for this word, in fulfilment of which
Isaac was born, was a word of promise),
According to this time (7 np, ‘ when
the time (shall be) reviviscent,’—as De W.,
Thol., al.:—i. e. next year at this time.
The citation is a free one; the LXX has
eravacTpépwy jiw mpds oe kata Toy Kat-
poy todroy ets Spas, x. eter viv Sappa
i yerh cov. The change into érra tH
=dppa vids is probably made for the sake
of emphasis—the promise was to Sarah)
will I come, and Sarah shall have a
son. 10, 11.) And not only (so)
(i.e, not only have we an example of
ABDF
i KLNa
KAn- c dfg
klmn
ol7
71—12. HiPOS PQMAIOYS. 407
e , en , =
PeBéxka ef evog ‘koirny €xouvoa, “Laaak ov maroc |3,her {take
Papel
nuov, ie ides yao Pe eniayrces unoe Epacanre Tl a ‘yous
am v. 20.
upon " pavrov, t iva ) Kat ® exdoyny ? mpobeote Tay sae ix. 8
Yeou " wevy, ouK & Ep yw aXrX é rov *Kkadouvroc, "Seti
[2 22.5 se eg ‘ t , may ys ili. 20. v. 29.
eppéiOn auTy OTt O ueiCwy SovAsvaet TW PAmooant, James iii. 16
xxii. 8.
p Acts xxvii. 13 reff. q = Matt. xi, 25,
r =ch. viii. 30 reff. s = Heb. xi. 24.
viii. 33. Acts vii. 7, from Gen. xv. 14.
(Gen. i. 16.)
ll. for unde, n F latt.
(e Thi: txt ABN m Orig, Cyr Damasc.
our mss) (Syr) Chr: txt ABDFKLN rel latt syr goth arm Orig,
pen FB.
12. rec eppnén, with B?D?L rel Orig Chr :
om aut D! harl' D-lat Orig, Ambrst Bede.
the election of a son of Abraham by one
woman, and the rejection of a son by an-
other, but also of election and rejection of
the children of the same woman, Rebecca,
and that before they were born. ob jdvov
d€ introduces an @ fortiori consideration.
In the construction supply TodTo only),
but also Rebecca having conceived (see
ref. Num. and ch. xiii. 13, where the mean-
ing is not exactly the same though cognate)
by one man (in the former case, the chil-
dren were by two wives ; the difference be-
tween that case and this being, that there,
was diversity of parents, here, identity.
The points of contrast being then this di-
versity and identity, the identity of the
Sather also is brought into view. This is
well put by Chrys.: 7% yap ‘PeBéxra ral
povn TG 7loade yéyove yuvh, Kal dvo
Tekovoa Taidas, €x Tov IoadK erekey dp-
porépous’ GAA’ Suws of TexXOEvTES TOU avTod
TATpYS BYTES, THS AVTIS MNTPOS, TAS aUTaS
AvoayTes wdivas, Kal duowatpion bytes Kab
OmounTpiot, Kal mpds TovTOLS Kal Sidvuo., ov
TOY avTay anhdavoav. Hom. xvi. p.610),
our father Isaac (tT. mar. ju., probably
said without any special. reference, the
Apostle speaking as a Jew. If with any
design it might be, as Thol. remarks, to
shew that even among the Patriarchs’
children such distinction took place.
Christians being tékva émayyeAtas, the
expression might apply to them: but, as
the same Commentator observes, the ar-
gument here is to shew that not all the
children of promise belonged to the é-
Aoyh. See ch. iv. 1—12. As to the
construction here, it is best to regard
G@AAG Kal... €xouca... ay as a sen-
tence begun but intercepted by the remark
following, and resumed in another form
at ep). avry),—for (not answering to
‘furnishes us an example’ supplied after
éxovca, but elliptically put, answering to
the apprehension in the Apostle’s mind of
o Acts ix. 15. ch. xi. 5, 7, 28.
1 Cor. iii. 14. 2 Cor. ix. 9.
Gen. X. 21. xxix. 16.
only. Prov.
cal -l0onlyt. Isa. 2xii. 7 Aq.
1 Pet. i. 23, 25, from Isa. x1. 8.
t = John
Heb. vii. 7) only. 1. c.
1 Thess. i. 4.
GEN. XxvV. 23.
u = 1 Tim. v. 9 (Joho ii. 10.
rec kaxov (more usual word), with DF KL rel Chr Thdrt
rec Tov Qeov bef mpo8eors, with (none of
Chr-mss? Thdrt.
txt AB'D'FKN bd fh kno Thdrt.
pergoy Ri.
the force of the example which he is about
to adduce. For this use of yap see ois
iv. 44, note; Herod. i. 8, Téyn, ov yap .
30, tetve "a8. Tap jmeas yap . aay
i. 72,*Tav be °AO. Ervxe aan store hse
other examples in Hartung, Partikellehre,
i. 467) without their having been yet
born (the subject, the children, is to be
supplied partly from the fact of her preg-
nancy just stated, partly from the history,
well known to the readers. bh instead
of ov is frequently used by later Greek
writers in participial clauses: Winer, edn.
6, § 55. 5; so Acts ix.9, qv... uh BAémov
k. ovK €payey..., and Luke xiii. 11, uh
duvauéyvn avandia. See Schifer, Demosth.
iii. 395, and Hartung, ii. 130—132) or
having done any thing good or ill (aia.
an unusual word with Paul = properly
amwdovv, pddiov, evteAés, as Timeus in
Lex. to Plato, with whom it is a very
common word in this sense. Ruhnken,
on the word in Timeus, gives from the
Lex. Rhetor. MS., 7d @. onmatver déxa-
eml Te mposmmov kal mpdyuatos 7d Kady.
TO pikpov, Kk. TO evKaTappbynToV, K. TO
aoGeves. K. TO RO0EOV. K. TO GVONTOY, K.T.A.
This will shew the connexion of the strict
and the wider meaning), that the pur-
pose of God according to (purposed in
pursuance of, or in accordance with, or
| Thol.] with reference to His) election
(Thol. prefers taking kar eA. adjec-
tively, as Bengel bas rendered it, ‘pro-
positum electivum, and as in Polyb. vi.
34. 8, cis Exdorns avip AauBaverat kat?
exdoyny, ‘electively’) may (not might ;
the purpose is treated as one in all time,
* which would be nullitied if once thwarted)
abide (stand firm; the opposite of éxmim-
Tew, see reff. 1 Pet., Isa.),—not of works
(ch. iii. 20; iv. 2) but of Him that
calleth,—(this clause does not seem to
depend on any one word of the foregoing
or following, as on épp¢@n, Calv., Luth. ;
408
v MAL. i. 25 8. 13
w ch. ili. B ref.
x Luke xiii. 27.
ch. i. 29 al. éulonoa.
Pele, | gin oN 7
h. ii. 1). Evo 0.
-f Penge »p- hy) y (T
318. 15.
z ch. iii. 4 reff.
a Matt. ix. 27
al. Exon.
XXXII. 19.
Ab.
Kal OLKTELONTW oF av
eee v. 18 reff.
13. for ka8ws, xaSamep B Orig.
14. om tw D'F.
15. rec yap bef wwon, with AKL rel Chr Thdrt al:
FKLN abfhk1: txt ABD.— -ce: B?F ¢ d g Chr-2
TIIPOS PQMAIOY®S.
°ry Mung yao eye *
OéXovtoe ovee TOV “ rpéxovroc, ada tov
= av (pres.) here bis. Jude 23 only. Prov. xxi. 26 vat. A(not F).
d= 1] Cor. ix. 24. Gal.v.7. Ps. cxviii, 32. gen., Acts i. 7.
1b.
kaDuc yéyearrat ‘Tov ‘Taco kl se tov 6& ‘Hoai
lf ee ouv Epoupey 5 en
* aduKla » mapa: Tw Dew 5
Edsiow 0 Ov av «Nea,
» olKTElpw. 16 ¢ apa © ovv ov Tov
“éXewvtoc Oeov.
bhere bis only. 4 Kings xiii. 23.
Heb. y. 14.
txt BDFS Damasc.
-mss: -on AB'DKLN& Thart.
H@vo.
16. rec eAcourTos, with B?K gr-ff (cvdoKovrros L rel): txt AB'DFR.
—or pévn, Riickert, Meyer ;—or kar’ ék-
Aoynhy, Fritz. ;—but to be a general cha-
racteristic of the whole transaction ; see a
similar éx in ch.i. 17. Thol., De W.
Thus viewed, or indeed however taken, it
is decisive against the Pelagianism of the
heen who by making our faith as
foreseen by God the cause of our election,
affirm it to be é épywy. See the matter
discussed in Thol.),—it was said to her
(érvis recitantis ; the LX X have kat), “ The
elder shall serve the younger” (this
prophecy is distinctly connected in Gen.
xxv. with the prophetic description of the
children “as two nations, — Aads Aaovd
bmepééer, kal 6 pel(wy x.7.A. But the
nations must be considered as spoken
of in their progenitors, and the elder
nation = that sprung from the elder bro-
ther. History records several subjugations
of Edom by the kings of Judah; first by
David (2 Sam. viii. 14) ;—under Joram
they rebelled (2 Kings viii. 20), but were
defeated by Amaziah (2 Kings xiv. 7), and
Elath taken from them by Uzziah (2 Kings
xiv. 22) ; under Ahaz they were again Boe,
and troubled Judah (2 Chron. xxviii. 16,
17, compare 2 Kings xvi. 6, 7),—and con-
tinued free, as prophesied in Gen. xxvii.
AO, till the time of John Hyrcanus, who
(Jos. Antt. xiii. 9. 1) reduced them finally,
so that thenceforward they were incorpo-
rated among the Jews): as it is written,
Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated (there is
no necessity here to soften the ‘ hated’
into ‘/oved less :’ the words in Malachi pro-
ceed on the fullest meaning of éutonaa, see
ver. 4 there, “The people against whom the
Lorp hath indignation for ever’’).
14—29.] This election was made by the
indubitable right of God, Who is not
therefore unjust. 14.| What then
shall we say (anticipation of a difficulty or
objection, see reff..—but not put into the
mouth of an objector)? Is there un-
righteousness (injustice) with (in) God
(viz. in that He chooses as He will, with-
out any reference to previous desert)? Let
it not be: 15.| for He saith to
Moses, ‘‘I will have mercy on whomso-
ever I have mercy, and will compas-
sionate whomsoever I compassionate.”
The citation is from the LXX, who in-
sert the indefinite oy, the Heb. being
2+ +. JT Ten ‘nim; the meaning ap-
parently being, ‘ whenever I have mer ey on
any, it shall be pure mercy, no human
desert contributing ;? which agrees better
with the next verse than the ordinary ren-
dering, which lays the stress on the dy ay ;
and is not inconsistent with ver. 18, dv
Oder, €Aea: because if God’s mercy be
pure mercy without any desert on man’s
part, it necessarily follows that he has
mercy on whom He will, His will being the
only assignable cause of the selection.
16.] So then (inference from the
citation) it is not of (God’s mercy ‘does
not belong to,—‘is not in the power of,’
see reff.) him that willeth (any man
willing it) nor of him that runneth (any
man contending for it, see reff. and Phil.
iii. 14. There hardly can be any allusion
to Abraham’s wish for Ishmael, Gen. xvii.
18, and Esau’s running to hunt for venison,
as Stuart, Burton, al.), but of God that
hath mercy. I must pause again here to
remind the student, that I purposely do not
enter on the disquisitions so abundant in
some commentaries on this part of Scrip-
ture, by which it is endeavoured to recon-
cile the sovereign election of God with our
free will. We shall find that free will
asserted strongly enough for all edifying
purposes by this Apostle, when the time
comes. At present, he is employed wholly
in asserting the divine Sovereignty, the
glorious vision of which it ill becomes us to
distract by continual downward looks on
this earth, I must also protest against all
ABDF
KLNab
edfgh
kilmn
o17
13—18.
MPO PQMAIOY:.
409
xii. 1 xv.
e ~ ,’ ~ .
7 Aéyet yap a) ypapn TW Dapaw ore fete 2 auto © Touro © sins) Mark
i :
herve 7 i? 5 ka ? \ ‘ Sy ' 2
enyerpa Of, OT WC evoctowudat Ev aol TYYV UVaLlv fou
28. John ii.
22and
passim. ch,
\ a k 8 Xn ‘ ” , , 7 ~ por aial
Kat OTWC tayyeAy TO OVONa pov EY Tao TY YU> ¢ Mark.’
18 < Gea
g Acts xxiv. 15 reff.
i and constr., 1 Tim. i. 16. (see ver. 22.) Exon. ix. 16.
Souv ov Gere **edeet, Ov Se Here | cKANOvVE.
h = here (1 Cor. vi. 14) only. Judg. v. 12.
Mark i. 38.
John xviii.
87. Acts ix.
21.
Ps. vii. 6 al.
k Luke ix. 60.
Jos. Antt. viii. 11.
Acts xxi. 26 only. 1. c.
1 Acts xix. 9. Heb. iii, 8, 13,18. iv.7 only. Exod. iv. 21 (7377). vii. 3 (TMZPI), al.
17. aft omws ins ay F.
18. In A, from ov de @. to 7 ovk exer Ver
endeavours to make it appear, that no
inference lies from this passage as to the
salvation of individuals. It is most true
(see remarks at the beginning of this
chapter) that the immediate subject is
the national rejection of the Jews : but we
must consent to hold our reason in abey-
ance, if we do not recognize the infer-
ence, that the sovereign power and free
election here proved to belong to God
extend to every exercise of His mercy —
whether temporal or spiritual—whether in
Providence or in Grace—whether national
or individual. It is in parts of Scripture
like this, that we must be especially careful
not to fall short of what is written: not to
allow of any compromise of the plain and
awful words of God’s Spirit, for the sake of
a caution which He Himself does not teach
us. 17.] The same great truth shewn
on its darker side :—not only as regards
God’s mercy, but His wrath also. For
(confirmation of the wniversal truth of the
last inference) the Scripture (identified
with God, its Author: the case, as Thol.
remarks, is different when merely something
contained in Scripture is introduced by
h yoap) Aéyer: there 7 yp. is merely per-
sonified. The justice of Thol.’s remark
will be apparent, if we reflect that this
expression could not be used of the mere
ordinary words of any man in the histo-
rical Scriptures, Ahab, or Hezekiah,—but
only where the text itself speaks, or where
God spoke, or, as here, some man under
inspiration of God) saith to Pharaoh, For
this very purpose (or: recitantis ; the LXX
have ka) évexev rovrov) raised I thee up
(LXX d:ernp7Ons, ‘ thou wert preserved to
this day :’ Heb. 7ayoV7 from 19, stetit,
in Hiph. stare fecit ; hence taken to sig-
nify (1) ‘constituit, muneri prefecit, as
1 Kings xii. 832; Isa. xxi. 6 [LXX ceavtd
otjoov oxémoy|; Esth. iv. 5,—(2) ‘con-
firmavit, as 1 Kings xv. 4 al.,—and (3)
‘prodire fecit, excitavit, Dan. xi. 11;
Neh. vi. 7: the meaning ‘ zncolumem pre-
stitit, given in the Lexicons, seems to be
grounded on the following of the LXX in
evdertouat EL ¢ |! Chr-ms.
. 21 is in a later hand.
diayyeder L fo.
* eXea DF. «
this passage, who apparently understood it
of Pharaoh being kept safe through the
plagues. This has been done by modern
interpreters to avoid the strong assertion
which the Apostle here gives, purposely
deviating from the LXX, that Pharaoh was
‘raised up,’ called into action in his office,
to be an example of God’s dealing with im-
penitent sinners. The word chosen by the
Apostle, efeyeipw, in its transitive sense, is
often used by the LXX for ‘to rouse into
action :’ see besides reff. Ps. lvi. 8; Ixxix.
2; Cant. iv. 16 al. So that the meaning
(3) given above forthe Heb. verb—‘ prodire
fecit, excitavit,’ was evidently that intended
by e&jyetpa), that I may shew in thee (‘in
thee as an example,’—‘in thy case,’—‘ by”
thee’) my power (tr. icxty mov LXX-
vat.: dvv. [which is read in F'.] is perhaps
chosen by the Apostle as more general,
ioxvs applying rather to those deeds of
miraculous power of which Egypt was then
witness), and that my Name may be pro-
claimed in all the earth (compare as a
comment, the words of the song of triumph,
Exod. xv. 14—16). 18.| Therefore
whom He will, He hath mercy on (ref. to
ver. 15, where see note), and whom He
will, He hardeneth. The frequent re-
currence of the expression oxAnpivew Thy
kapdtay in the history of Pharaoh should
have kept Commentators (Carpzov, Er-
nesti, al., and of Lexicographers, Wahl and
Bretschneider) from attempting to give to
skAnpvvw the sense of ‘treating hardly,
against which the next verse would be deci-
sive, if there were no other reason for re-
jecting it. But it is very doubtful whether
the word can ever bear the meaning. The
only passage which appears to justify it
(for in 2 Chron. x. 4 it clearly has the im-
port of hardening, making severe) is Job
xxxix. 16, where dmeokAjpuve Ta TEKVA
éavtjs, the LXX version of the Heb.
Mxz7, is supposed to mean, ‘treats her off-
spring hardly.’ But the LXX by this
compound seem to have intended, ‘casts off
her offspring in her hardness ;’ the E. V.
has, ‘She is hardened against her young
410 IIPOS POMAIOY2. IX.
ese 2 ne / s 4 t ‘ od ‘ ra) ,
ea ti 19 gpetc poe ovy ™ Ti [ov] Ere " peuperar; Tw yap Bovdn-
n Hebt viii, 8 eee Pe Be eee V2 20 5.” 4 B
Heb: viti- 8 wate avrou tic ° avOéornkev 5 w avlowme, “pevouvye
rec.) only t. N ’ aya ee: ’ ’ a -. Reta Kc. 4.
Sixi.7. GU TIC El O "avratokpwopevoc tw Fem; pn EE TO
2 Macc. ii , ~ +t , , ’ , & xn
a Race 7 aA ayn T) mAdaocavtt Ti we exoinoacg ovrwc; 215
o Acts xxvii.
43. 1 Pet.iv.3onlyt. 2 Mace. xv. 5 only. p Acts vi. 10 reff.
r Luke xiv. 6 only. Judg. v. 29 F. bis. Job xvi. 9. xxxii. 12 only.
xxix. 16. t1 Tim. ii.13 only, Gen. ii. 7, 8.
qch. x. 18 (Luke xi. 28 v.r.) only.
shere only. Job xl.14(19). Isa.
19. rec ovy bef wor, with DF KL latt Origg Chr Thdrt : om ovy 73. 118 arm: txt ABR
m syr goth Orig). rec om 2nd ovy, with AKLN rel vulg Orig, Chr Thdrt Aug:
ins BDF Jer Ruf Sedul. elz om ‘yap, with (none of our mss) G-lat: ins ABDFKLN
rel Orig Ath Chr Thdrt Thdor-mops Damasc Aug.
20. rec wevourye bef w avOp. (to suit the arrangement in other places : see reff Luke
and Rom. Had the pevovvye been transposed in A &e. to avoid placing it first in the
sentence [see Phryn Lobeck, p. 342], the same various reading would have occurred in
the other places, which it does not), with D'KLX3 rel syrr copt Orig Chr Thdor-mops
Thdrt Ee Thl: om pevovvye D'F latt eth Jer Ruf: txt A(B)8! m Chr-ms, Damase.—
om ye B.
ones.’ Whatever difficulty there lies in
this assertion, that God hardeneth whom
He will, lies also in the daily course of His
Providence, in which we see this hardening
process going on in the case of the pros-
perous ungodly man. The fact is patent,
whether declared by revelation or read in
history: but to the solution of it, and its
reconciliation with the equally certain fact
of human responsibility, we shall never
attain in this imperfect state, however we
may strive to do so by subtle refinements
and distinctions. The following is the ad-
mirable advice of Augustine (ad Sixtum,
Ep. exciv. 6. 23, vol. ii. p. 882), from
whom in this case it comes with double
weight: “Satis sit interim Christiano ex
fide adhue viventi, et nondum cernenti
qtfod perfectum est, sed ex parte scienti,
nosse vel credere quod neminem Deus libe-
ret nisi gratuité misericordid per Dominum
nostrum Jesum Christum, et neminem
damnet nisi zquissimaé veritate per eundem
Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum. Cur
autem illum potius quam illum Bberet aut
non liberet, scrutetur qui potest judiciorum
ejus tam magnum profundum,—verum-
tamen caveat precipitium.” 19.] Thou
wilt say then to me (there seems no reason
to suppose the objector a Jew, as Thol. after
Grot., Calov., Koppe, al. :—the objection is
a general one, applying to all mankind, and
likely to arise in the mind of any reader.
The expression @ &Opwre seems to confirm
this), Why then doth He yet find fault (¢7:
as ch. iil. 7, assuming your premises,—‘ 7f
this be so:’ .at the same time it expresses
a certain irritation on the: part of the
objector: ‘exprimit morosum fremitum,’
Bengel. jéupoua: has a stronger sense
than mere blame here: Hesych. interprets
ib airiarat, ckovdevel, kaTaywaoker: see the
for eroinoas, ewAaoas D Syr Thi-marg.
apocryphal reff. Thol.)? For who resists
(not, ‘hath resisted:’ dyvdéortnKev, like
eoTnkev, is present, see Winer, edn. 6, § 40.
4. b, and compare éepéornxev, 2 Tim. iv. 6)
His will (i. e. if it be His will to harden the
sinner, and the sinner goes on in his sin, he
does not resist but goes with the will of
God)? Yea rather (mevovvye, see reff.,
takes the ground from under the previous
assertion and supersedes it by another : im-
plying that it*has a certain show of truth,
but that the proper view of the matter is
yet to be stated. It thus conveys, as in
ref. Luke, an intimation of rebuke; here,
with severity: ‘ that which thou hast said,
may be correct human reasoning—but as
against God’s sovereignty, thy reasoning is
out of place and irrelevant’), 0 man (per-
haps without emphasis implying the con-
trast between man and God,—for this is
done by the emphatic ov following, and we
have &y@pw7re unemphatic in ch. ii. 1), who
art THOU that repliest against (the ayri
seems to imply contradiction, not merely
dialogue: see besides refi., avramdéxpicw,
Job xiii. 22, vat.) Gop }—implying, ‘ thou
hast neither right nor power, to call God to
account in this manner.’ Notice, that
the answer to the objector’s question does
not lie in these vv. 20, 21, but in the follow-
ing (see there) ;—the present verses are a
rebuke administered to the spirit of the
objection, which forgets the immeasurable
distance between us and God, and the re-
lation of Creator and Disposer in which He
stands to us. So Chrys.,—kat obd€ thy
Avow ev0ews emayet, Tuu¢epdyvTws Kal TOUTO
mol@y' GAN emirtoulCer mp@toy toy (y-
TovvTa, A€ywy obTw pevovvye. . . . GED;
mote O€ TOUTO, Thy &Katpov av’Tod Tept-
epylay avarréAAwy, Kk. THY TWOAAIY ToAV-
mpaynocuvny, K. Xadwoy mepiTiBels, Ke
ABDF
KLNab
edfgh
kimna
o17
19—25.
> 7 u? , € Vv ‘ - w ~ > -
ovk Eye “sfovslav o * Kepauevge TOU mnAov, &K TOU
, ~ / - a \ > a ~
avtov *gupaunatog momoa Yo pev * ec tyunv * oKEvoc,
b? , - De ce? \ , e ‘ d? rs
atiiav; 7° a d& OéXwv Oo Dede ° Evdsi&a-
‘ > ‘ \ e U ‘ f ‘ 3 -
ofae tiv Opynv Kat * yvwoicae ro * duvatov avrov
re \ ?
YO oO: “ELC
, ~ |
® VEyKev ev ToAAY * pax poOupia
’ vey , 9:
Tispéva ic aTwAuav, 23
- , ? ree (IEN 38 , ~~, a !
tne ° d0&ne avrov Ext ‘akevn ? eAgouc, a * roOHTOMmaTEV
y 1 Cor. xi, 21 reff. Z=ch-.i.1, 5 al, fr.
b ch. i. 26 reff e Acts xxiii .
vi. 10, 11. see ver.17. PH. Gen. 1. 15, 17.
constr., ch. i. 19, 20. viii. 3.
Xen. Cyr. ii. 2. Y. h ch. ii. 4 reff.
k = Heb. x. 5 (from Ps, xxxix. 6). xi. 3.
Jer. xxvi. (xi vi.) 21.
i. 18. iii. 16. (Phil. iv. 1.) Col. i. 27.
q Eph. ii. 10 only, Isa. xxviii. 24.
22. om ynveycey F D!-lat Julian.
IIPOS POMAIOY2.
i , , -
OKEUY ooyne
\ me e
Kal tva
(Matt. iv. 21.)
m constr., see Winer, edn. 6, § 63, I.
*
Wisd. ix. 8 only.
411
u and constr.,
1 Cor. ix. 12
refit.
v Matt. xxvii.
(-pxrkos,
Rev. ii. 27.)
w Johnix. 6,
&c. (5 times)
only. Gen.
xi. 3.
x ch. xi. 16.
1 Cor. yv. 6, 7.
Gal.v. 9 only.
Exod. xii. 34.
a=2Tim. ii. 20,21. Heb.ix. 21 al. Exod iii. 22.
dconstr., ch. 1.15. Eph.ii.7. Tit. ii, 10. iil, 2. Heb.
e 1 Cor. xii. 3 rett. f = here only.
xs
KaTnp-
, SN ~
yYvwpton TOV ie wAourov
g = Heb. xii. 20 only. (see Heb. xiii. 13) Pépecv Te TeGas,
isee ver. 21. Jer. xxvii. (1.) 25. constr., Acts ix. 16.
1 = Acts viii. 20 reff. John xvii. 12.
n ch. ii. 4 reff. o Eph.
in
p Luke i. 50, &c. Eph. ii. 4. Exod. xx. 6.
ins evs bef cxevn F Julian Ambrst.
23. om Ist ca: B m 39. 47-marg 67%. 80. 116 vulg copt goth arm (Orig) Jer Ruf
Pelag Sedul Fulg.
madedov eidevar Th pev Oeds TL Se &vOpw-
TOS, K. TOS GKATAANTTOS avTOD 7 mpéd-
voi, K. T@S UmepBalvovca Toy 7jméTEpoy
Aoyicudy, kK. TOS Amavta a’Te welOcoOat
det? fva Stay TovTO KaTacKevdon Tapa
TG akpoaTh, K. KaTaoTelAn K. edvn THY
yveunv, TOTE META TOAATS EVKOALaS eT
dywv Thy AVow, evTapddekToy aVTS Toney
7d Aeyduevov. Hom. xvij. 614. Simi-
larly Calvin: ‘Hac priori responsione
nihil aliud quam improbitatem illius blas-
phemie retundit, argumento ab hominis
conditione sumpto. Alteram mox subjiciet,
qua Dei justitiam ab omni criminatione
vindicabit.’ Shall the thing made (pro-
perly of a production of plastic art, moulded
of clay or wax) say to him who moulded it,
‘¢Why madest thou me thus?” These
words are slightly altered from Isa. xxix.
16 LXX,—py épe? 1b TAdopa TH TAG-
cavtt avtd, ov ov pe emAacas; 7) Td
Tolnua TS ToinoavTt, ov TuveTas we Erol-
Noas ; Or (introduces a new objection,
or fresh ground of rebuke, see ch. ii. 4;
iii. 29; vi. 3; xi. 2) hath not the potter
power over the clay (the similitude from
ref. Isa. In Sir. xxxvi. [xxxiii.] 13, we
have a very similar sentiment: @s mnAds
Kepamews ev Xetpl adTod.... odTws GvOpw-
mot ev xelp) Tov ToroayTos avTovs. And
even more strikingly so, Wisd. xv. 7: Kal
yap Kepaped’s amadiy yiv OAlBwy ént-
poxOuv wAdcoe mpos brypeciav judy [ev |
ExagTov, GAN eK TOD avTOU THAOD aveTAG~
gato Ta TE TOY Kabapav Epywy SdovdAz.
oKke’n Ta TE evaytTla Taye’ Smotws* ToUTwY
5é Exatépov tis Exdatov éotly 7 xpiots,
kpiths 6 mndoupyds. See also Jer. xviii.
6), from the same mass to make one
vessel unto honour (honourable uses)
and another unto dishonour (dishonour-
for Toy mAovtoy, To mAouTOs EF.
able uses. See ref.2 Tim. The honour
and dishonour are not here the moral
purity or impurity of the human vessels,
but their ultimate glorification or per-
dition. The Apostle in asking this ques-
tion, rather aims at striking dumb the
objector by a statement of God’s undoubted
right, against which it does not become us
men to murmur, than at unfolding to us
the actual state of the case. This he does
in the succeeding verses; see above, from
Chrys. and Calv.) ? 22.) But what
if (by the elliptical ei 5é the answer to the
question of the objector, ver. 19, seems to be
introduced; éay ody occurs in a similar
connexion John vi. 62; and add eZ, Soph.
(id. Col. 590,—aAdA «i QédovTds y ovdeE
col duye kadév ; See Hartung, Partikel-
lehre, ii. 212.6) (1) God, purposing to
shew forth His wrath, and to make known
His power (that which He could do), en-
dured with much long-suffering vessels
of wrath fitted for destruction; and
(what if this took place) (2) that He
might make known the riches of His
glory on (not fo, as De Wette, who joins
it with yvwpion,—but ‘toward, on, ¢ with
regard to,’ dependent on 7AovTov, as TAou-
Tay cis, ch. x. 12) the vessels of mercy,
which He before made ready for glory ?
I have given the whole, that my view of
the construction might be evident: viz.
that (1) and (2) are parallel clauses, both
dependent on ef 6€; @éAwy giving the pur-
pose of the ist, and iva yy. that of the
2nd. They might be cast into one form by
writing the Ist 6 6., tva *€vSetEnra ... K.
yvwpion,—or the 2nd, rat 0éAwy yrwpioa.
Only I do not, as Calv., Beza, Grot., Ben-
gel, De Wette, Meyer, and Winer, under-
stand the same jveyxey ... GTHA., as be-
;
412
5 = Mark i. 2.
Heb. iv.7.
see ch, Xi.
t Hoswa ii.
c * ddbav; 4
vat.
a Hos, i. 10. nyamnpevny
ie a ~
‘TYPOS PQOQMAIOY®S.
ray A Pare. a. ¥
ove Kal-ekaXecev nuac ov
"Tovdalwy, adda kat & vav, we Kat *
EX,
eG
ev TW ‘Qone
,
Hovov
23 Aete KaXéow Tov ov Aaov pov | adv jL0u, Kal my OvK
nyamnuevny"
gx"
Kat tora ev TW TOTW
ov eppéOn aproic Ov Aadc pov vuElc, eKEL ua Sieon-
25. om ey Bs *
26. for ob, w N'(txt N-corr! ?).
dfhkl?n17 Thdrt Thi.
rec eppn9n, with B?D°L rel Gc: txt AB'D'KN
for epp. avt., av. KAnOnoovra F Ck Jat Ambrst) : in
loco liberata (sppuodn ?) én quo vocabatur Iren-int.
longing to both, but only to the ist, and
supply before the 2nd, ‘ What if this took
place,’ viz. this dy 6éAe1, eAce?. Other con-
structions have been,—to make tva depend
on karnpticneva—‘ prepared to destruc-
tion for this very purpose, that ke. So
Fritz. and Riickert, ed. 2: but this seems
to overlook kal, or to regard it as = ral
tovro :—to take ver: 23 as a new sentence,
supplying éxdAeoev Huas, as Tholuck!
Stuart supplies @éAwy before iva yv., and
HrAenoev before ods exdrdeoev jucs. This
in fact amounts to nearly the same as my
own view, but appears objectionable, ed
much as it joins ver. 24 to ver. 23:
below. The argument is, ‘ What if God,
in the case of the vessels of wrath prepared
for destruction, has, in willing to manifest
His power and wrath, also exhibited towards
them long-suffering (to lead them torepent-
ance, ch. ii. 4, —a nystery which we cannot
fathom), and in having mercy on the ves-
sels of merey prepared for glory, has also
made manifest the riches of His glory ?’
Then in both these dispensations will ap-
pear, not the arbitrary power, but the rich
goodness of God. The theological diffi-
culties in katnpricuméeva and mpoinroluacev
(in both cases God is the agent; not they
themselves, as Chrys., Theophyl., Olsh.
Bengel, however, rightly remarks, “non
dicit quae mpoxathpTice, cum tamen ver. seq.
dicat ‘ quee*preeparavit.? Cf. Matt. xxv. 34
cum ver. 41, et Act. xiii. 46 cum ver. 48’)
are but such as have occurred repeatedly
before, and, as Stuart has well observed, are
inherent, not in the Apostle’s argument,
nor even in revelation, but in any consistent
belief of an omnipotent and omniscient
God. See remarks on ver. 18. oxen
épyiis and okevn eA€ovs are vessels prepared
to subserve, as it were to hold, His apynh
and éAcos: hardly, as Calvin, instruments
to shew forth : that is done, over and above
their being oxevn, but is not necessary to
it. Theor. opy.and ox. €A. are not to be,
with a view to evade the general applica-
tion, confined to the instances of Pharaoh
and the Jews: these instances give occasion
to the argument, but the argument itself
» is general, extending to all the dealings of
God. 24. | Of which kind (quales,
agreeing with juds—i.e. oxedn €A€ovs)
He also called us, not only from among
the Jews, but also from among the Gen-
tiles. »It being entirely in the power of
God to preordain and have mercy on
whom He will, He has exercised this
right by calling not only the remnant of
His own people, but a people from among
the Gentiles also. 25, 26.] It is diffi-
cult to ascertain in what sense the Apostle
cites these two passages from Hosea as
applicable to the Gentiles being called to
be the people of God. That he does so, is
manifest from the words themselves, and
from the transition to the Jews in ver. 27.
In the prophet they are.spoken of Jsrael ;
see ch. 1. 6—11, end ch. ii, throughout :
who after being rejected and put away, was
to be again received into favour by God.
Two ways are open, by which their citation
by the Apostle may be understood. Hither
(1) he brings them forward to shew that it
is consonant with what we know of God’s
dealings, to receive as His people those
who were formerly not His people—that
this may now take place with regard to the
Gentiles, as it was announced to happen
with regard to Israel,—and even more,—
that Israel in this as in so many other
things was the prophetic mirror in which
God foreshewed on a small scale His future
dealings with mankind,—or (2) he aéduces
them from mere applicability to the sunject
in hand, implying, ‘It has been with us
Gentiles, as with Israel in the prophet
Hosea.’ I own I much prefer the former
of these, as more consonant with the dignity
of the argument, and as apparently justified
by the «af,—as He saith also in Hosea,
implying perhaps that the matter in hand
was not that directly prophesied in the
citation, but one analogous to it. Chrys.
takes the same view: ef yap em tay
ayvwmovnodyvTwy mera ToAAaS evepyectas,
kal GAAoTpiwhévTwy, Kal Td Aads elvat
aroAwAeKdTwY, TooalTn ‘yéeyovey 7) METO-
TA.
~
24—30.
ee" ~ ~
Tat vtot Osou Zwvroc.
TOU ‘Iooand * "Tap 1 0 aowbnoc TwWY viwY "IooanX
€ © yz 4 -
we aupoc THC
28 ? ‘ b: A ~ Bevecd ! > @ 8 , A
“ Aoyov yao DUVTEAWYV Kat GUVTEMVWY [ev tKQLOOUY))
o , d D , , > \ = Y Pete
OTL Aoyov cuvretpnuevor | TOUIOEL KUOLOC barca heey pf IS yue¢
29
h? , 4 et 7 c >o8 * > nO
eyKarédurev YLY omTEOMAa, WC —OO0OMAa aV eyevn) HSV Kal b
(3 , 348 wn tare ,
WC Pouoppa av wuowwOyper,
ii.17, Jer. vi. 11. Isa, xxviii. 22. _
iii. 2. Jude 17 +t. gisa.i. 9.
elsw. Mt. Mk. L. only. Ps, xxvii. 1.
IPOS PQMAIOYY.
413
v Jobn i. 15 al
97 ¢ 2D ; , .
7 “Hoatae 8: * Koaler * umép Voile ay,
vii. 4. Phil,
157s
x Isa. x, 22,
, Ss are? , et
Yfaraconc, ro *vToheppa owlnaerat. 23, xii.18.
xx. 8only.
Gen, XXXil.
12. see Heb.
xi. 12.
* Zas above(y).
Matt. vii. 26.
\ fh , .
Kal Ka0we " roostonkey ‘Hoatac 2 Ec ta) KUQLOC caPawl a here ouly.
Mic. v.7%, 8
al
c
onstr. part ,
sd Be Si. = ye ed ch. v. 3, 11.
€ OUY EOOUMEVY , OTL c Acts xxi 27
2 reff. = Lam.
d here only. 1. ¢. e Acts xVii. 31 reff. f— 2 Pet.
h 2 Cor. iv. 9 reff. i = Acts xiv. 11. Heb. ii. 17.
k ch, iii. 5 reff,
27. rec kataAciupua (corrn to Lxx, where-no MS has vroa.), with DEKL X-corr!
rel Thdrt: eykataAempa Chr: vrokatavempa 47: txt ABR! Eus,.
~ 28. 6m ev dikaocuvn ott Aoyov cuvteTunuevoy (by mistake from similarity of ovv-
Tenvev and auyteTunuevov ?) ABN! Syr copt Eus Damas¢ Aug, (eth has the ver thus :
quia consummatum et precisum verbum enarret Deus in munda: om ovyted, to Aoyov
Thdrt) : ins DFKLN3 rel latt syr goth Hus, Chr Gc Thl Jer Ambrst Bede.
29. eyxaredeumey ADIFKL.
Bodh, th exddAve kal Tovs ov meTa THY
oikelwow GAAoTpiWbéyTas, GAN’ e& apxiis
GdAotplouvs bvtas, KANORvat, K. bmaKov-
cavtas Tov avTay aitwOjvar; Hom. xvii.
618. The fem. tv is used because the
Jewish people was typified by the daughter
of the prophet, Hos. i. 6, who was called
Lo-ruhamah, ‘ not having obtained merey.’
The sense, not the words of the LXX, is
quoted. By ev TG Tégyp.... . exe? must
not I think be understood, in any particular
place, as Judea, nor among any peculiar
people, as the Christian Church: but as a
general assertion, that in every place where
they were called ‘not His people,’ there
they, shall be called ‘ His people.’
27.| A proof from Scripture of the fact,
that a part of Tsrael are excluded.. Here
again the analogy of God’s dealings, in the
partial deliverance of Israel from captivity, ;
and their great final deliverance from death
eternal, is the key to the interpretation of
the prophecy cited. The words are spoken
by, Isaiah of the return from captivity of a
remnant of Israel. 28.] The refer-
ence of this latter part of the citation is not
very plain. It is almost verbatim from the
LXX, the ydp being inserted by the Apostle
as continuing the testimony, = ‘for the
prophet proceeds, —and the LXX having
Katdévewsma for brdAciuua (see digest), and
ev TH oikouméevn GAn for em THs yas. The
literal rendering of the Heb. is, “‘ The con-
summation (or consumption) decided, over-
floweth with righteousness : for a decision
(or consumption) and a decree shall the
Lord Jehovah of Sabaoth make in the midst
of all the land.” As it stands in the LXX,
onow)nnwey AFL. $
the meaning seems to be, the Lord will
complete and soon fulfil His word in right-
eousness (viz. his denunciation of consum-
ing the, Assyrian and liberating the rem-
nant of His people) : for the Lord will
make a rapid I accomplished word in the
midst of all the land. ~The E. V., Calv.,
and. others, rénder Adyov, ‘ work,’ a signifi-
cation which it never has. If the above
‘interpretation be correct, and the view
which I have taken of the analogy of pro-
pheey, it will follow that this verse is ad-
duced by the Apostle as confirming the
certainty of the salvation of the remnant
of Israel, seeing that now, as then, He
with whom a thousand years are as a day,
will swiftly accomplish His prophetic word
in righteousness. 29.] Another proof
of a remnant to be saved, from a preceding
part of the same prophecy. (Such seems
to be the sense of mpoefp. here,—and so
Beza, Calv., Grot., al.; De W., Thol., al.,
prefer ‘ prophesied ;’ but surely there is no
necessity for affixing an unusual sense to
the word, where the ordinary one [see all
the reff. ] suits much better.) “‘éporodc@ar
@s isa construction in which two ideas, ‘ to
become as,’ and ‘to become like to,’ are
mingled, as in Heb. > 5yin9, Ps. xlix. 13,
21; compare Mark iv. 30.” Tholuck. On
‘ Jehovah Sabaoth,’ Bengel remarks, “ Pro
Hebraico nxaz in libro 1 Sam. et Jesaia
caBaéé ponitur; in reliquis libris omnibus
mavtoxpdtwp.” (This is not strictly the
case: duvduewv is found in several places:
and oa8aé0 occurs in Zech. xiii. 2 BN.)
The citation is verbatim from the
LXX, who have put omepua for the Heb.
414 ITPOX PQMAIOYS. IX.
1=ch. xii. 13. ¥, So
xiy.19. Phil. EOvn Ta wy
7
ourny,
,
™ SwoKovra
Xxvii. 8.
m1 Tim. vi. 11.
2 Tim. ii. 22.
6. Gal. iii. 8.
ap ied
tKGLOGUYNY,
8 ) é TH
ie aR O& TYHV
n= 1 Cor. ix. 24, Phil. iii. 12. Exod. xv.9. Deut. xxviii. 45.
p = Phil. iii. 16. Dan. xii. }2 Theod.
” KaTeAr aBev otKato-
31 "Topanr ce
roe tse / .
EK Ld alist
Swwxwy vopov Oicatocvvyc, ? se VOMOV OUK P' Eg Pacer.
o=ch. x.-
q as above (p). 1 Thess. iv.5. w. axe,
2 Cor. x. 14. w. émi, Matt. xii. 28|)L. 1 Thess. ii. 16 only. Eccl. viii. 14. Dan. iv. 25 (28) Theod.
81. ree aft 2nd vowoy ins dicatocuvns (corrn for clearness’ sake? see notes), with F
(but with a mark inserted before it) KLX% rel D3-lat vulg syrr goth Chr Thdrt Thdor-
mops, (ce Thi Jer, Aug, Pelag Bede: om ABDGRN! copt Procop Damase Orig-int Raf
Ambrst-comm Sedul.
vy, ‘residuum,’—implying a remnant
for a fresh planting. 380—33.] The
Apostle takes up again the fact of Israel's
JSailure, and shews how their own pursuit
of righteousness never attained to right-
eousness, being hindered by their “self-
righteousness and rejection of Christ.
These verses do not contain, as Chrys.,
c., Theophyl., the rot xwplov maytbs
Advois—this Advois is simply in the creative
right. of God, as declared ver. 18;—but
they are a comment on ver. 16, that it is
not of him that willeth, nor of him that
runneth: the same similitude of running
being here resumed, and it being shewn
that, so far from man’s running having
decided the matter, the Jews who pressed
forward to the goal attained not, whereas
the Gentiles, who never ran, have attained.
If this is lost sight of, the connexion of
the whole is much impaired, and from
doctrinal prejudice, a wholly wrong turn
given to the Apostle’s line of reasoning,
who resolves the awful fact of Israel’s ex-
clusion not into any causes arising from
man, but into the supreme will of God,—
which will is here again distinctly asserted
in the citation from Isaiah (see below).
What then shall we say? This ques-
tion, when followed by a question, implies
of course a rejection of the thought thus
suggested —but when, as here, by an asser-
tion, introduces a further unfolding of the
argument from what has preceded. I can-
not agree with Flatt, Olsh., al., that dr:
k.7.A. is to be regarded as a question: for,
as Riickert has observed, (1) Paul could not
put interrogatively, as a supposition in an-
swer to Ti ovv éepoduev, a sentiment not
intimated in nor following from the fore-
going ; (2) there would be no answer to
the question thus asked, but the d:a rf, ver.
32, would ask another question, proceeding
on the assumption of that which had been
before by implication negatived; and (8)
the answer, 671 «.7.A. ver. 32, would touch
only the case of the Jews, and not that of
the Gentiles, also involved, on this suppo-
sition, in the question. That the Gentiles
for epOacev, epOoxev I(and G).
(not, as Meyer and Fritz., ‘some Gentiles’),
which pursue not after (see especially reff.
Phil.) righteousness (not justification,
which is merely ‘the being accounted
righteous,’ ‘the way in which righteous-
ness is ascribed :’ not this, but righteous-
ness itself, is the aim and end of the race)
attained (the whole transaction being re-
garded as a historical fact) righteousness,
even (d¢ brings in something new, different
from the foregoing, but not strongly op-
posed to it, see Winer, edn. 6, § 53. 7 Bee
the opposition here, though fine and de-
licate, is remarkable: righteousness —not
however that arising from their own works,
but the righteousness, &c.) the righteous-
ness which is from faith; 31.]—but
Israel, pursuing after the law of righte-
ousness (what is the vduos dixatoovvns ?
Certainly not =dicatoodvn vdmov, as Chrys.,
Theodoret, (cum., Calv., Beza, Bengel,
by the so-called, but as Thol. observes,
unlogical figure of Hypallage :—it may
mean either (1) as Meyer, Fritz., Thol., an
ideal law of righteousness, a justifying
law,—or (2) as Chrys., al.,—see above,—
the law of Moses, thus described: or
(8) which I believe to be the true account
of the words, vépos Sicaioc. is put regard-
ing the Jews, rather than merely dicatoc.,
because in their case there was a prescribed
norm of apparent righteousness, viz. the
law, in which rule and way they, as matler
of fact, followed after it. The above, as I
believe, mistaken interpretations arise from
supposing véuov Sixatoo. to be = diraoo.,
which it is not. The Jews followed after,
aimed at the fulfilment of ‘the law of
righteousness, thinking by the observance
of that law to acquire righteousness. See
eniex. 53 5, and note; and compare John’s
coming ev 65 Sixaordyns, Matt. xxi. 32),
did not attain unto the law (fell far short
even of that law, which was given them.
It is surprising, with ch. x. 3—5 before
them, how De Wette and Tholuck can pro-
nounce the reading vdéuoy without ducato-
otvyns to be without sense. The Jews fol-
lowed after, thinking to perform it entirely,
31—33.
“ mpocixoyay TW Aw TOU
IIPOX POMAIOY®S.
39
"Sta ti 5 ore ouK EK TOTEWC, adn’* ws e& Eoywv [vopov]
* mpockdupar oc,
415
“Epols 1 Cor.
7 (bis).
> Cor. si. 11
only.
s = Philem. 14.
33 Kkalwe
t Matt. 6
F yéypamrat "1300 2D mite ev Zwv AiWov * mPocKomparos iL. ane
v / wx 7 y : h i. 9
Kat * TeTOAY oKa voaXou, Kal O° wioTevwY én auT@ ou ‘iinee
- P 21. 1 Pet, ii.
: Sonly_ Prov.
KataisyuvOnoerat at oh,
uch. xiv. 15, 20. 1 Cor. viii. 9. 1 Pet. ii. Sonly. Isa, xxix. 21. v ISA. (viii. 14) xxviii. 16.
w 1 Pet. ii. 8. x = Matt. xviii. 7. ch. xiv. 15 al. Ps. x!viii. 14. ych.x.1l. 1 Pet. ii. 6
(from 1. c. F.). @=ch.v.5. x.llak Ps. xxiv. 20.
32. om vouou (see notes) ABFN! vulg copt Jer Aug Ambrst Ruf: ins DKLN* rel syrr
goth Chr(ov« cirev "EE @ Epyov, GAN “Os "e & Epyav vonov, deikyds dTt ovdEe TavTHY Elxov Thy
dixatocvynv) Thdor-mops’ Thdrt (Ee Thi.
rec aft mposexoay ins yap (see note),
with D?K LN rel vulg syrr Chr Thdor-mops Thdrt (ce Thl Aug, Jer Sedul Bede: om
ABD'FN? al am (with | tol al) copt goth Ambrst Ruf.
338. rec ins mas bef 0 miarevwy (insd to conform this ver to ch x. 11, rather than omd
to suit the Lxx:
Thdor-mops Thdrt @e Thl Jer Sedul :
Aug Ambrst Ruf Bede.
their véuos Sixacoctvns: which diucaoc. ék
Tod vduouv the Apostle defines, ch. x. 5, to
be 6 rovqoas avTa &vOpwros Choeta ev
- avtots, but they did not attain to—not in
this case karéAaBev, but €pOacey eis—the
law—they therefore never attained righte-
ousness. Jt is surely far more easy to
imagine how a transcriber should have in-
serted Sixaocdyns, than how he should
have omitted it. It probably was a mar-
ginal gloss to explain the second yvédwuoy,
and thence found its way into the text
[I may notice, that ch. x. 3 is not a case
in point, the véuoy here having an inde-
pendent and exceptional meaning of its
own, which introduces an element not
belonging to idfay there]). Wherefore ?
because (pursuing it) not by faith, but as
(used subjectively, as ‘if about to obtain
their object by :’? see Winer, edn. 6, § 65.
9, and compare 2 Pet. i. 3) by [the] works
[of the law (the evidence for and against
véuovu is about equally balanced. On the
one side we have the Apostle’s usage, see
ch. iil. 28 reff.,—and the possibility of a
transcriber omitting vduou, either as having
twice occurred already, or for more com-
plete antithesis,—and on the other we
have the temptation to correct épywy to
Epywy vduov to suit that very usage. On
the whole I incline to omit véuov, but do
not regard the evidence as sufficiently
clear to justify its exclusion from the
text) ], they stumbled at the stone of
stumbling (the similitude of a race is still
kept up. The insertion of ydp has arisen
from a period being placed at véuov. It
confuses the sense, making it appear as if
the stumbling was the cause of, or at all
events coincident with, their pursuing ovd«
é€x 7. «.T.A., Whereas it was this mistaken
not one ms omits it in ch x. 11), with KL rel D°-lat vulg syr Chr
om ABDER® Syr copt goth eth Orig Damase
ov wn KaraoxuvOn (see Lxx) DF.
method of pursuing which caused them to
stumble against the stone of stumbling.
Thus we have instances in the Greek chariot
races, of competitors, by an error in judg-
ment in driving, striking against the orfAn
round which the chariots were to turn, see
Soph. Elect. 730 f. There is a close
analogy between our text and the exhorta-
tion in Heb. xii. 1 f. There, after the
triumphs of faith have been related, we are
exhorted to run with patience the race set
before us, looking to Jesus, the Author and
Finisher of owr faith : where notice, that
the sacred Writer seems to have had in his
mind the same comparison of Him to the
pillar or goal, to which the eyes of the run-
ners would be exclusively directed).
33.] Appeal to the prophecy of Isaiah, as
justifying this comparison of Christ to a
stone of stumbling. The citationis gathered
from two places in Isaiah. The ‘stone of
stumbling and rock of offence,’ mentioned
ch. viii. 14, is substituted for the ‘ corner-
stone elect, precious,’ of ch. xxviii. 16. The
solution of this is very simple. Isa. viii. 14
was evidently interpreted by the Jews them-
selves of the Messiah: for Simeon, Luke
ii. 34, when speaking of the child Jesus as
the Messiah, expressly adduces the pro-
phecy as about to be fulfilled. Similarly
Isa. xxviii. 16 was interpreted by the
Chaldee Targum, the Babylonish Talmud
(Tract Sanhedrin; fol. xxxviii. 1, Stuart),
&e. What was there then to prevent the
Apostle from giving to this Stone, plainly
foretold as to be laid in Zion, that desig-
nation which prophecy also justifies, and
which bears immediately on the matter here
inhand? ‘The translation of Isa. viii. 14
is after the Heb.,—the LXX having appa-
rently read differently. See 1 Pet. ii. 6—8,
416
a = here only.
Sir. xviii. 31.
Matt. xi. 26
“ ati. n
b Acts xi.18. 2c
IIPOX PQMAIOYS.
es AGE) poi, ” ev *
OEenare mpoc Tov Ocov birep autwv
X.
EvOOKIa TC Eun Kapolac Kal
ae owrTnpiav.
°° Zadow ° Ocou exovow, avr’
ch. vi, 22 paoTvow yao avuroic ore
ude 21. = ~
5 e f ite! ee 3h i
Acts xxii. 5,
° Sar aN ov Kat EME YYW, ayvoovvTEec yao tiv Tov ' Beov
ol. iv. 13. ,
d= Joba ii. ‘ cucavoourny, Kal THY Stay [Gucaoodyny | * Gnrowvrec
17, from Ps, 2 u
! vy.
Pay ag eal, Ty " Sucavooury Tov "Oeov ovxX Umeraynoay,
ll.
e2 Cor. Zi,cc-
see Acts xxii.
f Acts iii. 17 reff.
k = Acts xiii. 8 reff. 1 = ch. iii. 31
23. see ch, viii. 7 reff.
Cuap. X. 1. rec aft 7 Senos ins 7 (corn:
ABDER Cyr.
"réXog yao vouov yptotoc
g ch. iii. 20 reff.
Heb x. 9. Num. xxx. 14.
n= 1 Pet.i. ¥. see note and 2 Cor. iii. 13.
mpos Tov 6v is written over an erasure by
tov wpand (explanatory gloss), with KL rel Thdrt Qe Thi:
copt arm Chr Cyr Damase Ruf Aug Ambrst Pelag Sedul Bede.
b
ELC OuKatoouvny Tavrt TW
h Acts xiii. 27 reff. ich. i. 17 reff,
m = 1 Cor. xv. 28. 2 Mace. xiii.
see note), with KL rel Chr Thdrt : om
RL rec for avtwy,
txt ABDFX 17 latt syrr
rec ins eorw bef
ets cwrnpiay, with KLN&3 rel syr Chr Thdrt : om ‘ABDER! Syr copt goth Cyr Aug).
3. for yap, 5¢ A 57 Leo.
om 2nd d:xeaocvvny ABD vulg copt arm Clem Cyr
Bas Chr, Procop Damase Iren-int(most mss) Augsepe: ins FKLN rel syrr goth «th
Chr Thdrt Thl Gc Iren-mss Tert Ambr Aug,, and aft (jrouyres m.
where the same two texts are joined, and
also Ps. exviii. (cxvii.) 22. ov kaTato-
xvvOyjoerat, LXX (Isa. xxviii. 16), od wy
KaTaitxuven, gives a secondary meaning of
the Heb. wr x), ‘shall not make haste :’
i.e. shall not fly in terror, shall not be
confounded.
Cuar. X. 1—13.] The Jews, though
zealous for God, are yet ignorant of God's
righteousness (1—3), as revealed to them
in their own Scriptures (4—13).
1.) Brethren (‘nune quasi superata pre-
cedentis tractationis severitate comiter ap-
pellat fratres.’ Bengel), the inclination of
my heart (evdox/a is seldom, if ever, used
to signify the motion of desire, but imports
the rest of approving satisfaction. Pos-
sibly there is here a mixture of construc-
tions: the Apostle’s evSoxia would be their
salvation itself,—his dénots mpds Tov 0. baép
avT.waseisowr. Theév requiresa cor-
responding 6¢, not ue ep essed, but implied in
the course of vv. 2, 3, where the obstacle to
their cwrmp. is beoncht out), and my prayer
to God for them (Israel, see ch. ix. 32,
mposéxowav), (is) for (their) salvation (lit.
‘towards salvation.’ The insertion of
the art. after 5éjo1s has apparently been an
over-careful grammatical correction: it is
by no means universal in the N. T., even
where the Greek writers insert it,—and
here, seeing that there could be no denoers
to any other than God, the omission would
be more natural. rod *IopafjA has been
substituted by the adoption of a gloss:
éoriv to complete the sense). The Apostle’s
meaning seems to be, to destroy any impres-
sion which his readers may have received
unfavourable to his love of his own people,
from the stern argument of the former
chapter. 2.] For (reason why I thus
sympathize with their efforts, though mis-
directed) I bear witness to them that they
have a zeal for God (for this meaning of
the gen. see reff., especially 2 Cor. xi. 2,
and note there), but not according to (in
accordance with, founded upon, and carried
on with) knowledge (accurate apprehen-
sion of the way of righteousness as re-
vealed to them). 8.] For (explana-
tion of od kat’ éemlyv.) not recognizing
(‘ being ignorant of” is liable to the objec-
tion, that it may represent to the reader
a state of excusable ignorance, whereas
they had it before them, ‘and over looked it)
the righteousness of God (not, the way of
justification appointed by God, as Stuart,
al.: but that only righteousness which
avails before God, which becomes ours in
justification ; see De Wette’s note, quoted
on ch. i. 17), and striving to establish
their own righteousness (again, not justi-
fication, but righteousness : that, namely,
described ver. 5 ; not that it was ever theirs,
but the Apostle speaks subjectively. Not-
withstanding the MS. authority against
Sika. after idiav, it would seem as if it
had been written for emphasis’ sake by the
Apostle, and omitted on account of the
word occurring thrice in the sentence), they
were not subjected (historical: implying,
but not itself bearing, a perfect sense.
The passive,—not in a middle sense, as
De Wette and Thol.,—expresses the resulé
only ; it might be themselves, or it might
be some other, that subjected them,—but
the historical fact was, that they were not
subjected) to the righteousness of God
ABDF
KLNab
edfgh
kimn
017
1—5.
2
TLlOTEVOVTL.
9. see Gal. iii. 21.
5. rec ins Tov bef vouov, with DF KL rel:
bef 7. dix. 7. ex v. AD'N! 17! vulg Damase Ruf.
Ruf: eam D?-lat copt goth Cassiod: ravra 17! m! eth.
rec (for avtn) avros (from rxx), with DFLN? rel :
Hil.
IIPOX PQMAIOYS.
417
5 Movone yap ” ypager tThv ° dtkatoovyny o constr , John
tiv Pex ” yomou, 167t 6 Tomoac aura avipwroc Cnoerat
46. see
Ynke XViii.
31.
p Phil. iii. (6)
q LEv. xviii. 5. see Neh. ix. 29. Ezek. xx. 21.
om BN.—for vouov, morews A. ort
om avta ADXN! vulg Damase
om av@pwros F Syr Chr
txt ABN! 17 vulg D?-lat
copt goth arm Damase Ruf Pelag Sedul Bede.
(the dix. 7. 8. being considered as a rule or
method, to which it was necessary to con-
form, but to which they were never sub-
jected as they were to the law of Moses).
413.] The dixaoodvy 7. 8. is now
explained to be summed up in that Saviour
who was declared to them in their own
Scriptures. For (establishing what was
last said, and at the same time unfolding
the dx. 7. 6. in a form which rendered
them inexcusable for its non-recognition)
Christ is the end of the Law (i.e. the
object at which the law aimed: see the
similar expression 1 Tim. i. 5, 7d TéAos
THS maparyyeAlas eotly aydrn. Various
meanings have been given to téAos. (1)
End, finis, chronological : ‘Christ is the
termination of the law.’ So the latt.,
Augustine, Luther, al., Olsh., Meyer, Fritz.,
De Wette, al. But this meaning, unless
understood in its pregnant sense, that
Christ, who has succeeded to the law, was
also the object and aim of the law, says too
little. In this pregnant sense Tholuck
takes the word ‘end,’ the end in time and
in aim. It may beso; but I prefer simply
to take in the idea of Christ being the end,
i. e. aim of the law, as borne out by the
following citations, in which nothing is said
of the fransitoriness of the law, but much
of the notices which it contains of right-
eousness by faith in Christ. (2) Clem.
Alex.,—mAtpwua yop v. xp. cis Sik. 7. TO
mist., De Div. Serv. § 9, p. 940 P.
Theodoret, Calv., Grot., al., take téAos for
‘accomplishment, a sense included in the
general meaning, but not especially treated
here,—the following quotations not having
any reference to it. (3) The meaning, end
in the sense of object or aim, above adopted,
is that of the Syr., Chrys. , Theophyl., Beza,
Bengel, al. Chrys. observes: «i yap Tov
véuwou TéAos 4 xpiotds, 6 Thy XpLoToY OvK
éxwy, kby exetyny (i. e. Sikaoctyynv) Exe
doxh, ovk exer’ 6 SE Thy xXpioTdy Exwr,
khy ph 7 Katw@plwKws thy vduoy, Td Tay
eiAngde. kal yap TéAos iatpiKfjs bytela.
dswep ody 6 duvduevos by} Toretv, Kav
My) Thy iatpihy exn, T way Exer. 6 5E wy
elds Oepamevew, Kav peTievat Sukh THY
Téexvnv, Tod mavTds: ekémevev’ oUTws em
Vou. II.
Tov vouov Kal THs mloTews, 6 wey TavTHV
éxwy, kal TO exelvou TéAoS exer’ 6 OE TaY-
THs eéw dv, Gupotépwy eatly adAdAdTpios.
Hom. xviii. 622. véuou is here plainly
the law of Moses: see Middleton in loc.)
unto righteousness (i.e. so as to bring about
righteousness, which the law could not do)
to (dat. commodi) every one that believeth.
“Had they only used the law, instead of
abusing it, it would have been their best
preparation for the Saviour’s advent. For
indeed, by reason of man’s natural weak-
ness, it was always powerless to justify.
It was never intended to make the sinner
righteous before God ; but rather to impart
to him a knowledge of his sinfulness, and
to awaken in his heart earnest longings for
some powerful deliverer. Thus used, it
would have ensured the reception of the
Messiah by those who now reject Him.
Striving to attain to real holiness, and
increasingly conscious of the impossibility
of becoming holy by an imperfect obedience
to the law’s requirements, they would gladly
have recognized the Saviour as the end of
the law for righteousness.” Ewbank.
5.| For (proof of the impossibility of legal
righteousness, as declared even in the law
itself) Moses describes (reff.) the righte-
ousness which is of (abstr.—not implying
that it has ever been attained, but rather
presupposing the contrary) the law, that
(671 recitantis, not ypap. or1, in which case
we should have avrjv. The eam of some
versions has apparently arisen from mis-
understanding é7:) the man who hath
performed them (the ordinances of the
law) shall live in (in the strength of, by
means of as his status) it (the righteous-
ness accruing by such doing of them).
As regards the life here promised, the
Jewish interpreters themselves included in
it morethan mere earthly felicity in Canaan,
and extended their view to a better life
hereafter: see Wetst. in loc. Earthly feli-
city it doubtless did impart, compare Deut.
xxx. 20; but even there, as Thol. observes,
‘life’ seems to be a general promise, and
length of days a particular species of
felicity. “In the N. T.,” he continues,
“this idea (of life) is always exalted into
E
418
rch. ix. 30.
Gal. iii. 8.
8 DEUT. XXX.
12.
t Acts ii. 34
reff.
u=ch. ix. 8.
v Acts xxiii. 15 reff.
, Pie
ev aut).
that of life blessed and eternal :—see Matt.
vii. 14; xviii. 8, 9; Luke x. 28.”
6—8.] The righteousness which is of faith
is described, in the words spoken in Scrip-
ture by Moses of the commandment given
by him,—as not dependent on a long and
difficult process of search, but near to
every man, and in every man’s power to
attain. believe the account of the follow-
ing citation will be best found by bearing
in mind that the Apostle is speaking of
Christ as the end of the law for righteous-
ness to the believer. He takes as a con-
firmation of this, a passage occurring in
a prophetic part of Deut., where Moses is
foretelling to the Jews the consequences
of rejecting God’s law, and His mercy to
them even when under chastisement, if they
would return to Him. He then describes
the law in nearly the words cited in this
verse. Now the Apostle, regarding Christ
as the end of the law, its great central aim
and object, quotes these words not merely
as suiting his purpose, but as bearing,
where originally used, an @ fortiori applica-
tion to faith in Him who is the end of the
law, and to the commandment to believe in
Him, which (1 John iii. 23) is now ‘ God’s
commandment. If spoken of the law as a
manifestation of God in man’s heart and
mouth, much more were they spoken of
Him, who is God manifest in the flesh, the
end of the law and the prophets. This
view is, it is true, different from that of
almost all eminent Commentators, ancient
and modern,—who regard the words as
merely adapted or parodied by the Apostle
as suiting his present purpose. Thus, with
minor shades of difference, Chrys., Beza,
Grot., Vatabl., Luther, Wolf, Bengel,
Koppe, Flatt, Rickert, De Wette, Thol.,
Stuart, Hodge, al. But we must remember
that it is in this passage Paui’s object not
merely to describe the righteousness which
is of faith in Christ, but to shew it described
already in the words of the law. The
Commentators who have taken more or less
the view that the Apostle cites the words as
bearing the sense put on them, are Calvin,
Calovius, Reiche, Meyer, Fritz., Olsh.
But the righteousness which is of faith
thus saith (personified, as Wisdom in the
Prov.), Say not in thine heart (i. e. ‘ think
not,’ a Heb. idiom. The LXX has merely
Aéywr, Vox: The Apostle cites freely,
giving the explanation of Aéyw», viz. think-
ing), Who shall go up to heaven (I.XX,
HPOS PQMAIOY=.
a.
6 c A Web oe ’ QQ , ¢ Ne
n O& "kK Tlotewe OiKaLloovyn ouTwe AE€yéEt,
» a , / ’ , > ‘A
*Mn eine ev TY Kapola aov Tic ‘avaPnoerar ec TOY
~ ? Jt ‘ - nx ,
ovoavov; “ToUr EoTLY YetoTOY “Katayayew 77 Tic
dvaB. iuivy eis T. ovp., see Prov. xxx. 4)?
—that is (see note above :—that imports
in its full and unfolded meaning), to bring
down Christ:—or who shall go down
into the abyss (LXX, ris Siamepacer jiv
els T) mwépay THs Oadrdoons; The Apostle
substitutes tis kat. eis 7. &B. as the direct
contrast to Tis dv. eis T. odp., as in ref. Ps.;
see also Amos ix. 2:—and as better suit-
ing the interpretation which follows) ?—
that is, to bring up Christ from the dead.
There is some difficulty in assigning the
precise view with which the Apostle intro-
duces these questions. Tholuck remarks,
“The different imterpretations may be
reduced to this, that the questions are re-
garded either (1) as questions of unbelief,
or (2) as questions of embarrassment, or
(3) as questions of anxiety.’ The first
view is represented by De Wette, who says,
“ Tn what sense these questions, from which
the righteousness which is of faith dissuades
men, are to be taken, is plain from ver. 9,
where the Resurrection of Christ is asserted
as the one most weighty point of historical
Christian belief: —they would be questions
of unbelief, which regards this fact as not
accomplished, or as now first to be accom-
plished. Thus also, probably, are we to
understand the first question, as applying
to the Incarnation of Christ.’ This is
more or less also the view of Chrys.. Theo-
doret, Theophyl., Gic., Erasm., Estius,
Semler, Koppe, Meyer, al., Riickert (who
refers the doubt of the unbelief to the fu//
accomplishment of redemption by the
Incarnation and Resurrection of Christ),
Reiche, and Kéllner (who refer katay. to
the ascended Saviour, thereby destroying
the symmetry of the whole,— because the
latter question undoubtedly refers to bring-
ing Christ not from a present but from a
past state, from which He has historically
come). (2) The second view, that they
are questions of embarrassment, is taken
by L. Capellus, Wolf, Rosenm., and Stuart,
which last says, “The whole (of Moses’s
saying) may be summed up in one word,
omitting all figurative expression : viz. the
commandment is plain and accessible. You
can have, therefore, no excuse for neglecting
it. Soin the case before us. Justification
by faith in Christ is a plain and intelligible
doctrine. It is not shut up in mysterious
language .... It is like what Moses says
of the statutes which he gave to Israel,
plain, intelligible, accessible.... It is
ABDF
KLNab
cdfgh
kilmn
017
EE eS
6—9.
“TIPOX PQMAIOYS.
419
Ww , bd “ x ¥ u oa) 8. ‘ s
. w = Eph. iv.
karaPyoerat ec thy “aBvooov; “Tour EoTW yptoroy *F PPh.
exxxviii. 8.
, - > - ’ , ,
ek vexowv * avayayety. 8 adda ri Neyer; * Eyyve cou x tnkeviii. 31
a t-~ y ae > , , \ , ,
TO pnua €OTIV, EV TW OTOMAaATL GOV KAL EV ™) Kapoia oov’
tn ~
u - > ff ‘
TOUT EGTLVY TO
XXiX. 3.
i. 25. (John vi. 63. xiv. 10, plur.)
pnua THC TlOTEWC Oo KnpUooomey’
z Devt. xxx. 14. constr., John iii. 23. vi. 19, 25.
~ only, exe.
Rev. ix. ],
9 2,11 ald.
° Gen. i. 2.
OTL y = Heh. xiii.
205°.P a;
a= Acts x.37. 1 Pet.
8. aft Aeye: ins 7 ypapn D vulg(not demid tol) Orig, Cyr Thdrt Hil Ambrst Ruf
Pelag Sedul Bede: aft 71, F.
brought before the mind and heart of every
man: and thus he is without excuse for
unbelief.” (8) The third view, that they
are questions of anwxiety, is that of Calv.,
Beza, Pisc., Bengel, Knapp, Fritz.,and Tho-
luck :—by none perhaps better expressed
than by Ewbank, Comm. on the Kp.
to the Rom., p. 74: “ Personifying the
great Christian doctrine of free justification
through faith, he represents it as addressing
every man who is anxious to obtain salva-
tion, in the encouraging words of Moses :
‘Say not in thine heart, (it says to such an
one) 2a: > In other words, ‘ Let not
the man, who sighs for deliverance from
his own sinfulness, suppose that the accom-
plishment of some impossible task is re-
quired of him, in order to enjoy the bless-
ings of the Gospel. Let him not think
that the.personal presence of the Messiah
is necessary to ensure his salvation. Christ
needs not to be brought down from heaven,
or up from the abyss, to impart to him
forgiveness and holiness. No. Our Chris-
tian message contains no impossibilities.
We do not mock the sinner by offering him
happiness on conditions which we know
that he is powerless to fulfil. We tell him
that Christ’s word is near to him: so near,
that he may speak of it with his mouth,
and meditate on it with his heart .....
Is there any thing above human power in
such a confession, and in such a belief ?
Surely not. It is graciously adapted to the
necessity of the very weakest and most sin-
ful of God’s creatures.” (1) resumed.
The objection to this view, as alleged by
Tholuck, is, that in it, the contrast with
ver. 5 is lost sight of. And this is so far just,
that it must be confessed we thus lose the
ideas which the Apostle evidently intended
us to grasp, those of insuperable difficulty
in the acquisition of righteousness by the
law, and of facility,—by the gospel. Also,
—it puts too forward the allegation of the
great matters of historical belief, which are
not here the central point of the argument,
but introduced as the objects which faith,
itself that central point, apprehends. (2)
The last objection has some force as against
this view. The regarding the questions as
E E 2
Ist eorw bef Ist to pnua DF vss lat-ff.
mere questions of difficulty and intellectual
bewilderment does not adequately repre-
sent the (jAos O00 predicated of the Jews,
on the assumption of which the whole pas-
sage proceeds. Here, however, it seems to
me, we have more truth than in (1): for
the plainness and simplicity of the truths to
be believed is unquestionably one most im-
portant element in the righteousness which
is of faith. (8) Here we have the im-
portant element just mentioned, not indeed
made the prominent point of the questions,
but, as it appears to me, properly and sufli-
ciently kept in view. The anxious follower
after righteousness is not disappointed by
an impracticable code, nor mocked by an
uninteiligible revelation : the word is near
him, therefore accessible ; plain and sim-
ple, and therefore apprehensible ; and,
taking (1) into account, we may fairly add,
—deals with definite historical fact, and
therefore certain: so that his salvation is
not contingent on an amount of perform-
ance which is beyond him, and therefore
inaccessible: irrational, and therefore in-
apprehensible: undefined, and therefore
involved in uncertainty. Thus, it seems
to me, we satisfy all the conditions of the
argument: and thus also it is clearly
brought out, that the words themselves
could never have been spoken by Moses of
the righteousness which is of the law, but
of that which is of fazth. 8.| But
what says it? The word is near thee,
in thy mouth (to confess), and in thine
heart (to believe): that is (see above), the
word of faith (which forms the substratum
and object of faith, see Gal. iii. 2; 1 Tim.
iv. 6) which we (ministers of Christ: or
perhaps, I Paul) preach. This verse has
been explained in dealing with vv. 6 and 7.
9.] Because (explanation of the
word being near thee: so Thol., De Wette,
Stuart, al. Others take é7: here as in ver.
5, merely recitantis, making édy «.7.A. the
piua preached. But as Thol. observes,
(1) the duty of confessing the Lord Jesus
can hardly be called part of the contents of
the preaching of faith, but the prominence
given to that duty shews a reference to the
words of Moses: (2) the making 67: render
420
IIPOS PQMAIOY2. *
».&
= * x& b ¢ , c? — , ' , , ~
” par ai a éav onoAoynoyc Ey TW “oromatt cov KUoLOV Incovr,
cts xsiii. 8. ‘id , , - , atv € N +
~ LTim. vi. 13. Kal TLSTEVONC EV TY Kapoia cov “ort o Oedc avrov
con . XV.
ly. (Psa, et 2 cf , - 10 ' S /
5 Ee. NYEIDEV EK VEKOWY, owOiay Kaoola yao TCE Oe
cts xX. , , s \ b e ~ f >
ref. f ete Sucatoovvnv, oTOmaTL Oe opoAoyeirat €l\¢ GwTNoOlav.
e = 1 Cor. xv. a : ‘ ~ Cry , Jee 3 ?
poe 1 eye yao n ® yoagn Tlac o “mtotevwy Ew auTW ov
g sing., ch. ix. h , 1D , ’ i < 2s
17 rel, KkatratoyuvOnoerat. 2 oy yap tottvy ‘StactoAn lov-
xX 1»)
h ch. ix. 33,
rom ISA
XXviil. 16.
see Sir. ii. 10. k x =
i ch. iii. 22. TAOUTWV
1 Cor. xiv.7
only. = Exod. viii. 23.
k = Luke xii. 21.
JOEL ii. 32.
9. aft ouodroynons ins To pnua B 71 Clem Cyr.
inoous B Clem Cyr: so, addg ear, copt Hil Aug.
Bas.
11. ins pn bef KatacxvvOnoera DF.
12. tovdaiw Kar eAAnue D.
a reason for éyy’s gov «.7.A. suits much
better the context and form of the passage :
(3) the fact of the confession with the mouth
standing first, alsoshews a reference to what
has gone before: for when the Apostle
brings his own arrangement in ver. 10, he
puts, as natural, the belief of the heart first),
if thou shalt confess with thy mouth (same
order as ver. 8) the Lord Jesus (not, I
think, ‘ Jesus as the Lord’ [see the readg
of Bal.]: this might very well be,—and
kvpiov might, as Thol., be the predicate
placed first for emphasis, did not Paul fre-
quently use Kvpios *Inoods for ‘the Lord
Jesus, —see [ch. xiv. 14 after a prep. ]
1 Cor. i. 3 al.; Phil. [ii. 19] iii. 20; Col.
iii. 17 [1 Thess. i. 1; iv. 1]. 1 Cor. xii.
3 is hardly an example on the other side:
see note there, but 2 Cor. iv. 5 is, cf. note
there), and believe in thine heart that
God raised Him from the dead (here,
as in 1 Cor. xv. 14, 16, 17, regarded as the
great central fact of redemption), thou
shalt be saved (inherit eternal life).
Here we have the two parts of the above
question again introduced: the confession
of the Lord Jesus implying his having
come down from heaven, and the belief in
His resurrection implying His having been
brought up from the dead. 10.| For
(refers back to ver. 6, where the above
words were ascribed to 7 é« mlorews 5ikato-
civn, and explains how: motetbo. ev TH
xapd. refer to the acquiring of righteous-
ness) with the heart faith is exercised
(moreverat, men believe) unto (so as to
be available to the acquisition of) right-
eousness, but (q. d. ‘not only so: but
there must be an outward confession, in
order for justification to be carried forward
to salvation’) with the mouth confession
’ ,
£l1¢c =TravTac
1 Tim. yi. 18. Exod. xxx. 15.
U Vo a e ‘ 19: gate , v.
Satiou Té KL EAAnvoe oO yp auTtoc Kuploc TAvVTWV
‘ je / oe
TOUC emikaAoupevouc autTov.
1 Acts ii. 21 reff.
for Kuptoy tnoovy, oTt kKuptos
aft encouv ins xpiorov A Petr
nyetpev bef avtov A b k o copt Cyr-jer Cyt sepe-
is made unto salvation. Clearly the
words dic. and owt. are not used here, as
De W., al., merely as different terms for
the same thing, for the sake of the paral-
lelism: but as Thol. quotes from Crell.,
cwt. is the ‘terminus ultimus et apex
justificationis,’ consequent not merely on
the act of justifying faith as the other, but
on a good confession before the world,
maintained unto the end. 11.] For
(proof of the former part of ver. 10) the
Scripture saith, Every one who believeth
on Him shall not be ashamed. as is
neither in the LXX nor the Heb., but is
implied in the indefinite participle. The
Apostle seems to use it here as taking up
mavTl TG morevovTt, ver. 4. See ch. ix. 33.
12.] For (an explanation of the
strong expression was 5 morevwy, as im-
plying the wniversal offer of the riches of
God’s mercy in Christ) there is no dis-
tinction of Jew and Greek (Gentile. See
ch. iii. 22); for the same Lord of all (viz.
Christ, who is the subject here: vv. 9, 5 I i
13 cannot be separated. So Orig., Chrys.,
(Ee., Calov., Wolf, Bengel, Riick., Meyer,
Fritz., De Wette, Tholuck, al. So TAT WY
xipios of Christ, Acts x. 36. Most modern
Commentators make 6 adrés the subject,
and xtpios the predicate. But I prefer the
usual rendering, both on account of the
strangeness of 6 avrds thus standing alone,
and because this Apostle uses the expres-
sion 6 ards xtptos, 1 Cor. xii. 5, and even
6 avrds Oeds, ib. 6, for ‘the same Lord,’
and ‘it is the same God.’ Stuart supplies,
‘(there is) the same Lord:’ but this is
harsh,—and unnecessary, if the participle
mAovtav be taken as ouvTeAGy x. ouvT. in
ch. ix. 28) is rich towards all (‘by eis
is signified the direction in which the
ABDF
KLNab
cedfgh
kimn
017
10—16.
13 - ‘ “a n
Tac yao oc av
owOncerat. ‘4 reac ovv
, / ,
" erisrevoayv 3 THC O& TLaTEvVTWOLY
ce! OA > id \ ,
Two O€ AKOVIWOLY YwWOLC KNOVAGOVTOC 5
7s Sed, ~ . N ’ e pt ~
wow Edy fm) atooraAwow 3; Kalwe yeyoarrat Qe ! wpavoe i8.9
Cun
aTvwo-~
crakw-
ABCDF Aid Te
ABCDF (co évwv a ava.
KLN ab MB D |
edfgh lii. 7.) q = Lukei. 19. ii. 10.
kimn
017
(&e Thi: txt ABDFX
AKL rel Clem Ath Chr Thdrt Damase ec Th:
ow, with L rel Clem Chr-montf Thdrt (ie Thi:
A*BX3 m 17 Ath Chr-2-mss. (A! illegible.)
15. ree xnpviovo.w, with rel Clem Chr Thdrt Damase (ec Thl:
txt ABDKL®& a 17 Chr-2-mss.
akovgwolv C:
J) Be /
emikaAéonrat
12 ,
EriKaAéowvrat
IIPOX PQMAIOY®S. 42]
‘ ” 4
= m constr.,
TO OVOLa KuUpPlov Eurip. Med.
751, Ouvupe
«-PUpevery
m 7 > a gov KAtbw.
OU OUK ° HKeovaav 3 3 n w. eis, Acts
15 3 x. 43 retf.
TWC € Knove- Oo = Ww. gen.,
) here only.
Xen, Mem.
ry Pe oe a >
oe Ov OUK
Hom. Od. a-
ol mddec Tey ‘ad evayyediconéver © eiphvny, ro | q evay ye- Bes
16"AXXN’ od wavrec
Acts xxiii. 16.
° banKovoay TW p Acts iii. 2
reff. (Isa.
r Acts x. 36 reff. s Acts vi. 7 reff.
14. rec emixadecovrat (see note), with KL rel Clem Thdor-mops Chr Thdrt Damase
ins 7 bef 1st wws de F latt.
rec muctevoovsw, with
txt BDF Chr-ms.
akovoovtat DFE KN! d Damasc:
rec akovgov-
txt
Knpvccovow FE:
Kkadamep B: kaa Chr-ms. om
evaryyeAtCouevay eipnyny twy (homeotel) ABCN! coptt «eth Clem Orig (Thdor-mops)
Damase Ruf Epiph,
: ins DFKLN3 rel latt syrr goth arm Chr Thdrt (ec Thl Iren-int
Tert, Ambr, Jer, Hil, -—om twy F.—evang. bona evang. pacem Iren-int Tert, Hil,.—
om evang. bona Hil, Epiph,.
rec ins ta bef aya9a, with D?-3KLN! rel Clem Chr
Thdrt Ge Thl: om ‘ABCD! FR8 Orig Damase.
16. aft vmpkovcay ins ev (but marked for erasure) X}.
stream of grace rushes forth.’ Olsh.) who
call upon Him. 13—21.] Proof
from Scripture of this assertion, and ar-
gument thereon. 13.| For every one,
whosoever shall call upon the Name of
the Lord (Jenovan,—but used here of
Christ beyond a doubt, as the next verse
shews. There is hardly a stronger proof, or
one more irrefragable by those who deny the
Godhead of our Blessed Lord, of the un-
hesitating application to Him by the Apostle
of the name and attributes of Jehovah)
shall be saved. 14, 15.] It has been
much doubted to whom these questions
refer,—to Jews or to Gentiles? It must,
I think, be answered, Zo neither exclu-
sively. They are generalized by the was
ov ay of the preceding verse, to mean al,
both Jews and Gentiles. And the infer-
ence in what follows, though mainly con-
cerning the rejection of the unbelieving
Jews, has regard also to the reception of
the Gentiles: see below on vv. 19, 20.
At the same time, as Meyer remarks,
“the necessity of the Gospel amocroAh
must first be laid down, in order to bring
out in strong contrast the disobedience of
some.” How then (i.e. posito, that the
foregoing is so) can they (men, represented
by the was ds & of ver. 13) call on (I
have followed the majority of the chief
MSS. in reading the aor. subjunctive in-
stead of the future indic. So also ch.
vi. 1) Him in whom they have not be-
lieved (i.e. begun to believe: so ch. xiii.
- 11)* But how can they believe (in Him)
of whom they have not heard (construction
see reff.) But how can they hear without
a preacher? But how can men preach
unless they shall have been sent? As it
is written, How beautiful are the feet of
those who [publish glad tidings of peace,
who] publish glad tidings of (rd is ex-
cluded by the strong MS. testimony against
it) good things. ‘The Apostle is shewing
the necessity and dignity of the preachers
of the word, which leads on to the uni-
versality of their preaching, leaving all
who disobey it without excuse. He there-
fore cites this, as shewing that their instru-
mentality was one recognized in the pro-
phetie word, where their office is described
and glorified. The applicability of these
words to the preachers of the Gospel is
evident from the passage in Isaiah itself,
which is spoken indeed of the return from
captivity, but in that return has regard to
a more glorious one under the future Re-
deemer. We need not therefore say that
the Apostle uses Scripture words merely as
expressing his own thoughts in a well-
known garb ;—he alleges the words as a
prophetic description of the preachers of
whom he is writing. 16.] In this
preaching of the Gospel some have been
found obedient, others disobedient: and
this was before announced by Isaiah. The
persons here meant are as yet kept in-
definite,—but evidently the Apostle has
in his mind the unbelieving Jews, about
whom his main discourse is employed.
But not all hearkened to (historic: dur-
422
> ’
t = John xii.
38, from Isa. evayyeAt.
lilt. 1. te oes le ¢
1 Thess. ii. akoy) HUW , aoa y)
13. Heb. iv.
2.
u Gal. iii. 2, 5.
v here only.
see John v.
47. Acts xi.
; puaroc i Xplorov.
16.
w ech. xi. 1, 11.
x here bis.
1 Cor. ix. 4,
5. xi. 22
only. P.
a1 Cor. xiv.7 only. Ps. 1. c.
ii. 8 al. fr. ce Paul, here only.
iii. 10. xv. 9. xvi. 14only. Ps, 1xxi. 8.
? ~ \ > ‘
auTwWV, Kal E1C TA
Wisd. xix. 18 only.
IIPOS PQMAIOY2.
mioric “&& akone, 1
y (Luke xi. 28 v. r.) ch. ix. 20 only f.
Matt. xxiv.14. Luke ii. 1 al2.
rf
“Haaiac yap Aéyet Kiou, tic EmloTEevoEV TH)
- c
d& akon ota
18 adda ~ AEyw, * 4) * OUK NKOvaay
¥ wevouvye “sic Tasav THY ‘ynY *2end\Oev o * pIbyyoc
» tépara Tne © olKoumévng Ta pnuata
avrowv. 9 adda * AEyw, “ny Topand * ouK Eyvw ; TPWTOC
z Matt. ix. 28. Mark i. 28. Psa. xviii. 4.
b = Matt. xii. 42. Luke xi. 31 (Heb. vi. 18) only. Ps.
Acts xi. 28 al. Heb. i.6. ii. 5. Rev.
17. rec (for xpirrov) Ocov, with AD?-3KLN-corr!3 rel syrr wth-pl Clem Ath Thdor-
mops Chr Thdrt Damase (Ee Thl Ruf Sedul: Det Christi Bede: txt BCD!N! vulg
coptt goth wth-rom Aug Pel Ambrst.
18. om wevourvye FD!-lat Ruf.
aft macav ins yap D!(and lat’).
19. rec ovk eyvw bef wpanad (corrn for elegance ?), with D?L rel syrr Thdrt Thi: txt
ing the preaching) the good news (od
aayres, because wayres, see vv. 11—13,
were the objects of the preaching, and must
hearken to it if they would be saved) :—
(and this too was no unlooked-for thing,
but predetermined in the divine counsel)
for Esaias saith, Lord (vpie is not in the
Heb.) who believed our report (the hear-
ing of us)? 17.| Faith then (con-
clusion from ver. 16, tls értor. 77 &koq)
is from report (i.e. hearing, see above.
The publication of the Gospel produces be-
lief in it), and the report (the hearing ;
the effect of the publication of the Gospel)
is by means of (not, ‘in obedience to,’
but ‘by,’ as its instrument and vehicle)
the word of Christ (@cod has probably
been a rationalizing correction, to suit
better the sense of the prophecy. fpfhuaros
is used possibly, as De Wette suggests, as
a preparation for 7a phuata ait. in ver.
18). 18.] But (in anticipation of an
objection that Israel, whom he has espe-
cially in view, had not sufficiently heard
the good tidings) I say, Did they not hear
(jxovocay partly founded on the cognate
axof of the last verse, partly recalling
the #rovooy of ver. 14)? nay rather (ch,
ix. 20, note) into all the earth went
forth their voice, and to the ends of the
world their words. It is remarkable that
so few of the Commentators have noticed
(I have found it only in Bengel, and there
but faintly hinted: Olsh., who defends the
applicability of the text, does not even
allude to it) that Psal. xix.is @ comparison
of the sun, and glory of the heavens, with
the word of God. As far as ver. 6 the
glories of nature are described: then the
great subject is taken up, and the parallelism
carried out tothe end. So that the Apostle
has not, as alleged in nearly all the Com-
mentators, merely accommodated the text
allegorically, but taken it in its context, and
followed up the comparison of the Psalm.
As to the assertion of the preaching
of the Gospel having gone out into all the
world, when as yet a small part of it only
had been evangelized,—we must remember
that it is not the extent, so much as the
universality in character, of this preaching,
which the Apostle is here asserting ; that
word of God, hitherto confined within the
limits of Juda, had now broken those
bounds, and was preached in all parts of the
earth. See Col. i. 6, 23. 19.) But (in
anticipation of another objection, that this
universal evangelizing and admission of all,
had at any rate taken the Jews by surprise,
—that they had not been forewarned of any
such purpose of God) I say, Did Israel
(no emphasis on Israel—they are not first
here introduced, nor have the preceding
verses been said only of the Gentiles ; but
they have been during those verses in the
Apostle’s mind, and are now named for
distinctness’ sake, because it is not now a
question of their having heard, which they
did in common with all, but of their having
been aware from their Scriptures of God’s
intention with regard to themselves and the
Gentiles) not know (supply, not ‘ the Gos-
pel,’ thy axohy, as Chrys., Estius, Riickert,
Olsh., al.,—but, the fact that such a gene-
ral proclamation of the Gospel would be
made as has been mentioned in the last
verse, raising up the Gentiles into equality
and rivalry with themselves—so Meyer,
Fritz., Thol., De Wette, Stuart, al.—
Others supply variously :—Calv. and Beza,
‘the truth of God,’—so as to have an ad-
vantage over the Gentiles :—Bengel, ‘jus-
titiam Dei:’—Bretschneider and Reiche
take "IopahaA for the object of éyvw, and
understand 6 @eds as its subject : ‘ Did not
God know,— acknowledge, regard with love,
+ AEYO
K. :
ABCD
FLNab
cedfgh
kilmn
ol7
————o eee
17—21.
Movong Aéyee "Eyo = TapalnAwow vac * et
®aouverw © Tapopyw vac.
es.
\ a
emt eOvet
IIPOZ PQMAIOYS.
423
>
dch. xi. 11, 14,
1 Cor. x. 22
;. DEuT.
fer? o
ou eve,
20 “Hoalac Oe
ie se \ / k ae! hs = et Sms ~
amoroApa Kal NéyeL EvpéOny [ ev | TOLC EME (1) Cntov- pene a
n? A ? 7
oly, eupavyg eyEvounv ToOLC
21 p
q?2 / < en . ‘ r? ~ \
eSemeraca Tac Xéloag pov TpOC Aaov ‘amelovvta Kat 30 al
2 ,
avtwAéyorra.
\ . > ~ .
eme pon ° ereowrwow. 9”
g ch. i. 21 reff.
moog 6& tov ‘lopandr AEyet “OXnv thy Teepay hi kph. vi. 4
only. l.c.
3 Kings xv.
(-ouds, Eph.
iv. 26.)
i here only t-
m = Acts xvii.
Jos. Antt. xv. 10. 3. k Isa. 1xv. 1. ] = 1 Tim. i. 16.
27 (reff.) only. n Acts x. 4U only, Exod. ii, 14. o=hereonly. Isa.l.c. Ezek.
xx. 3(?). p = Luke xviii. 9. xx. 19. Heb. i. 7, 8 q here only. Isa. xv. 2.
reh.ii. Sal. Deut. xxi. 20. s Luke xx. 27. Acts xiii. 45. L.P., exc. John xix.12. Hos. iv. 4.
ABCD!3FS dm latt coptt goth arm Chr Damase Hil.
for 2nd vas, avtous &3.
ree om ev (corrn to suit rxx ?), with ACD?3LN rel
(from rxx) CR. ex BC?D m.
20. om amoroAua kar DF.
vulg syrr copt Clem Chr Thdrt Hil: ins BD!F sah goth Ambrst.
ev BD! Ruf.
21. for 2nd zpos, em: D Clem.
Di
—lIsrael ?’ But surely the context will not
allow this)*—First (in the order of the
prophetic roll ; q. d. their very earliest pro-
phet: compare Matt. x. 2, mp@ros Ziuwy
«.7.A. Thol.,after Riickert, observes, * The
Apostle has in his mind a whole series of
prophetic sayings which he might adduce,
but gives only a few instead of all, and
would shew by the mp@7os, that even in the
earliest period the same complaint [of Is-
rael’s unbelief | is found”) Moses saith, I
will move you (Heb. and LXX, ‘ them’)
to jealousy with (those who are) no na-
tion (the Gentiles, as opposed to the people
of God), with a foolish (522, the spiritual
fool of Ps. xiv. 1; liii.1; Prov. xvii: 21)
nation will I provoke you. ‘The original
reference of these words, as addressed to
Israel by Moses, is exactly apposite to the
Apostle’s argument. Moses prophetically
assumes the departure of Israel from God,
and his rejection of them, and denounces
from God that as they had moyed Him to
jealousy with their ‘no-gods’ (idols) and
provoked Him to anger by their vanities,
—so He would, by receiving into his fa-
vour a ‘no-nation,’ make them jealous, and
provoke them to anger by adopting instead
of them a foolish nation. On the interpre-
tation of De Wette, al., that the meaning
is, God would deliver the children of Israel
as a prey to the idolatrous nations of Ca-
naan, the parallels will not hold; nor do
the following verses in Deut. (22—25) jus-
tify it. 20.|} But (even more than
this: there is stronger testimony yet)
Esaias is very bold and says (i.e. as we
say, ‘dares to say,’ ‘ ventures to speak thus
for 1st vuas, avrous
aft eyevouny ins
om kat ayriAeyovta F Hil: for aytiArey., Acy.
plainly.’ Thol. compares Hschin. de Falsa
Leg. c. 45: Kay eOeAjon oxeTAia ew K.
Aéyew), I was found (so LXX, the Heb. is
‘MoI, ‘I was sought :’ but apparently in
the sense of Ezek. xiv. 3; xx. 3, ‘en-
quired of :’ which amounts to edpéénv. In
Ezek. xiv. the LXX render it amoxptvec@at
—and so Stier here, Sd) gebe Untwort . . .)
by (or among) those who sought me not,
I became manifest to those who asked
not after me. The clauses are inverted
in order from the LXX. De Wette
and other modern Commentators have
maintained that Isa. Ixv. 1 is spoken of
the Jews, and not of the Gentiles; their
main argument for this view being the
connexion of ch. Ixiv. and Ixv. But even
granting this connexion, it does not follow
that God is not speaking in reproach to
Israel in ch. Ixv. 1, and reminding them
prophetically, that while they, His own re-
hellious people, provoke Him to anger, the
Gentiles which never sought Him have
found Him. The whole passage is tho-
roughly gone into and its true meaning
satisfactorily shewn, in Stier’s valuable
work, “ Sefaias, nicht Pfeudo-Sefaias,”
pp. 797 ff., who remarks that ‘the nation
which was not called by my Name,’ in
Ixy. 1, can only primarily mean the Gen-
tiles. 21. | But of (not ‘fo,’ but ‘with
regard to : see reff. The words are not an
address) Israel (evidently emphatic ;—the
former words having been said of the Gen-
tiles) he saith (ibid. ver. 2), All the day
(after wov in LXX) I stretched forth my
hands (the attitude of gracious invitation)
to a pecple disobedient and gainsaying
424
t ch. x. 18, 19.
ver. Ll.
u Acts vii. 27,
39. xiii, 46.
1 Tim. i. 19
only, L.P.
Psa. xciii. 14.
Ezek. xliii. 9.
v ch. iii. 4 reff.
Cuap. XI. 1. for roy Aaov, Tyv KAnpovouiay F Thl Ambr Ambrst Hil Sedul.
avTov ins ov mpoeyyw AD'X8 Thl Aug, Ambrst-comm.
m 17. ]
(rebellious; the same word 7) occurs
Deut. xxi. 18). Cuap. XI. 1—10.]
Yet God has not cast off His people, but
thereis aremnant according to the election
of grace (1—6),—the rest being hardened
(7—10). 1.] I say then (a false in-
ference from ch. x. 19—21,—made in order
to be refuted), Did (py, it cannot surely
be, that) God cast off His people (as would
almost appear from the severe words just ad-
duced)? Be it notso: for I also am an Is-
raelite (€x yevous "Iop., Phil. iii. 5), of the
seed of Abraham (mentioned probably for
solemnity’s sake, as bringing to mind all
the promises made to Abraham), of the
tribe of Benjamin (so Phil. iii.5). There
is some question with what intent the
Apostle here brings forward himself. Three
ways are open to us: either (1) it is as @
case in point, as an example of an Israelite
who has not been rejected but is still one
of God’s people: so almost all the Com-
mentators—but this is hardly probable,—
for in this case (a) he would not surely
bring one only example to prove his point,
when thousands might have been alleged,—
(8) it would be hardly consistent with the
humble mind of Paul to put himself alone
in such a place,—and (y) uw) yévorro does
not go simply to deny a hypothetical fact,
but applies to some deprecated consequence
of that which is hypothetically put :—or
(2) as De Wette, al., he implies, ‘ How can
I say such a thing, who am myself an
Israelite, &e.?’ ‘Does not my very na-
tionality furnish a security against my en-
tertaining such an idea ?’—or (3) which I
believe to be the right view, but which I
have found only in the commentary of
Mr. Ewbank,—as implying that if such
a hypothesis were to be conceded, it would
exclude from God’s kingdom the writer
himself, as an Israelite. This seems better
to agree with uh yévorro, as deprecating
the consequence of such an assertion.
But a question even more important arises,
not unconnected with that just discussed :
viz. who are 6 habs avtod? In order for
the sentence kal yap éy& «.7.A. to bear
the meaning just assigned torit, it is obvious
that 6 Aads abr. must mean the people of
God nationally considered. If Paul depre-
IIPOX PQMAIOY®S.
XI.
» x ,’ e ‘ ‘ ‘
ie Aéyw ovv, pn “amwoato o Oedc tov Aaov
> - v ‘ , 5 ‘ A , \ w? / tak ,
avtov; “mn yévotto’ Kat yap eyw ™ LopanXirne emt, ex
, ~
* oméppatoc ABoaan, pvdAnc Bevapetv.
w John i. 48. Acts ii. 22. 2Cor. xi.22 alt Jos. Antt.ii. 9.1.
9 ] nu > vr
“OUK aTWwoaTo
x ch. ix. 7 reff.
aft
[Beviauew, so A B2(R1) CR
cated such a proposition as the rejection of
God’s people, because he himself would
thus be as an Israelite cut off from God’s
favour, the rejection assumed in the hy-
pothesis must be @ national rejection. It
is against ¢his that he puts in his strong
protest. It is this which he disproves by
a cogent historical parallel from Scripture,
shewing that there is a remnant kal év
7T® viv Kaip@ according to the election of
grace: and not only so, but that that part
of Israel (considered as having continuity
of national existence) which is for a time
hardened, shall ultimately come in, and so
all Israel (nationally considered again, Israel
as @ nation) shall be saved. Thus the
covenant of God with Israel, having been
national, shall ultimately be fulfilled to
them as a nation: not by the gathering
in merely of individual Jews, or of all
the Jews individually, into the Christian
church,—but by the national restoration
of the Jews, not in unbelief, but as a
Christian believing nation, to all that can,
under the gospel, represent their ancient
pre-eminence, and to the fulness of those
promises which have never yet in their
plain sense been accomplished to them. 1
have entered on this matter here, because a
clear understanding of it underlies all intel-
ligent appreciation of the argument of the
chapter. Those who hold xo national
restoration of the Jews to pre-eminence,
must necessarily confound the év 7@ voy
kKaip@ remnant according to the election of
grace, with the of Aoirol, who nationally
shall be grafted in again. See this more
fully illustrated where that image occurs,
ver. 17 ff. 2.) God did not cast
off his people which he foreknew (zpo-
éyvw as in refl.:—‘ which, in His own
eternal decree before the world, He se-
lected as the chosen nation, to be His own,
the depositary of His law, the vehicle of
the theocracy, from its first revelation to
Moses, to its completion in Christ’s future
kingdom. It is plain that this must here
be the sense, and that the words must not
be limited, with Orig., Aug., Chrys., Calv.,
al., to the elect Christian people of God
Jrom among the Jews, with Paul as their
representative: see on ver. 1. On this ex-
ABCD
FLNab
edfga
klmnon
o 17
1—6.
: Quotacrnora cov ° katéoxaay, Kayo ‘ bredetpOny povoc, 32.
e
oO h Xonpatiopoc 3
” w so ee ots 17 ,
avooac, viTWEC OUK Ekapav — yovu Ty Baad.
= \ > ~ ~ -
ovv Kal év "Tm vUD " Kaipy |
P vapitoc yeyovev.
aOP. NEY
fhere only. Gen. xxx. 36 al.
h here only. Prov. xxxi. (see xxiv.) 1.
only. 3 KrinGs xix. 18.
Acts vii. 60 reff.
iii. 26 reff,
och. ix. 11 reff.
IIPOS POQMAIOYS.
y - , Oo , be
Asya Kar ° ekAoyny
6 Pi 8: a q ? 4 a 7
x OlTl, OUK &Tl && Epywv,
(-~y2a, ch. ix. 27.)
2 Macc. ii. 4. xi. 17 only. i= Luk
425
a > , 2? s ees
h ovK otoate * ev ee aa
\ zsee én,
here only.
1 Mace. viii.
~ c Acts xxv. 24.
ch. viii. 27,
84. Heb. vii.
25 onlyt.
2 Macc. iv. 36.
e (-tevkis,
OVUTWC _1 Tim. ii. 1.)
d Matt. v. 23 al.
3 KINGS xix.
10, 14.
e Acts xv. 16
only, from
Amos ix. ll.
g = Matt. ii. 20 only. Exod. iv. 19.
uke xx.3). Heb. iv. 1
k ch. xiv. 11. Eph. iii. 14. Phil. ii.10. 1 Chron. xxix. 2. see
1 fem: (not 1. c.), Judg. ii. 13 & iii. 7 (F.). Zeph.i.4. Hos. ii. 8 al. m ch,
nhere only. Josh. xiii. 12F. 4 Kings xix. 4 only. (vrod., ch. ix. 27.)
p gen. subject., Luke iv. 22.
q—ch, vii. 17, 20.
2. ree at end ins Aeywv, with LN! rel Syr ce Thl: om ABCDEN? latt coptt arm
Eus Chr Thdrt Damase Ruf Ambr.
3. ree ins kat bef ra Ouvciaornpia, with DLN® rel syrr Justin Chr,
ABCFRN'! 17 latt coptt Eus, Chr.
4. carederrov ACFL n.
planation, the question of ver. 1 would be
self contradictory, and this negation a
truism. It would be inconceivable, that
God should cast off His elect). Or (see
ch. ix. 21 al. :—introduces a new objection
to the matter impugned) know ye not
what the Scripture saith in (the history
of) Elias (better thus than ‘with regard
to” as Luth., Erasm., Calv., Beza, al.
Tholuck gives examples: from Pausan.
vill. 37. 8,—Zorw ev “Hpas dpx@ 7a ern,
—i.e. in that part of the Iliad [é. 278]
where Hera swears by the Titans: from
Thucyd. i. 9,—kal ev Tov okhmTpov Gua
TH mapaddcer etpnrev avtoy TOAATTLYNTOL
Kk. “Apyei matt avdooery, i.e. in that part
of the Iliad [B. 108] where the trans-
mission of the sceptre is related)? how
(depends on od« ofdate) he pleads with
(see reff.—and note, ch. viii. 26) God
against Israel, kc. The citation is a free
one from the LXX. The clauses tovs
mpop., and Ta Ovo1acT. are inverted, év
pougaia is omitted, and Kaya brerclpd.
uévos is put for Kal brodeAciupmat eye
uovétaros. The altars, as De W. ob-
serves, were those on the high places,
dedicated to God. 4.) But what
saith the divine response to him (xp7-
paticuds, see reff. and reff. to the verb,
‘Acts x. 22)? I have left to myself (here
the Apostle corrects a mistake of the LXX,
who have for katéAurov—karadelpers,—
in the Complut. ed. katAci~w. He has
added to the Heb. *N307,—‘ Thave left,
Thdrt :
om
for Tn, Tw F. (to F: Tw G.)
5. Awa A B'(Mai) CD'FN: Anupe B?.
Kat’ exdoyns D!.
‘kept as a remainder,’—épavt@, a simple
and obvious filling up of the sense) seven
thousand men, who (the sense of the say-
ing, as far as regards the present purpose,
viz. to shew that all these were faithful
men; in the original text and LXX, it is
implied that these were all the faithful
men,—érta xiAidSas avdpav, mavTa *yd-
vara & ovK SkAacay yovu 7G B. Kk. way
ordua d ov mposextyncer ite. But this
was not necessary to be brought out here)
never bowed knee to Baal. “Here the
LXX, according to the present text, have
7G, not 7H Bdad : but elsewhere (see refi.)
they write the fem.: and probably the
Apostle read it so in his copy.” Fritz.
According to this Commentator, they wrote
the fem., taking Baal for a female deity;
according to Beyer, Addit. ad Seld. de diis
Syr., Wetst., Koppe, Olsh., Meyer,—be-
cause Baal was an androgynous deity ; —
according to Gesenius, in Rosenmiiller,
Rep. i. 39, to designate feebleness, compare
the Rabbinical nimibx, ‘ false gods,’ and
other analogous expressions in Tholuck.
« The regarding 77 BdaA as put for 77 Tod
Baad, scil. eixdvt or orhAn, as Erasm.,
Beza, Grot., Estius, al., and Bretschneider,
is perfectly arbitrary.” De Wette. In
Tobit i. 5, we have, raca: af pudal ai ovv-
atootaca voy TH Baad TH Sapddrct,—
where the golden calves of the ten tribes
seem to be identified with Baal. 5. ]
Thus then (analogical inference from the
example just cited) in the present time
426
rch. iii. 9.
vi. 15.
5 Matt. vi. 32. q
_ 3Y al.
1 Kings xx.
1 7°
a“
t Acts ix. 20 Tt ov ; oO
n oe * exoyn
reff.
u here bis.
Heb. vi. 15.
vi. 52. viii. 17. John xii. 40.
IPOS PQMAIOY®.
Emel 1 > xaptc VouK E ere yiverat Xaprc’
ovUK ert Xapte, ETE TO Zoyov * be ért €or Epyov.
* emilnret ‘Iopand, |
" eméruyev®
xi. 33. Jamesiv. 2 only. Gen. xxxix.2. Prov. xii. 27 only.
2 Cor. iii. 14 only, Job xvii. 7 only. (-pwors, ver. 25.)
XI.
wv
Let, Se € ef ERA
Tovro ouK " ewéruyen,
w? s
exwowlnaav,
w Mark
ot 6& Aorrot
v ch. ix. 11 reff. = here only.
6. for yiwerat, err C2(appy) 54 syrr Chr Thdrt: es¢ vulg D-lat lat-if: eri¢ G-lat.
om last clause ACDFN! 17 latt coptt 2th arm Damase Ambr Aug Ambrst :
ins (with
some variations) BLX% rel syrr Chr Thdrt (‘both, in text: they do not expl it in
comm; but that does not prove its omn:’
[rec ins eat: bef 3rd xapis: omd by BN%.
in ?) B.)
7. ewe(nre F 73 latt syrr lat-ff.
Tischdf) Gennad-c @e Thi. (See notes.)
: for epyov at end, xapis (by mis-
rec Toutov (grammatical corrn), with d gh P
Chr,-montf Thdor-mops Thdrt: txt le rel Chr, Chr,-2-mss (c-ms.
emepwOnoav(sic) C (m?): eropevnoay ¢
also (or, even in the present time, scil.
of Israel’s national rejection) there is a
remnant (a part has remained faithful,
which thus has become a Aciuua) according
to (in virtue of,—in pursuance of) the elec-
tion (selection, choice of a few out of many)
of grace (made not for their desert, nor
their foreseen congruity, but of God’s free
unmerited favour). 6.] ‘And let
us remember, when we say an election
of grace, how much those words imply :
viz. nothing short of the entire exclusion
of all human work from the question. Let
these two terms be regarded as, and kept,
distinct from one another, and do not let
us attempt to mix them and sodestroy the
meaning of each. So that the meaning
of the verse is to clear up and remove all
doubt concerning the meaning of ‘ election
of grace, —and to profess on the part of
the Apostle perfect readiness to accept his
own words in their full sense, and to abide
by them. This casts some light on the
question of the genuineness of the bracketed
clause (see authorities in var. readd.). ‘The
object being precision, it is much more pro-
bable that the Apostle should have written
both clauses in their present formal paral-
lelism, and that the second should have
been early omitted from its seeming super-
fluity, than that it should have been in-
serted from the margin. Besides which,
as Fritz. has remarked, the words do not
correspond sufficiently with those of the
first clause to warrant the supposition of
their having been constructed to tally
with it: we have for ydprrc in the first,
et Epywy in the second,—for yiverar xapis,
éotly épyov;—and the plur. épya would
probably have been retained in the infer-
ence of clause 2. But (directing attention
to the consequence of the admission, é1A.
xapitos) if by grace (the selection has
been made), it is no longer (when we have
: emnpwlnoay 66°
: excecati sunt latt.
conceded that, we have excluded its being)
of (arising out of, as its source) works:
for (in that case) grace no longer becomes
(i.e. becomes no longer—loses its efficacy
and character as) grace (the freedom and
‘proprio motu’ character, absolutely neces-
sary to the idea of grace, are lost, the act
having been prompted from without) :—
but if of (arising out of, as the cause and
source of the selection) works, no longer
is it (the act of selection) grace; for (in
that case) work no longer is work (the
essence of work, iu our present argument,
being ‘ that which earns reward, and the
reward being, as supposed, the election 4o
be of the remnant,—if so earned, there can
be nu admixture of divine favour in the
matter ; it must be all earned, or none:
none conferred by free grace, or all).
These cautions of the Apostle are decisive
against all attempts at compromise between
the two great antagonist hypotheses, of
salvation by God’s free grace, and salva-
tion by man’s meritorious works. The two
cannot be combined without destroying
the plain meaning of words. If now the
Apostle’s object in this verse be to guard
carefully the doctrine of election by free
grace from any attempt at an admixture
of man’s work, why is he anxious to do
this just at this point? I conceive, be-
cause he is immediately about to enter on
a course of exposition of the divine deal-
ings, in which, more than ever before,
he rests all upon God’s sovereign purpose,
while at the same time he shews that
purpose, though apparently severe, to
be one, on the whole, of grace and love.
7.| What then (what therefore
must be our conclusion from what has been
stated? We have seen that God hath not
cast off his own chosen nation, but that
even now there is a remnant. This being
so, what aspect do matters present? This
ABCD
FLNab
edfgh
kimn
017
7—10.
IIPOZ PQMAIOYS.
427
‘ , Die wal > - ¢ ‘ -~ =
Skaboc yéypanta "E8wxev avtoic 0 Oco¢ * mvevma ~eee
, > ‘ Z - ‘ \ % 21. 2Cor,
Yeatavvgewc, “opladpove “rou pn PAéEweav, Kal cure ia 13 ea
~ So 2 , o ~ , vi. i. spo.
“Tov mn akovev, Ewe TIC ‘ onmEpoV nuépac. 9 kat I eg
\ , d , € , > ? I" | ly. lc.
Aavad Aéyet Vevnnrw n ° rpameZa auto 4 cig fsb Tayloa Vw Ps tix.
Vid. *. gh ae Bndyat ik) ou ay ome WF ©) only,
kat “ic * Onpav Kat “ste " okavdaXov kai “ste | avr- (vioaeu
nN. of.
, , =
avosoua avroic, 19™
, e > ‘ > ~-
okotioOnrwoav ot es auTwv
a ~ si , ‘ ‘ ~ , ~
rou pn PAémwew, Kal Tov vwTov avTwY
Sir. xx. 21.)
z DEUT. xxix.
4.
” ota Tavroe Bay 1 Cor,
re
b Paul, Acts xxviii. 27 bis (from Isa. vi. 10). 1 Cor. ii. 9. xii. 16 only. c Matt. xxviii. 15. “Acts
xX. 26. 2 Cor. iii. Ld only. Josh. v. 9. dconstr., Acts v. 36 refl. Psa. Ixviii. 22.
e=1 Cor. x. 21 bis. Ps. lxxvii. 20. f Luke xxi. 35. 1 Tim. iii. 7. vi.y. 2 Tim. ii. 26
only, Prov. vii. 23. g Ps. xxxiv. h Josh. xxiii. 13. Ps. cxl. 9. i here
ouly. = Hos. v. 2. k = Matt. xvi. 83, ch. ix. 33 al. 1 Kings xviii. 2). ] Luke xiv. 12
oniy. Ps. xxvii.4. 2 Chron. xxxii. 26. (-doacs, Col. iii. 24.) m = ch. i. 2] (reff.) only. 1. c.
n Acts 1i, 25. x. 2a]. Isa. xlix. 16.
8. kadarep BN.
9. ins caBamep bef kat daverd C.
he asks to bring out an answer which may
set in view the ot Aovrot)? that which
Israel is in search of (viz. dicasocvv7, see
ch. ix. 31; x. 1 ff), this it (as a nation)
found not (on émtuvyxdvw w. an ace.,
see Matthie, Gr. Gr. § 363 obs.), but the
election (the abstract, because Israel has
been spoken of in the abstract, and to keep
out of view for the present the mere indi-
vidual cases of converted Jews in the idea
of an elected remnant) found it:
.8.] but the rest were hardened (not
‘blinded ;? see note on Eph. iv. 18:—
TKANpOTEepay 7) amiaTtla Thy Kapdlay avTa@v
ameipyacato. Theodoret. It is passive,
and implies God as the agent. This for
the sake of the context, @wxev avrots 6
Geds x.7.A., not necessarily for the meaning
of the word itself, which might indicate
‘became hard,’ but certainly does not
here),—as it is written (if we are to
regard these passages as merely analogous
instances of the divine dealings, we must
remember that the perspective of pro-
phecy, in stating such cases, embraces all
analogous ones, the divine dealings being
self-consistent,—and especially that great
one, in which the words are most pro-
minently fultilled),—God gave to them
(LXX and Heb., rewdtixev buas) a spirit
(see reff.) of torpor (there is at the end of
Fritzsche’s commentary on this chapter
an elaborate excursus on katdvuéis, in
which he has thoroughly investigated its
derivation and meaning. He comes to
the conclusion that it is derived from
Katavuocw, ‘compungo,’ and might sig-
my any excitement of mind, pity, sadness,
&c.,—but in the few places where it occurs,
it does import stupor or numbness :—so
ref. Ps., éréricas tuads olvov katavitews,—
which Hammond explains to mean the
stupifying wine given to them that were
6 is written twice in &.
to be put todeath. Hamm. also cites from
Marcus Eremita, vov@eo. Wux., p. 948, a
passage where he describes adédvoy tis
kataviéews as the consequence of oivo-
moctat. Tholuck compares the similar
meanings of ‘ frappé,’ struck, betvoffen),—
eyes that they should not see (such eyes
that they might not see: in the Heb. and
LXX the negative is joined with the verb,
kal ov Cdwkev Kipios 6 0. bue@v K.T.A.) and
ears that they should not hear unto this
present day. ‘These last words are not,
as Beza, E. V., Griesb., Knapp, to be sepa-
rated from the citation, and joined. to
éxrwpoOnoay: they belong to the words in
Deut. and are adduced by St. Paul as ap-
plying to the day then present, as they
did to the day when Moses spoke them :
see 2 Cor. iii. 15. 9.| And David
saith, Let their table be for a snare and
for a net (@fpa more usually ‘a hunt,’ or
the act of taking or catching,—but here
and in ref. a nef, the instrument of cap-
ture. It is not in the Heb. nor in the
LXX, and is perhaps inserted by the Apos-
tle to give emphasis by the accumulation of
synonymes), and for a stumbling-block
and recompense to them (the LXX have
eis maylda x. cis avtamddoow K. cis oKaY-
dadov. The Heb. of eis avramrddocw, as
at prcecut pointed, is onion), ‘to the se-
cure.’ It has been supposed that the LXX
panied Dred or oni, ‘for retribu-
tions.’ See Ps. xci. 8: sic qu. ?).
10.] Let their eyes be darkened that
they may not see, and their back bow
thou down always. “Instead of bend-
ing the back, the Heb. text speaks of
making the loins to tremble, 27 OND,
This elsewhere is a sign of great terror,
Nah. ii. 10; Dan. v. 6: and the darken-
ing of the eyes betokens in the Psalm,
428
o here only e ov ka vpoy
1. ce, 4 ings Digs r
. 00 only, .
5 ena 1. OUP
1D ine (is) ia toic eOvecw
10. tii. 2 (bis). a
2 Pet.i.10 peal! ald ¢ < cd
iv. 2.
r =ch. xiv.4 ‘
reff. TO
s ch. iii. 4 reff.
t ch. iv. 25 reff. ach. iv. 11 reff.
vi. 7 only. Isa. xxxi. 8 only.
28. ver. 24. Philem, 16. Heb. ix. 14 only.
12. om ver A.
a weakened, humbled, servile condition,
just asin Deut. xxviii. 65—67. It is plain
from 6a mavTdés, that we must not suppose
the infirmities of age to be meant. The
Apostle might well apply such a description
to the servile condition of the bondmen of
the law, see Gal. iv. 24.”? Tholuck.
11—24.] Yet this exclusion and hardening
has not been for their destruction, but for
mercy to the Gentiles, and eventually for
their own restoration. 11.] I say
then (see on ver. 1), Did they (who? see
below) stumble in order that they should
fall (not ‘ sic, ut caderent’—as Vulg.,—so
Orig., Chrys.,Grot., al., denoting the result
merely : neither the grammar nor the con-
text will bear this: the Apostle is arguing
respecting God’s intent in the rapdmrTwua
of the Jewish nation. He here calls it by
this mild name to set forth that it is not
final. The subject of érraay is the
adrot of the following verses, i. e. the Jews,
as a people: not the unbelieving indivi-
duals, who are characterized as weaévTes,
ver. 22. He regards the Aorrol as the re-
presentatives. of the Jewish people, who
have nationally stumbled, but not in order
to their final fall, seeing that God has a
gracious purpose towards the Gentiles even
in this mraioua of theirs, and intends to
raise them nationally from it in the end.
This distinction, between the mraicavres,
the whole nation as a nation, and the
mecdvres, the unbelieving branches who
have been cut off, is most important to the
right understanding of the chapter, and to
the keeping in mind the separate ideas, of
the restoration of individuals here and
there throughout time, and the restoration
of Israel at the end. The stress is on
méowory, and it is the full which is denied :
not on tva mécwou, so that the purpose
merely should be denied, and the fall ad-
mitted)? God forbid: but (the truer ac-
count of the matter is) by their trespass
(not fall, as E.V.) salvation (has come)
to the Gentiles, in order to stir them
(Israel) up to jealousy. Two gracious
purposes of God are here stated, the latter
wrought out through the former. By this
IIPOS PQMAIOYS.
xe ? - w x ~ 0 ~
ntTHna avtwy mAoutoc ebvwr,
v ch. x. 19 reff.
(see 2 Cor. xii. 13 reff.)
2 as above (y).
XI.
af ‘ Da df ,
VP Néyw ovv, py “Emratcay iva * réow-
8 ‘ , - > ‘ a 3) ie t , e
uN ‘yEvoLTO adda TW aUTWY TavaTTwraTt 7
u > ‘A Vv ~- ’ ,
ac to “mapalnAwoat avrove.
* . 2 ‘ > ~ - 0, \
only. 1Kings 12 67 82 6 ‘ rapaTTwpa autwyv “ wAovToc KOopov Kal
% roow ¥ wadXov
w = Heb. xi. 26. x 1 Cor.
y Matt. vii. 11. x. 25. Lukexi. 13. xii. 24,
Matt. xii. 12. Heb. x. 2Y only.
stumble of the Jews out of their national
place in God’s favour, and the admission
of the Gentiles into it, the very people thus
excluded are to be stirred up to set them-
selves in the end effectually to regain, asa
nation, that pre-eminence from which they
are now degraded. 12.] Then the
Apostle argues on this, as Meyer well says,
‘a felici effectu cause pejoris ad feliciorem
effectum cause melioris:’—But (‘posito,
that ’—as in last verse—taking for granted
the historical fact, that the stumble of the
Jews has been coincident with the admis-
sion of the Gentiles) if their trespass is the
world’s wealth (the occasion of that wealth,
—the wealth itself being the participation
in the unsearchable riches of Christ), and
(this latter clause parallel to and explana-
tory of the less plainly expressed one before
it) their loss, the wealth of the Gentiles,
how much more (shall) their replenish-
ment (be all this)? On fr7nua and
mTAfpwua much question has been raised.
I have taken both as answering strictly to
the comparison here before the Apostle’s
mind, viz. that of impoverishing and en-
riching,—and the genitives aita@y as sub-
jective: q. d. ‘if their impoverishment be
the wealth of the Gentiles, how much
more shall their enrichment be !? But
several other interpretations are possible.
(1) #77 nua May mean as in ref. 1 Cor.,
degradation, and mAjpwua would then be
Sulness, re-exaltation to the former mea-
sure of favour,—or perhaps, as where
Herod. iii. 22 says dyidxovta trea Céns
TANpwua, ‘their completion,’ ‘their highest
degree of favour.’ (2) If we regard the
meaning of wAfpwua in ver. 25, we shall
be tempted here to render it, ‘full nwm-
ber, and similarly #rrnua, ‘ small num-
ber” So the majority of Commentators :
Chrys., Theodoret, Erasmus, Beza, Bucer,
Grot., Bengel, Reiche, De W. (but only as
regards 7Anp.:—he renders #77. with Lu-
ther, Sdjade) and Olsh. (see below). Thus
the argument will stand: ‘If their unbelief
(i.e. of one part of them) is the world’s
wealth, and their small number (i.e. of
believers, the other part of them), the
ABCD
FLN ab
edfgh
klmn
017
11—15.
IIPOX POMAIOYS.
429
‘ , Breet \ , os 4 ial
TO *wAnowna avrov; |3 4 Day d& Aéyw roc EAvecty, *Zhgeeny®
pt LG \ 3 ’ ? ~ Bn B ‘ 23 notes.
Ep “Ooov mev ovv sie eyo EOvav amoatoAoc, THV John 1-16.
. , d , o , Wel cOre
*Stakoviay pov * do64Zw, M*el rwe ° mapatnwow joey "renal Ge
x | aaah Vig , ‘ , > ~ 15 ‘ e 45 (2 Pet. i.
TY ‘oaoka Kat ®owsw twac & avtor. él Ya 1 _ 18) only.
c¢ = Acts xx.
24 reff. d= 2 Cor. iii.10. Judg. ix. 9. ech. i. 10. f Gen. xxxvii. 27.
g = 1 Cor. vii. 16 (bis). ix. 22.
13. rec (for Se) yap, with DFL rel latt goth Chr Thdrt Gc Thl:
txt ABN syrr copt Thdrt-ms Damase.
D3-lat syr Chr Thdrt ec Thi Aug:
om wey ovv DF goth:
ey» A n 73. 80. 108. 116. 118 arm Thdrt-ms, :
1 Tim, iv. 16. James y. 20.
ovv C: om eth:
rec om ovy (see notes), with L rel vulg
ins ABCR copt. om
ins bef exur F Cyr lat-ff. dofacw
F 46. 109 latt Thdrt,(-a¢w,.) lat-ff(but not Ang).
14, ryv capa bef wou DI.
wealth of the Gentiles, how much more
their full (restored) number !’ i. e. as Olsh.
explains it, ‘ If so few Jews can do so much
for the Gentile world, what will not the
whole number do?’ But thus we shall
lose the ‘@ minori ad majus’ argument—
‘if their siz has done so much, how much
more their conversion ?? unless indeed it
be said that 7d #7tTnua implies a national
mapdrtwua. Besides, it can hardly be
shewn that #7Tyua will bear this meaning
of ‘a small number. (3) Tholuck, from
whom mostly this note is taken, notices
at length the view of Olsh., after Origen,
that the idea of a definite number of the
elect is here in the Apostle’s mind,—
that the falling off of the Jews produces
a deficiency in the number, which is filled
up by the elect from the Gentiles, as ver.
25: understanding by 7A7jpweua both there
and here, if I take his meaning aright,
the number required to fill up the roll of
the elect, whether of Jews, as here, or
Gentiles, as there. Tholuck, while he
concedes the legitimacy of the idea of a
TANpwuaA TOY owCoMevwy, Maintains, and
rightly, that in this section xo such idea
is brought forward : and that it would not
have been intended, without some more de-
Jinite expression of tt than we now find.
I have thought it best as above, con-
sidering the very various meanings and diffi-
culty of the word 7Ajpwpa, to keep here to
that which seems to be indicated by the
immediate context, which is, besides, the
primitive meaning of the word. It must
be noticed, that the fact, of Israel being the
chosen people of God, lies at the root of
all this argument. Israel is the nation,
the covenant people,—the vehicle of God’s
gracious purposes to mankind. Israel,
nationally, is deposed from present favour,
That very deposition is, however, accom-
panied by an outpouring of God’s riches of
mercy on the Gentiles; not as rivals to
Israel, but stz/é considered as further from
God, formally and nationally, than Israel.
If then the disgrace of Israel has had such
a blessed accompaniment, how much more
blessed a one shall Israel's honour bring
with it, when His own people shall once
more be set as a praise in the midst of the
earth, and the glory of the nations.
13.| ‘ Why, in an argument concerning the
Jews, dwell so much on the reference to the
Gentiles discernible in the divine economy
regarding Israel ? Why make it appear
as if the treatment of God’s chosen people
were regulated not by a consideration of
them, but of the less favoured Gentiles ?’
The present verse gives an answer to this
question. But (apology for the foregoing
verse :—if ydp be read, the sense will be
much the same—For |i. e. let it be under-
Stood, that], &c.) I am speaking to you
the Gentiles. Inasmuch therefore (pév
ovy is surely not to be rejected as yielding
no sense,—as De Wette and Tholuck, w ho
object to it as proceeding from those who
hold a new sentence to begin at é@ 6cov,
and buiv.... €@veow to refer to the fore-
going :—but the usage of nev ody in] Cor.
vi. 4 seems strictly analogous to that in our
text, where no new sentence is begun in
any sense which may not be true here.
éd Scov, not ‘as long as, as Orig. and
Vulg.) as I am Apostle of the Gentiles,
I honour mine office (by striving for their
conversion and edification at all times »—by
introducing a reference to them and their
part in the divine counsels, even when
speaking of mine own people), if by any
means I may (regarding it as a real ser-
vice done on behalf of Isr ael, thus to
honour mine office by mentioning the
Gentiles, if this mention may) stir up to
jealousy mine own flesh (the Jews) and
may save some of them. 15.) For
(a reason for my anxiety for the salva-
tion of Israel: not merely for the sake
of mine own kinsmen, but because their
recovery will bring about the blessed con-
summation of all believers. Vy. 13, 14
should not then be ina parenthesis) if the
430
ITIPO2 PQMAIOY®.
XI.
ss , s cmd i ‘ s Ul € ,
— " awoBoAn avtov kata\Aayn Kdcpov, tic } ) Tpdc-
(reff) + , x , > mene 1G ae 8: e kl? Ne ey
i (=)chs eM. Anpic, e wn Twn eK veKpwv; “a CE ~ aTapyn ayia,
Or. V. id, \ Ss tm , \ ? c n ¢f c , ‘ © o ,
19 only t. -
wanes) Kat 70" pvpana’ Kat & q "pila ayia, Kat ot ° KAGOL.
2 Mace. v. 20 :
only. jhereonly +. (-AauPetverv, ch. xiv. 3.) k ch. viii. 23 reff. 1 Num. xv. 21.
m ch. ix. 21 reft n Matt. iii. 10. xiii. 6 al.
times) only in Epp. Ezek, xxxi.7.
15. koouw F.
16. for de, yap A Thdrt, :
ms, arm.
om C? goth.
rejection of them (not ‘ their loss,’ as Luth.
and Beng., by which the antithesis to mpdés-
Anus is weakened) be (the occasion of)
the reconciliation of the world (of the
Gentiles, viz. to God), what (‘ qualis,’ ‘of
what kind,’ in its effect) (will be) their
reception, but (the occasion of) life from
thedead? {wi é« vexp. may be variously
taken. (1) it may be metaphorical, as in
ch. vi. 13, and may import, that so general
a conversion of the world would take place,
as would be like life from the dead. So,
more or less, Caly., Calov., Estius, Bengel,
Stuart, Hodge, al., and Theophyl., Phot.,
who explain it of a joy like that of the
resurrection. But against this interpreta-
tion lies the objection, that this is already
involved in karadAay} Kécu., and thus no
new idea would be brought out by the
words, which stand in the most emphatic
position. (2) it may mean that ‘life from
the dead’ literally should follow on the
restoration of the Jewish people ; i. e. that
the Resurrection, the great consummation,
is bound up with it. So Chrys., Orig.
(“tune enim erit assumptio Israel, quando
jam et mortui vitam recipient, et mundus
ex corruptibili incorruptibilis fiet, et mor-
tales immortalitate: donabuntur ”’), Theo-
doret, Reiche, Meyer, Fritzsche, Riickert
ed. 2, Tholuck, al. The objection to this
view seems to be, that the Apostle would
hardly have used (w) é« vexpav thus pre-
dicatively, if he had meant by it a fixed
and predetermined event ;—but that, stand-
ing as it does, it must be qualitative, im-
plying some further blessed state of the
reconciled world, over and above the mere
reconciliation. This might well be de-
signated ‘life from the dead,’ and in it
may be implied the glories of the first
resurrection, and deliverance from the
bondage of corruption, without supposing
the words (wi ex vexp@v=7 avdoracis TOV
VEK. Stuart well compares Ezek. xxxvii.
1—14, which was perhaps before the mind
of the Apostle:—but he gives a mere
ethical interpretation to it. 16— 24. |
Such a restoration of Israel was to be
expected from a consideration of their
destination and history. This is set forth
Job xiv. 8.
o Matt. xiii. 32 al. here &c. (5
for mposd., mpod. CF k!.
om 2nd e F 70. 71. 109 lect-13 Chr-
insimilitudes, that of the root and branches
being followed out at some length,—and
their own position, as engrafted Gentiles,
brought to the mind of the readers. But
(a further argument for their restoration
following on aAAd, ver. 11) if the first
fruit be holy, so also the lump (not here
the first fruit of the field, as Grot., Rosenm.
[nor is vpaua the cake made by the
priests out of the first fruits which fell to
them, Deut. xviii. 4, as Estius, Koppe,
K6llner, Olsh., al.] ;—but the portion of
the kneaded lump of dough [ @¥pw], which
was offered as a heave-offering to the Lord,
and so sanctified for use the rest: see ref.
Num. where the same words occur) ;—and
if the root be holy, so also the branches.
Who are the amapyxy and the pita? First
of all, there is no impropriety in the two
words applying to the same thing. Yor
though, as Olsh. remarks, the branches
being evolved from the root, it rather
answers to the @vpaua than to the arapx7%,
and, as Riickert, the first fruit succeeds
the lump in time, while the root precedes
the branches,—yet, as Thol. replies, the
ay.drns is the point of comparison, and in
ayidtns the amapxnh precedes and gives
existence to the @vpaua. This being so,
(1) the awapxy and pita have generally
been taken to represent the patriarchs ;
and I believe rightly (except that perhaps
it would be more strictly correct to say,
Abraham himself). The @yamrnrod bia
Tovs matépas of ver. 28 places this refer-
ence almost beyond doubt. Origen ex-
plains the fi¢a to be our Lord. But
He is Himself a branch, by descent from
Abraham and David (Isa. xi. 1; Matt. i. 1),
if genealogically considered ; and if mysti-
cally, the whole tree (John xv. 1). De
Wette prefers to take as the first fruit and
root, the ideal theocracy founded on the
patriarchs,—the true, faithful children of
the patriarchs, and as the branches, those
united by mere external relationship to
these others. This he does, because in the
common acceptation, the ckAdbo: who are
cut off ought to be severed from their phy-
sical connexion with Abraham, &e., which
they are not. This objection I do not con-
ABCD
FLX ab
cedfgh
klmn
017
16—18.
> ~
17 €t bg TIVEC TWYV
x wn
éAatoce wv
~ net tod
me "pitne tne
r here Se. hte only ¢. Wisd. xvi. 11 only.
Eph. v t here only.
exc. (w. Gpos)in Gospp. Gen. viii. 11.
17. exeytpiocOns L.
ALN? rel: om BC(D'F)X! copt Damase.
int (Cyr-jer) Aug,
ceive applicable here: because, as we see
evidently from ver. 23, the severing and
re-enerafting are types, not of genealogical
disunion and reunion, but of spiritual.
Meanwhile, De W.’s view appears less
simple than the ordinary one, which, as I
hope to shew, is borne out by the whole
passage. (2) Then, who are indicated by
the ddpapa and the kha8or? ISRAEL, con-
sidered as the people of God. The lump,
which has received its ay:dtns from the
amapx, = Israel, beloved for the fathers’
sakes : the assemblage of branches, evolved
from Abraham, and partaking of his holi-
ness. But one thing must be especially
borne in mind. As Abraham himself had
an outer and an inner life, so have the
branches. They have an outer life, de-
rived from Abraham by physical descent.
Of this, no cutting off can deprive them. It
may be compared to the very organization
of the wood itself, which subsists even after
its separation from the tree. But they
have, while they remain in the tree, an inner
life, nourished by the circulating sap, by
virtue of which they are constituted living
parts of the tree: see our Lord’s parable
of the vine and the branches, John xv. 1 ff.
It is of this life, that their severance from
the tree deprives them: it is this life, which
they will re-acquire if grafted in again.
See a very ingenious but artificial explana-
tion in Olsh., who agrees in the main with
De W.:—and the whole question admirably
discussed in Tholuck. The ayidtns then
here spoken of, consists in their dedication
to God as a people—in their being physi-
cally evolved from a holy root. This pecu-
liar ayidrns (see 1 Cor. vii. 14, where the
children of one Christian parent are simi-
larly called &y:a) renders their restoration
to their own stock a matter, not of wonder
and difficulty, but of reasonable hope and
probability. | I maynoticein passing, that
those expositors who do not hold a restora-
tion of the Jewish people to national pre-
eminence, find this passage exceedingly in
their way, if we may judge by their expla-
nations of this &y:d7ns._ E. g. Mr. Ewbank
remarks: ‘Holy theyare, inasmuch as there
isno decree against theirrestorationtotheir
IIPOX PQMAIOY®.
r , , ’ , i ‘
evexevToiaOnc —&vy avuTolc Kal
t , a
TlOTHTOC THC
JuDG. ix. 9.
om ev Ci(appy).
431
°KAadwv ? c&exAacMnoar, = oe 9 aypt- p here &c. 8ce
only. Levit.
i. 17 onl
oh yeaeee aver. 24unlyt.
x see Ina. Xliv.
8 an 14 F (not A).
Jer. xvii. 6.
$1 Cor. ix. 23. Phil. i.7. Rev.i.Gonlyt. (-ecv,
u ver. 24. Jamesiii.12. Rev. xi. 4 only,
“eXalac eyévov,
rec ins ca bef ts mornTos, with
eyevou THs m. THS eAatov D'F k Iren-
place of life and fruitfulness.? Surely this
is anew meaning of ‘holy:” the same would
be true of a Hottentot: in his case, too,
there is no decree against his reception into
a place (and in Mr. E.’s view, the restora-
tion of the Jew is nothing more) of life and
frnitfulness in the Church of God.
17.] But (introduces a hypothesis involvi ing
a seeming inconsistency with the aydrns
just mentioned) if some of the branches
(the ties, as Thol. remarks, depreciates
the number, in order to check the Gentile
pride) were broken out (from the tree),
and thou (a Gentile believer) being a wild
Olive (aypiéAaos, the tree, spoken of a
sprout or branch of it. Better so than, as
Fritz., Meyer, to make ayp. an adj., ‘of
wild olive,’ which can only be used of that
which is made out of the wood, as Gypr-
€Aatos ckuTdAn. Thol.) wast grafted ia
(Clem. Alex. Strom. vi. § 119, p. 799 P.,
enumerates four different kinds of éyrev-
Tpiouds, using it as a general term for
grafting and budding. The difficulty here
is, that the Apostle reverses the natural
process. It is the wilding, in practice,
which is the stock, and the graft inserted
is a sprout of the better tree. I believe
that he does not here regard what is the
fact in nature: but makes a supposition
perfectly legitimate, —that a wilding graft
on being inserted into a good tree, thereby
becomes partaker of its qualities. No
allusion can be intended to a practice men-
tioned by Columella, de Re Rust. v. 9,
of inserting a wilding graft into a good
tree to increase the vigour and growth
of the tree: for this would completely
stultify the illustration—the point of which
is, a benefit received by the wilding from
the tree, not one conferred by the wild-
ing on it) among them (i.e. among the
branches,—-tois kAdSors : or perhaps avrors
may imply the remnants of the branches
broken off. The renderings, ‘in their
stead, ‘in locum,’ as De W. after Chrys.,
Theophyl., Beza,—and ‘in their place,’
‘in loco, Meyer, Olsh., are surely inad-
missible), and becamest a fellow-partaker
(with the branches: or perhaps simply ‘
partaker,’ ovv not implying fellows in par-
432
v (=) here bis.
James ii. 13.
TIPOS PQMAIOY®S.
XI.
v Lo = Oo , A 2 \ ov rs , ‘
KaTakKavy TWV KA ddwy €t oe KaTaKavyaoal, OU GU
iii. 14 only. “ SE a ? ae ee ty ’ > # *s
derxxvi THY " pilav ™ BacraZeac, adda 7 "pila aé. 19 EpetC OUV
(L.) 11, 38 P , ve , e , / ’ <4 , a
a P* E&exAaoOnoav [or | "Kado iva Eyw r eyKxevto0w,
ch. 3 mie 90 3 ~ -~ > ’ ? , ‘ \ re ,
‘rae. 7) > KaAdwes TH * amtorla P EcxAacOnoay, av O& TH TloTEl
John xvi. 12.
Fi vee (Ci 3 ~ 9 > ¢€
4 Kings xviii. EGTMKAC. [AN] *2 ybnopoore, a\Aa popov' 21 gf yao 0
14. Sir. vi. 25
only. Bel &
BN ~ b ‘ b , 7a ,’ c? ,
Dr-36 Theo. eog Twv * Kata ° pvatv °KAadwy ovK epelaarto,
x Matt. xv. 7.
gohniv. 17 al. 2 Kings iii. 13.
vi. 17 only ¢. see ch. xii. 16 reff.
below (I).
Exxvi. 21.
18. for katakavyacat, cv kavxaca D'F Ambrst.
19. for etexAacOnoay, ec KkAacOnoay FP.
Damase (ec: ins BD! b c o Thdrt Thi.
y =ch.iii 3. Heb. iii. 19. dat. of cause, see ver. 30.
a—chexatl.
c Paul (Acts xx. 29. ch. viii. 32.
d =1 Cor. viii. 9. ellips., here only.
d ,
Lea
z1 Tim.
b here &c. (3ce) only ¢. see
1 Cor. vii. 28 al.) only, exc. 2 Pet. ii. 4,5. Ezek.
Col. iii. 22.
[aAAa, so BD!N. ]
om oc ACD3FLN rel Chr Thdrt.ms
20. for cfexAacOnoav, exAacOncay D'F: txt ABCD*LN rel Chr Thdrt.
- ulna ppove ABN.
21. ec yap is written over an erasure by N!.
ticipation, but merely the participation
itself) of the root of the fatness (of that
root, on union with which all the develop-
ment of life and its fertility depend: which
is the source of the fatness. With kal, it
will mean, of the source of life, and also of
the development of that life itself in all
richness of blessing) of the olive-tree,
18.| do not boast against the
branches (which were broken off): but if
thou boastest against them(knowthat...,
or let this consideration humble thee, that
... Similarly 1 Cor. xi. 16, ¢i 5€ Tis Sone?
piAdvetkos elvat, Nuets Toladtny ovvhberay
ovK €xouev, x.T.A. See Winer, edn. 6,
§ 66. 1), it is not thou that bearest the
root, but the root thee. The ground of
humiliation is—‘‘ Thou partakest of thy
blessings solely by union with God’s. spi-
ritual church, which church has for its
root that father of the faithful, from whom
they are descended. Regard them not
therefore with scorn.” This is expanded
further in ver. 20. 19.| Thou wilt
then (posito, that thou boastest, and de-
fendest it) say, The branches (the art. has
probably been erased, to square this sen-
tence with ver. 17, where tives 7. KAdSwv
only were broken off. Perhaps, as Matthai
has remarked [{Thol.], ‘Gentilis loquitur
arrogantius,’ using of A. in his pride, to
signify that the branches, generically, have
now become subject to excision on his ac-
count. But I prefer taking of «A. for the
severed branches, oi kX. of €xxkAacbevtTEes,—
just as of “lovdato: in any particular place
= the Jews there present, not the whole
Jewish people) were broken off that I (em-
phatic) might be grafted in. 20. |
Well (the fact, involving even the purpose,
assumed in fva, is conceded. When Thol.
denies this, he forgets that the prompting
rec ins nn ws bef ovde, with DFL
cause of their excision, their unbelief, is
distinct from the divine purpose of their
excision, the admission of the Gentiles, and
belongs to a different side of the subject) :
—through their unbelief (or perhaps,
‘through unbelief, abstract. There is often
a difficulty in distinguishing the possessive
from the abstract (i.e. generic) article.
Thol. observes that the instrumental use of
the dat. and that of 6:é with the gen. differ
in this, that the latter expresses more the
immediate cause, the former the mediate
and more remote. The explanation of this
would be, that the dative only acquires its
instrumental use through another, more
proper attribute of the case, that of refer-
ence to, form or manner in which: see
Bernhardy, Syntax, ch. iii. 14, pp. 100—
105) they were broken off, but thou by thy
faith (see above :—‘ through’ indicates bet-
ter the prompting cause of a definite act,—
‘by, the sustaining condition of a con-
tinued state. Thus we should always say
that we are justified through, not by, faith,
—but that we stand by, not through, faith)
standest (in thy place, in the tree, opposed
to é&exAdoOnoay. Thol. prefers the sense
in ch. xiv. 4, and certainly the adoption of
meadvtes ver. 22, seems to shew that the
figurative diction is not strictly preserved).
—Be not high minded, but fear:
21.| for if God did not spare the natural
branches (the branches which grew accord-
ing to natural development, and were not
engrafted),—(supply ‘I fear,’ or ‘it is
to be feared,’ or simply ‘fear,’ or ‘take
heed,’ as in ref.) lest He shall also not
spare THEE. The fut. ind. with “7 ws,
the apparent incongruity of which has pro-
bably caused the variety of reading, im-
plies, as Herm., Soph. Aj. 272, observes
with regard to the ind. pres., ‘ «i éort
19—24.
IIPOS PQMAIOYS.
433
ech. ii. 4 reff.
d 3 8e ~ e , SDS) “ps 3: '¢ , \
wwe | QUOE OOU pelosTal, toE OUV XPuoTroTynra Kal f here bis onlyt.
p)
f 3 ] ae
aTOTOMLAV Osov ev
Los \ \e , ~ rs
eT Oe O€ XpnoroTne cov, tav
, ’ \ \ ‘ i? ,
OTOTHTL ETEL KAL GU : EKKOTNGY.
She? ! me Vane ! kk? y .
Ly ETLUELYVWOLY ™) aTLOTLA, eykevrotoOnoovrat duva-
‘ ,
TOC ya
9. bd ‘
24 EL
\
eAalov Kal ' rapa ua
/ , ~ cd
éXaoyv, "wdc “padXov ovrot
k ver. 17.
xi. ]2only. Deut. vii. 5.
n ver, 12.
de Plant. i. 6.
\ ~ g ,
puey TOUC ° TEGOVTAG
del... amo-
Toplay TH]
MT paoTrTe
tyvivat.
Plut. de Lib.
Educ. p. 13,
D. (-0s,
Wisd. v. 20 )
£ eal xiv. 4
f ,
aTOTOMLA,
bi ’ =a 4e
ETT ULELV IC ™ Ken-
237.3 .
= seas
KaKEWOL Of, av
> € ff) ‘ WN kee, ! > Lage S reff.
toTLVY O €0C TAAL eykevroloat auTOvuc h=ch.vi.1
reff.
c
’ ~ 7? =
ao ov ex tye * Kara ° pvow 1 ef exomne * @you- ihere dis,
k? ,
evexevrolaOnc etc ™ KaX\At-
Matt. iii. 19
| L v.30.
vii. 19.
xviii. 8.
Luke xiii.
b ,
puaotv
7.19) BiCor:
m here only t. Aristot.
Go ab ‘
ou kata
ch. i. 26 (reff.) only.
o ellips., ch. iv. 14 al.
elcetat, GAA Mf ws odde cod Helontat, HwoTeuvduevos tov Adyou To popTikoy TH
’ ’ vO 24 p t
uiBorlg) Thdrt @e Thi Iren-int Cypr Ambrst : om (corrn to avoid fut. with wn
aws ?) ABCR copt Damase Ruf Aug.
ree geronta, with (none of our mss)
Chr-montf Chr-c Thl Ge: txt B(sic) CDFLN rel Chr-2-mss Thdrt Antch Damase.
22. ins Tov bef deou B.
rec arorouiav (see note), with DFL &3(but v erased)
rel Clem Eus Chr Thdrt Phot: txt ABCR' (Orig) Damase.
rec xpnotoryta, with
D3FL rel Clem Chr Cyr Thdrt Phot: -rnros(sic) N: txt ABCD! (Orig) Eus Damase.
e
rec om @cou (see note), with D?-3FL rel demid Syr Clem Orig Chr Thdrt: ins
ABCD! vulg copt arm Eus Damasc Pelag.
93. rec cat exewor, with L rel Chr Thdrt: ABCDFR c d k Damasce.
o Geos bef eorw Lahk117.
BD!R}.
(cra) verentis quidem est ne quid nune
sit (futurwm sit), sed indicantis simul, pu-
tare, se ita esse ( futurum esse), ut veretur.’
See Winer, edn. 6, § 56. 2. b. a, and 64. 7,
also Col. ii. 8; Heb. iii. 12. 22.| The
caution of the preceding verse is unfolded
into a setting before the Gentile of the
true state of the matter. Behold therefore
(posito, that thou enterest into.the feeling
prompted by the last verse) the goodness
and the severity (no allusion to amotéuyw
in its literal sense) of God :—towards those
who fell (see on ver. 11. Here the
meodyres are opposed to ot, the figure being
for the moment dropped: for wimre: can
hardly be used of the branches, but of men)
severity ; but towards thee, the goodness
of God (the nominatives here, as involving
a departure from the construction, are pre-
ferable : and the repetition of @cod is quite
in the manner of the Apostle: see 1 Cor. i.
24, 25. Riickert thinks that because Clem.
Alex. Pedag. i. 8, p. 189 P., understands
xpnorétns, in dy émpeclyns TH xpnord-
ttt, of the xpnatdétns of men (touréoTt
rij cis xptorbv mloret), Oeov May have been
a marginal gloss to guard against this mis-
take, and may have found its way into the
text, misplaced. But this is hardly pro-
pable: @cod is much more likely to have
been erased as unnecessary), if thou abide
by (reff.) that goodness; for (assuming
that thou dost not abide by that goodness)
Vou. If.
exiuevns BD!.
ETL MEVOOW
thou also shalt be cut off (ind. fut. The
placing only a comma at ekxomhop, as
Meyer,—not Lachm. and Tischend. in their
last editions, —preventsthe break evidently
intended between the treatment of the
case of the Gentile and that of the Jews).
23.| And they moreover, if they
continue not (not exactly the same mean-
ing as before: the xpnortdrms before being
external and objective, this, as in ch. vi. 1,
a subjective state) in their (see on ver. 20)
unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is
able to graft them inagain. (Some, e.g.
Grot., represent this last clause as imply-
ing, that God’s power to graft them in
again has always been the same, but has
waited for their change of mind, to act:
‘Nihil est preter incredulitatem quod
Deum impediat eos rursum pro suis as-
sumere et paterne tractare :’—but surely
De W.’s interpretation is far better :—
“The Apostle obscurely includes in the
éyxevtp. the removal of their unbelief and
the awakening of faith, and this last espe-
cially he looks for from above :’—for, as he
observes, the power of God would not be
put forward, if the other were the mean-
ing.) 24.| For (proof that, besides
God’s undoubted power to re-engraft them,
the idea of their being so re-engrafted is
not an unreasonable one) if THOU wast cut
out of thy natural wild olive-tree, and
unnaturally wast engrafted into a good
FF
, ome , be WA
Pes eyKevtpiaOncovrat Ty wola
zii.t. 2Cor. « = Pp? ~ > , nN
1 Thess oe adeA pot, TO
han
q = see note.
ch. xvi. 25 al.
Dan. ii. 18. ak = o
r Matt. xxv. 2, ooa é VEV
&e. Gen. by e Y
s1i.358. w. Evy 1 Cor. iv. 10. w. map, ch. xii. 16. Prov. iii. 7.
. (-potv, ver. 7.)
9, &e. xiv. 27. Heb. ix. 5.
(ver. 12.)
onlyt tch. xv. 15, 24.
only t.
25. Ochw bef yap N: OcAw Se (omg yap) m.
Thdor-mops Chr Thdrt : om F 47. 67? latt copt lat-ff: txt AB goth Damase.
axpis, axpt B!.
olive-tree, how much more shall these,
the natural branches, be engrafted in
their own olive-tree? It is a question, as
Tholuck remarks, whether kata piow and
mapa pvow denote merely growth in the
natural manner and growth (by engraft-
ing) in an unnatural (i.e. artificial) man-
ner,—or that the wild is the nature of the
Gentile, and the good olive that of the Jew,
so that the sense would he—‘ If thou wert
cut out of the wild olive which is thine
naturally, and wert engrafted contrary to
(thy) nature into the good olive, how much
more shall these, the natural branches,’ &e.
But then the latter part of the sentence
does not correspond with the former. We
either should expect the of to be omitted (as
is done in some mss.), or must, with Fritz.,
place a comma after ofrou, and, taking of
as the relative, construe, ‘ How much more
these, who shall, agreeably to (their) na-
ture, be grafted,’ &e. Tholuck describes
the question as being between a comparison
of engrafting and not engrafting, and one
of engrafting the congruous and the incon-
gruous : and, on the above ground, decides
in favour of the former,—kard ovow sig-
nifying merely natural growth, rapa ¢.,
unnatural growth, i.e. the growth of the
grafted scion. But however this may fit
the former part of the sentence, it surely
cannot satisfy the requirements of the /a¢-
ter, where the kata @toww (kAddor) are de~
scribed as being engrafted (which would
be rapa ptaw) into their own olive-tree.
We must at least assume a mixture of the
two meanings, the antithesis of «ard and
mapa . being rather verbal than logical,—
as is so common in the writings of the
Apostle. Thus in the former case, that of
the Gentile, the fact of natural growth is
set against that of engrafted growth:
whereas in the latter, the fact of congr wity
of nature (77 idla erate) i is set against in-
congruity,—as making the re- engrafting
more probable. 25— —32.] Pr ophetic
announcement that this re-engrafting
SHALL ACTUALLY TAKE PLACE (25—27),
and explanatory justification of this
MPO PQMAIOY®.
NTE ey EavTOIC * $oavipor, ort
“ ay etc ov TO
u constr., 1 Cor. xi. 26.
ek:
25 P Ou yap bw
, . ~
tude sigs wa pa)
aro ‘ péooue Tw
: eXata,
“mapwars *
TANowa TwY Beane
s Markiii. 5. Eph.iv.38
2 Cor. i. 14. ii. 5 only. P. Josh. xviii. 20. ‘seo 1 Gor. xiii.
Gal. ili. 19 al. v = here
rec (for ev) map, with CDLN rel
for
divine arrangement (28—82). 25. |
For (I do not rest this on mere hope or
probability, but have direct revelation of
the Holy Spirit as to its certainty) f
would not have you ignorant, brethren
(see reff.,—used by the Apostle to an-
nounce, either as here some authoritative
declaration of divine truth, or some facts
in his own history not previously known
to his readers), of this mystery (pvor.
Tholuck in his 4th edition classifies the
meanings thus: (1) such matters of fact,
as are inaccessible to reason, and can
only be known through revelation: (2)
such matters as are patent facts, but
the process of which cannot be entirely
taken in by the reason. He adds a third
sense,—that, which is no mystery é itself,
but by its figurative import. Of the first,
he cites chap. xvi. 25; 1 Cor. ii. 7—10;
Eph. i. 9; iii.4; vi. 19; Col. i. 26, al., as
examples: of the second, 1 Cor. xiv. 2;
xiii. 2; Eph. v. 32; 1 Tim. iii. 9,16: of
the third, Matt. xiii. 11; Rev.i.20; xvii.
5; 2 Thess. ii. 7. The first meaning is
evidently that in our text :—‘a prophetic
event, unattainable by human knowledge,
but revealed from the secrets of God’), that
ye be not wise in your own conceits (that
ye do not take to yourselves the credit for
wisdom superior to that of the Jews, in
having acknowledged and accepted Jesus
as the Son of God,—seeing that ye merely
HAchOnte tH TovTwY ameiHeia, ver. 30),—
that hardening (not ‘dlindness :’ see above
on ver. 7, and Eph. iv. 18 note) has hap-
pened in part (Calvin explains it ‘ quodam-
modo....qua payticula voluisse mihi dun-
taxat videtur temperare verbum alioqui
per se asperum, —but there is no trace of
such a desire above, ver. 7 ;—the twes ver.
17 establishes the ordinary acceptation,
that a portion of Israel have been hardened.
amd p. may be joined with répwois, or
with yéyovey: from the arrangement of
the words, best with the former) to Israel,
until (& pis of has been variously rendered
by those who wish to escape from the pro-
phetie assertion of the restoration of Israel.
ABCD ©
FLNab-
edfgh-
kLmn _
017
25, 26.
TIPO PQMAIOYS.
435
sn 9 \ ) - ’
ceAOy, “8 xat “ourwo mac ‘lepanrA cwIicerat, Kao "A"?
So Calv.: “ donec non infert temporis pro-
gressum vel ordinem, sed potins valet per-
inde ac si dictum foret, wé plenitudo gen-
tium ;”—al., ‘while .... shall come in :’
but Thol. well observes that &xp. ob with
an ind., if any thing actually happening
is spoken of, may have the meaning of
‘while,’ even with an aor.: but with a
subj. of the aorist, a possible future event
is indicated, which when it enters puts an
end to the former: see reff.) the comple-
tion of the Gentiles shall have come in
(scil. to the Church or Kingdom of God,
where we, the Apostle and those whom he
addresses, are already: as we use the word
‘come in’ absolutely, with reference to
the place in which we are. Or the word
may be used absolutely, as it seems to be
in Luke xi. 52, of entering into the King-
dom of God. In order to understand
7d TAnp.T. €v., we must bear in mind the
character of the Apostle’s present argu-
ment. He is dealing with nations : with
the Gentile nations, and the Jewish nation.
And thus dealing, he speaks of 7b wA7p. T.
é6yv. coming in, and of mas *IopafA being
saved: having xo regard for the time to
the individual destinies of Gentilesor Jews,
but regarding nations as each included
under the common bond of consanguinity
according to the flesh. The tAhpepa Tav
eévay I would regard then as signifying
‘the full number, ‘the totality’ of the
nations, i.e. every nation under heaven, the
prophetic subjects (Matt. xxiv. 14) of the
preaching of the gospel. Stuart denies that
wAnpaua will admit of thismeaning. But
the sense which he allows to it of “ comple-
tion, i.q. mAfjpwors” (?), amounts in this
case to the same thing: that completion
not arriving till a// have come in: the
TAnpouwa Tey eOyGv importing that which
mwAnpot Ta €0vn. Theideaof an elect num-
ber, however true in itself (‘ plenitudo
gentium in his intrat, qui secundum pro-
positum vocati,’ Aug. cited by Tholuck),
does not seem to belong to this passage).
26.] And thus (when this condition
shall have been fulfilled) all Israel shall be
saved (Israel as a nation, see above : not
individuals,—nor is there the slightest
ground for the notion of the aroxardcra-
ols). This prophecy has been very vari-
ously regarded. Origen, understanding by
the ‘omnis Israel qui salvus fiet,’ the ‘ re-
liquie que electie sunt,’ yet afterwards ap-
pears to find in the passage his notion of
the final purification of all men,—of the
believing, by the word and doctrine: of the
unbelieving, by purgatorial fire. Chry-
sostom gives no explanation: but on
our Lord’s words. in Matt. xvii. 11, he
says, dtav elmn Ott “HAlas wey epxerar
kK. G@mokatactThoe: mwavTa, avroy "HAtay
onot, K. Thy TOTE EoopevyVv TOV "lovdatwv
émuotpodyv,—and shortly after calls him
Ths Sevrepas mapovolas mpddpomos. Simi-
larly Theodoret and Gregory of Nyssa (in
Thol.) ; so also Augustine, de Civ. Dei xx.
29, vol. vii. p. 704,—‘ ultimo tempore
ante judicium (per Eliam, exposita sibi
lege) Judzos in Christum verum esse cre-
dituros, celeberrimum est in sermonibus
cordibusve fidelium.’ Similarly most of
the fathers (Estius), and schoolmen (Thol.) ;
—Jerome, however, on Isa. xi. 11, vol. iv.
p- 162, says, ‘Nequaquam juxta nostros
Judaizantes, in fine mundi quum intraverit
plenitudo gentium, tune omnis Israel salvus
tiet: sed heee omnia de primo intelligamus
adventu.’? Grotius and Wetst. believe it to
have been fulfilled after the destruction of
Jerusalem, when puplo: ex mepitouijs be-
came believers in Christ (Hus. H. EF. iii. 35).
But Thol. has shewn that neither could
the number of Gentiles received into the
Church before that time have answered to
the mAfpapa r. eOvGy, nor those Jews. to
mas *Iopaha, which expression accordingly
Grotius endeavours to explain by a Rab-
binical formula, that “all Israel have a
part in the Messiah ;” which saying he
supposes the Apostle to have used ina spi-
ritual sense, meaning the Israel of God, as
Gal. vi. 16. The Reformers for the most
part, in theirzeal to impugn the millenarian
superstitions then current, denied the future
general conversion of the Jews, and would
not recognize it even in this passage :—
‘Luther did so, at one time, but towards the
end of his life spoke most characteristically
and strongly of what he conceived to be the
impossibility of such national convers on
(see extract in Tholuck’s note, p. 616) :—
Calvin says: ‘Multi accipiunt de populo
Judaico, ac si Paulus diceret instaurandum
adhue in religionem ut prius: sed ego
Israelis nomen ad totum Dei populum ex-
tendo, hoc sensu, Quum Gentes ingress
fuerint, simul et Judzi ex defectione se ad
fidei obedientiam recipient. Atque ita
complebitur salus totius Israelis Dei, quem
ex utrisque-colligi oportet: sic tamen ut
priorem locum Judzi obtineant, ceu in
familia Dei primogeniti.’. Calovius, Ben-
gel, and Olshausen, interpret was *Iop. of
the elect believers of Israel :—Beza, Estius,
Koppe, Reiche, Kéllner, Meyer, Tholuck,
De Wette, al., hold that the words refer, as
I have explained them above, to a national
F Ff 2
ee
436 TIPO POMAIOY®. XI.
ae / 4 ’ ‘ e ez >
Sei” Yeyparrar: Héa é Siwy o *“pudpevoc, * aroorpefe ee
lix. 20. > ' 5 bt , 9 \ ¢ - 9 ay = aod-
pres. part 7 aceBetac ard laxw[3° 27 kat * autn avrotc 1) Tao Eou cdfg he
xxvi. 48. bab at’ ed 3 weX Aedes Pe yey as ae aD a a
ert ae cabncn, * Orav “ apsAwpat tag © auaortiag avTwY. ~~ Kata
5 al.
Acts iii. 26
y As
\ CL, / e? \ Benes es . Ql eee) oa by
LMév TO evayyéAtov éx Opor bt uuac, KaT@ O& TYHV exAoyny
rae ? \ N ‘ b , 990i? , N .
seh ea Tere Pog yar nr ol dla TOV * TaTEoac. 29} GusrapeAnta yao Ta
w. Gav, k ' NP el NG ~ ff) ~ 30 « . c o-
Monn 3. XAplopata Kat n KAnatc tov Usov. WCTEO YAO UMELC
b = Luke i. 72.
Acts iii. 25, Ps. xxiv. 14. ce mid., Luke xvi. 3only. Hos. ii. 9. dHeb. x. 4 Isa. xxvii. 9. Sir.
xlvii. 11. e = Gal. iv. 16. ch, ix. J1 reff. g Matt. iii.17. ch. i.7 al. Ps.
evii. 6. h absol., Acts vii. 19 reff. i 2 Cor. vii. 10 only Ft. k ch. v. 15, 16. vi. 23.
1 Paul (1 Cor. i. 26. vii. 20. Eph. i.18. Phil. iii. 14 al.) only, exc. Heb. iii.]. 2 Pet.i.10. Jer. xxviii. (xxxi.) 6.
Judith xii. 1u F, only.
96. rec ins kau bef amoorpefet, with D?3 L rel vss Orig Chr Thdrt: om ABCD'FR.
—amootpewat F goth.
30. om ver. N!.
rec ins ka bef vues, with D2°LN? rel vulg syrr Chr(montf
and 2-mss): om ABCD'FX-corr! a copt goth ath Chr Damase Thl Jer Augsepe Ruf.—
restoration of Israel to God’s favour.
I have not mixed with the consideration of
this prophecy the question of the restora-
tion of the Jews to Palestine, as being
clearly irrelevant to it: the matter here
treated being, their reception into the
Church of God. KaQas yéyp.| This
quotation appears to have for its object to
shew that the Redeemer was to come for
the behoof of God’s own chosen people.
For éx Sidév, the LXX have éverev Sudv
(yz), the E. V. ‘to Zion.’ The Apostle
frequently varies from the LXX, and a
sufficient reason can generally be assigned
for the variation: here, though this reason
is not apparent, we cannot doubt that such
existed, for the LXX would surely have
suited his purpose even better than ék,
had there been no objection to it. It
may be that the whole citation is in-
tended to express the sense of prophecy
rather than the wording of any particular
passage, and that the Apostle has, in é«
Siév, summed up the prophecies which,
declare that the Redeemer should spring
out of Israel. 6 pudp. isin the Heb. ‘a
deliverer ’—the Apostle adopts the LXX,
probably as appropriating the expression
to Christ. atmootp. «.7.A.| Heb.and
E. V. ‘ and unto them that turn from trans-
gression in Jacob? Grav adéd. from
another place in Isa. (ref.),—hardly from
Jer. xxxi. (LXX, xxxviii.) 34, as Stuart ;—
and also containing a general reference to
the character of God’s new covenant with
them, rather than a strict reproduction of
the original meaning of any particular
words of the prophet. ‘ How came the
Apostle, if he wished only to express the
general thought, that the Messiah was
come for Israel, to choose just this cita-
tion, consisting of two combined passages,
when the same is expressed more directly
in other passages of the Old Testament ? I
believe that the #fe: gave occasion for the
quotation: if he did not refer this directly
to the second coming of the Messiah, yet it
allowed of being indirectly applied to it.”
Tholuck. 28.| With regard indeed
to the gospel (i. e. ‘ viewed from the gospel-
side,’ looked on as we must look on them
if we confine our view solely to the prin-
ciples and character of the Gospel), they
(the Jewish people considered as a whole)
are hated (@co0 : not ov, as Theodoret, Lu-
ther, Grot., al.—scil. ina state of exclusion
from God’s favour: not active, ‘enemies to
God,’ as Grot., Bengel) for your sakes ;
but with regard to the election (viz. of
Israel to be God’s people, see vv. 1, 2—
not that of Christians, as Aug., al. :—i. e.
‘looked on as God’s elect people’), they are
beloved for the fathers’ sakes (i e. not
Jor the merits of the fathers, but because
of the covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and
Jacob, so often referred to by God as a
cause for His favourable remembrance of
Israel). 29.] For (explanation how
God’s favour regards them still, though for
the present cast off) the gifts (generally)
and calling (as the most excellent of those
gifts. That calling seems to be intended
‘qua posteros Abrahe in foedus adoptavit
Deus,’ Calv. A very similar sentiment is
found ch. iii. 3, where the same is called
h mloris T. Oeov. But the words are true
not only of this calling, but of every other.
Bengel says, ‘dona, erga Judzos : vocatio,
erga gentes:’ similarly of «Ajots, De W.,
‘die Berufung durd) das Cv.’ But thus
the point of the argument seems to be lost,
which is, that the Jews being once chosen
as God’s people, will never be entirely cast
off) are irretractable (do not admit of a
change of purpose. The E. V., ‘without
repentance, is likely to mislead. Compare
Hosea xiii. 14). 30.| For (illustra-
tion of the above position) as ye (MS.
oeebUV
nec. C.
ABDF
LNabec
dfghk
Imno
17
27—33.
m n..2 , - ~ ~ \ ¥ , ~
more "nrealnoare TW ew, vuv oe °nAEHOnTE Ty TOUTWY ™
e x
31 ouTwe Kal
> i?
Pamabeia,
DN at! / \ > \ , ~
éNéet °iva Kat aurot ° eXEnBwour.
0 ‘ Vv 4 v , u ’ Pp > , o Vv \
eo¢ \ tovc ‘ wavrac “ec ? aveMeay, tva * trove
o? 7, P Sw , x , \ vz: , \ vab
eXenoy. 33 Paboc ’ zNovrov kat?” copiace kat ** yro-
16. 1 Pet. ii. 10. Prov. xxi. 10.
onlyt. (61s, ch. i. 30.) constr., ver. 20.
50, &c, ch. ix. 23. Eph.ii. 4. Ps. cxliii. 2.
6. Gal. iii. 22, 23 only. Josh. vi. 1 al.
aunxariay cuyk\ecceis, Diod. Sic. xix. 19.
v 1 Cor. ix. 22, x.17. 2 Cor. v.10, 14. Eph. iv. 13. Phil. ii. 21. P.
18 al.
21;
x ch. ii, 4 reff.
al Cor. xii. 8.
Isa. vii. LL.
Eph. iii. 10.
mote bef vuers A: more kot vers b oO.
31. for ovrot, avto: DF.
I]POS PQMAIOYS.
vuve B Chr.
aft avro: ins vorepov 5. 17. 93: madw Cyr; vu
437
= John ix,
13. ch. vii.
1 y ~ n? , iy € /
OUTOL vUY neiOnaar, TH q UMETEOW Bete err
32 tu 0 \ N « «x. 21. Deut.
Xx1. 20.
ta D has G och. ix. 15, &c.
Vv / ass., Matt.
Tavrac pass., Matt
v.7. 1 Cor.
vii. 25.
2 Cor. iv. 1.
1 Tim. i. 13,
p here bis. Eph. ii. 2. v.6. Col. iii. 6. Heb. iv. 6, 11
=1 Cor. xv. 3). see ch. xy. 4. r Luke i.
»S sinvyersion of w ords, 2 Cor. ii. 4 reff. t Luke vy.
uhere only. Ps. Ixxvii. 50, 62. eis tocattny
So Dion. Hal. viii. p. 520. Polyb. iii. 63. 3, and fr.
w ch. viii. 389. Eph. iii.
y Rev. v. 12 only. z= 1 Cor.
b 1 Cor, xiii. 2.
eAen@mre C (m ?) Thi.
(possibly mechanical repetition) BD1(&) Damase.—om avto: RX}.
32. for lst Tous waytas, Ta wayta D! latt Iren-int, Jer, mavra F.
evidence is too decided against the ral to
allow of its being retained: but we may
suspect that it has been struck out as super-
fluous, in ignorance [Thol.] of the Greek
usage which often doubles kai in two pa-
rallel clauses) once disobeyed God (nation-
ally—as Gentiles, before the Gospel) but
now have (lit. ‘ were compassionated,’ his-
torical) received mercy (scil. by admission
into the church of God) through (as the
occasion; the breaking off of the natural
branches giving opportunity for the graft-
ing in of you) the disobedience of these
(i. e. unbelief, considered as an act of resist-
ance to the divine will: see 1 John iii. 23),
so these also have now (under the Gospel)
disobeyed (are now in a state of unbeliev-
ing disobedience), in order that through
the mercy shewed to you (viz. on occasion
of the fulness of the Gentiles coming in)
they also may have mercy shewn them
(‘the objective view corresponding to the
subjective eis Td mapa(nA@oa avtods, ver.
ik Del Ww): Some place the comma
after éAée: instead of nmef@noav, and con-
strue, either, as Erasm., Calv., al., ‘they
have disobeyed through (upon occasion of)
the mercy shewn to you, or as Vulg., Luth.,
Estius, al., ‘they have become disobedient
to the mercy shewn to you. But thus the
parallelism is weakened, and the pvarnpioy
of ver. 25 lost sight of. Examples of the
emphatic word being placed before iva are
found in reff. 32.] For (foundation
of the last stated arrangement in the divine
purposes) God shut up (not shut up fo-
gether ; sty, as in so many cases, imply-
ing, not co-participation on the part of the
subjects of the action, but the character of
the action itself: so in ‘concludere.” The
sense is here as in the examples, which
might be multiplied by consulting Schweig-
heeuser’s Index to Polyb., ‘to involve in,
‘to subject to.’ The aor., which should be
kept in the rendering, refers to the time of
the act in the divine procedure) all (the
reading 7& mdvta has probably been in-
troduced from Gal. iii. 22) men in (into)
disobedience (general here,—every form,
unbelief included), that He may have
mercy on all. No mere permissive act of
God must here be understood. The Apostle
is speaking of the divine arrangement by
which the guilt of sin and the mercy of
God were to be made manifest. He treats
it, as elsewhere (see ch. ix. 18 and note),
entirely with reference to the act of God,
taking no account, for the time, of human
agency ; which however, when treating of
us and our responsibilities, he brings out
into as prominent a position: see as the
most eminent example of this, the closely
following ch. xii. 1, 2. But there re-
mains some question, eho are the ot wavtes
of both clauses? Arethey the same? And
if so, 7s any support given to the notion of
an aroxatactacts of all men? Certainly
they are identical: and signify all men,
without limitation. But the ultimate dif-
ference between the all men who are shut
up under disobedience, and the all men
upon whom mercy is shewn is, that by
all men this mercy is not accepted, and
so men become self-excluded from the
salvation of God. Gop’s AcT remains
the same, equally gracious, equally uni-
versal, whether men accept His mercy or
not. This contingency is here not in
view: but simply God’s act itself. We
can hardly understand the of mdvres na-_
tionally. The marked universality of the
expression recalls the beginning of the
Epistle, and makes it a solemn conclusion
to the argumentative portion, after which
the Apostle, overpowered with the view
of the divine Mercy and Wisdom, breaks
438
c here only t.
Proy. xxv.
5Symm. — ! ed ke ‘ 5) ~
(€£epuuvay, Ly VlaoToL al oot auTou.
£ ag a es ’ hey x 9 ORY
ch. v.16. Ps. .
exviil. 76. Rh. T&G obusou Oc auTOu EyEVETO 5
e Eph. iii. 8 Dok Negi we Ny
only. Job auTw Kal
v. Y. ix. 10.
XXxiy. 24 only. f = Acts xiii. 10. Heb. iii. 10.
h here only. 2 Kings xv. 12.
37 only.)
lii.Y¥. 2 Thess. i. 6 only. L.P.H. Isa. txiii. 7.
33. ins Tov bef Ocov F 17.
34. for xupiov, cov D'(and lat') Zeno.
forth into the sublimest apostrophe exist-
ing even in the pages of Inspiration itself.
838—86.] Admiration of the good-
ness and wisdom of God, and humble
ascription of praise to Him. 33. |
There is some doubt whether codias and
yveéocews are genitives after AovTov, as in
E. V., or parallel with it. The former
view is adopted by Thom. Aquin., Luther,
Beza, Calvin, Estius, Reiche, and al. The
grounds on which Reiche supports it are
thus given and refuted by Tholuck: (1)
“Tf these three genitives are co-ordinate,
rat must stand either before all, or before
the last only.” But in the case of three
nouns placed co-ordinately in this manner,
kat is prefixed to the twoslatter only,
see ch. ii. 7; xii. 2; Luke v. 17. (2)
“‘movTos is no qualitative idea, but only
a quantitative idea.” But wherein the
riches consist, is ordinarily indicated by
the context ; and here there can be but
little doubt on the matter, if we compare
ch. x. 12; in Phil. iv. 19 we also read of
the wAovros of God. This also answers
(8) “that wAodros without an adjunct
expresses no definite attribute of God.”
(4) “in the following citation, vv. 34, 35,
two only of these, copia and yvéous, are
mentioned.” But this may be doubted.
Chrys. says, on ver. 36, adrds eipev, airs
emoingev, avtos ovyKpotet. kal yop Kat
trovotds ear, Kad ov deitar map’ Erépov
AaBeiv' kal wopds eo, ka) ov Stra cup-
Bovdrov. Ti Aéyw ouuBotrAov; ovdé eiSévar
Tis dvvaTat TX avTov, GAA’ 7) udvos adTds
6 mAobows Kk. copds. Hom. xx. p. 653.
Perhaps this latter is altogether too fine-
drawn: but it is favoured by Bengel,
Olsh., and Tholuck. I prefer therefore
the view of Chrys., Theodoret, Grot.,
Bengel, Tholuck, Kéllner, and Olsh.,—to
take mAovtov, coplas, yvdcews, as three
co-ordinate genitives: wA. denoting the
riches of the divine goodness, in the
whole, and in the result just arrived at,
ver. 32: go., the divine wisdom of pro-
ceeding in the apparently intricate vicissi-
tudes of nations and individuals : yvec. (if
IIPOS PQOMAIOY2.
~ € c? a , xd , , ~ Ne?
cewe Oeov, we aveSeoauvyta Ta KOlMaTa aUTOU Kal ayvEc-
? , c. 4
a vraTooofncerat QuT w 5
Rev. xv. 3. Ps. xvii. 21.
ihereonly. Jos xii. 3 Heh. = Isa, xl.14 F.
k ch. xii. 19. (and Heb. x. 30, from Deut. xxxii. U5.) Luke xiv. 14 bis.
XI. 34—36.
a
34 , ‘ 7 9 ~ , "
The yao EyVW vouyv KUQLOU ;
35 ; i ,
ay rte T OvEOWKEY
26 0 1? > - \
36 Ore é& avrov Kat
g1 Cor. ii. 16, from Isa. xl. 13.
(4 Kings vi. li. 2 Mace. vii.
1 Thess.
11 Cor. viii. 6.
Lavekevavynta, so ABN. |
a distinction be necessary, which can hardly
be doubted) the divine knowledge of all
things from the beginning,—God’s compre-
hension of the end and means together in
one unfathomable depth of Omniscience.
How unsearchable are His judg-
ments (the determinations of His wisdom,
regarded as in the divine Mind ; answering
perhaps to yv@a1s. So Thol.: De W. how-
ever denies this meaning to kpiuara, and
renders it decrees, referring it to the blind-
ing of the Jews) and His ways unable to
be traced out (His methods of proceed-
ing, answering to copia, Thol. But this
is perhaps too subtle). 34, ] For (con-
firmation of ayctep. and avekixy. by a cita-
tion from Scripture. It is made from two
separate places in the LXX, more perhaps
as a reminiscence than as a direct quota-
tion) who hath known the mind (yvaois,
but see above) of the Lord? or who hath
been His counsellor (copia?) ?
35.] or who hath previously given to
Him, and it shall be repaid to him ?—
from Job xli.3 (11 E. V.), where the LXX
(xli. 2) have tis avriorioerat pol, k.
drouevel; But the Heb. is odes 22777 9,
‘who hath anticipated (i.e. by the con-
text, conferred a benefit on) me, that
I may repay him?’ And to this the
Apostle alludes, using the third person.
We can hardly doubt that this ques-
tion refers to the freeness and richness of
God’s mercy and love. 36.| For
(ground of vy. 33—35. Well may all this
be true of Him, for) of Him (in their
origin :—‘ quod dicit, “ex ipso,” hoe ip-
sum, quod simus indicat:’ Orig. Chrys.
somewhat differently : see above on ver.
33), and through Him (in their subsistence
and disposal: —‘ “per Ipsum,” quod per ejus
providentiam dispensamur in vita: Orig.),
and unto Him (‘“in Ipso,” [so vulg. and
some other vss. | quod perfectio omnium et
finis in Ipso erit tune, cum erit Deus omnia
in omnibus:’ Orig.) are all things (not
only, though chiefly, men,—but the whole
creation). Origen remarks, ‘ Vides, quo-
modo in ultimis ostendit, quod in omnibus
et Fea
{IPOS PQMAIOYS.
439
1 ? ? # ee bas ‘ , < es EG F
St avrov Kal sc avTov “Ta Tavra’ auTw 7 ” 86a m= Col. i. 16.
Rey. iv. ll.
’ Ny In > , soe
gg TOUE alwYac. any. nia Eg 114,
0 =) 9 c- ? , \ ~- xvii. 18.
> 40 Fae Tlapaxarw ovv vpac, adeA pol, P Ota Twy Joho ix. 24.
’ ~ a Acts xii. 23.
q OUKTL ox 0 r = ‘\ uA bag Aor Jude 25 al.
Ow TOU t0OvU, TAPAGTIGAL TA CWHATA VUUWYV ps xey.7.
Qucoiay Zasav, ay * cua > Oew, rv troyeKny xis. Gal
yi, 27. Gal,
) Y av, EVaOEOTOV TW EW, THV OYyliKnY ras Epi
iil. 21. _0 = and constr., Acts xxiv. 4. xxvii 34 al. - p=ch. xy.30. 1Cor.i.20. 2 Cor,
x.1. 1 Thess. iv. 2. q2Cor.i. 3. Phil. ii. 1. Col. iii. 12. Heb. x. 28 only. Ise. 1 xiii. 19.
r Luke ii. 22. ch. vi. 13, &c. Ps. v. 3. s here bis. ch. xiv.18. 2Cor.v. 9. Eph. v.10. Phil.iv.
18. Col. iii, 20. Tit. ii. 9. Heb. xiii. 21 onlyt. Wisd.iv.10. ix.10 only. (-@s, Heb. xii. 28 only.
-retv, Heb. xi. 5.)
mpospopay, Test, xii. Patram, p. 547 b.
t 1 Pet ii. 2onlyt. mpospépovar (ol GyyeNoc) kupiw . . AoyiKiv. + -
86. aft awyvas ins Twy awywy FG? vulg(not am).
Cnyap. XII. 1. tw dew bef evaperrov AN' vulg Augszpe-
qu supra dixit signaverit, mysterium Tri-
nitatis. Sicut enim in presenti loco quod
ait, “quoniam ex Ipso, et per Ipsum,
et in Ipso sunt omnia:” convenit illis
dictis, que idem Apostolus in aliis memorat
locis, cum dicit (1 Cor. viii. 6): ““Unus Deus
Pater ex quo omnia, et unus Dominus nos-
ter Jesus Christus, per quem omnia:” et
item in Spiritu Dei dicit revelari omnia,
et per hee designat, in omnibus esse pro-
videntiam Trinitatis: ita et cum dicit “alti-
tudo divitiarum,” Patrem, ex quo omnia
dicit esse, significat : et sapientiz altitu-
dinem, Christum, qui est sapientia ejus,
ostendit: et scientie altitudinem, Spiritum
Sanctum, qui etiam alta Dei novit, decla-
rat. And, if this be rightly understood,—
not of a formal allusion to the Three Per-
sons in the Holy Trinity, but of an impliczt
reference (as Thol.) to the three attributes
of Jehovah respectively manifested to us by
the three coequal and coeternal Persons, —
there can hardly be a doubt of its correct-
ness. The objection of De Wette, that not
eis, but ev, would be the designation of the
Holy Spirit and His relation to the Uni-
verse, applies to that part of Origen’s Com-
mentary which rests on the Vulg. in ¢pso
and to the idea of a formal recognition :
but not to Tholuck’s remark, illustrated
from 6 ém) mdvtwv kK. did mavTwY K. ey TaoW
ftv, Eph. iv. 6, as referring to eis Oeds, eis
KUplos, ev TvEvLA. Only those who are
dogmatically prejudiced can miss seeing
that, though St. Paul has never definitively
expressed the doctrine of the Holy Trinity
in a definite formula, yet he was conscious
of it as a living reality.
XII. 1—XV. 13.] PRacricaAL EXHOR-
TATIONS FOUNDED ON THE DOCTRINES
BEFORE STATED. And first, ch. xii. gene-
ral exhortations to a Christian life.
1.] otv may apply to the whole doctrinal
portion of the Epistle which has preceded,
which, see Eph. iv. 1; 1 Thess.iv. 1, seems
the most natural connexion,—or to ch. xi.
35, 36 (so Olsh., Meyer),—or to the whole
close of ch. xi. (so Tholuck.) Theodoret
.remarks: émep oti dp0aduds ev THuaTl,
TovTo TH WuxH wlotis, Kal Tov Oelav 7
yvacts. Seirar d€ Buws abrn Tis TpaKTL-
Kis GpeThs, Kabdmwep 6 dPOaduds xXeEpav
Kal modav kal tay Aw fmopiwy Tod
odéuatos. Tovtov Se xdpiw 6 Oeios amé-
aToAos Tots SoypuatiKots Adyos Kal Thy
HoKhv Sidackadrlay mpostéGeice.
Sua] introduces, as in reff., an idea which
is to give force to the exhortation.
oixtippav | viz. those detailed and proved
throughout the former part of the Epistle.
80 avrav ody TovTwY, Pyol, TapaKkadrd,
bP Gv eodOnre Sswep hy ef Tis Tv meydAa
evepyeTnbevta evtpewar Bovdduevos, avTdy
Tov evepyeThoarta ikérny wydyo. Chrys.
Hom. xxi. p. 656. Twapactyoat| the
regular word for bringing to offer im
sacrifice (reff.). T. TORATA Vp |
Most Commentators say, merely for duas
avtovs,—to suit the metaphor of a sacri-
fice, which consisted of a body: some
(Thol., al.), because the body is the organ
of practical activity, which practical aec-
tivity is to be dedicated to God: better
with Olsh. and De Wette,—as an indication
that the sanctification of Christian life is to
extend to that part of man’s nature which
is most completely under the bondage of
sin. @vciav | Chrys. strikingly says,
mwas ty yévoito To copa, not, Oucia;
pndévy 56 OpOadrmds BAewétw movnpdy, Kar
yéyove Ovola’ pndty yA@TTa Acdcitw
aigxpév, Kal yéyove mpospopa’ pndev 7
xelp mpattétw mapdvomoy, Kal yéyovev
bAokaiTwpa. paddAoy Se ovK ape? TAaUTA,
GAAG Kal Tis TY Gyabey july epyacias
det, a mev xelp eAcnyootyny maf, 7d
440
IPOS PQMAIOY2.
XIT.
uch. ix, 4 reff. U u Se wy \ Sov ’ ~ w %-
WilPericid Aartpetav UMW, ~ Kal py ovvex nuaricecDat TW ALWVL
only t. w , > ‘ x = 0 ee 7 2 7p es
w Luke xvi. 8. TOUTW, aA\Xa Herapoppovalar TH AVAKALYWOEL TOU
1 Gori 2 Z 4 “a z s Ps ad cma is 62 - Y ~
oKhiaydies 9 Y COGs PRELC NGO okwuacsty vag TL TO nua TOU UVEOU
L.P. only, Sees) A6 Way eM Wee th 3 Ne q Sa
exe. Matt, TO ayaUoy Kat a bons Kal TE etn’ aye yap a
Ril. 32 [ xiii.
~ e , ~
x Melt xvi. 2 Te xaptiro¢ THE
© Sobcionc fol wuvrt TW Ovrt ev UE,
Mk. 2Cor.
iii. 18 only t. Ps. ame 1 Symwm. y Tit. iii. 5 onlyf. z= ch. i. 28. Col. ii. 18. ach.
iy. 11 reff. b Luke xiv. 19. 1 Cor. iii. 13. Eee v.10. Phil.i. 10. Prov. xvii. 3. c = Matt.
Ss oe 21. Phil. iii.15 al. Gen. vi. 9. d => GaL i. 135. iii. 18. iv. 23. Philem. 22. e 1 Cor.
i. 2 reff.
2. [ovvoxnu., so BIDE. |
rel latt syrr copt goth Clem Chr Cyr Thdrt Damasc :
rec aft voos ins vuwy, with D°LX rel Thdrt Aug:
co!: txt AB2DF ¢ k Thl Chr.
om ABD'F copt Clem Chr-comm(appy) Cypry.
5€ otdua evAoyH Tods emnped(ovTas, 7 Se
&0}) Oelars TXOAGLH Sinvek@s axpoaoeorw.
< DS i oe yx > f G
nN yap @vola ovdev exer axdbaprov, 7 Ovota
amapxh Tay &AAwy éeotl. Kal ucts Tol-
vuv Kat xeipav Kal wodayv Kal ordéuatos
kal tay &AAwY ardvTwy anapyaoucda TE
Qeg. Hom. xxi. p. 656. {ocav| In
opposition to the Levitical @vctat, which.
were slain animals. Our great sacrifice,
the Lord Jesus, having been slain for us,
and by the shedding of His Blood perfect
remission having been obtained 8a réy
oikTipuay Tod Aeov, we are now enabled to
be offered to God no longer by the shedding
of blood, but as living sacrifices. This
application of the figure of a sacrifice occurs
in Philo, who (‘ quod omnis probus liber,’
§ 12, vol. ii., p. 457) describes the Essenes
as od (Ga KarabvovTes, GAA’ iepompemets TAS
€avT@v Siavolas Katackevd ew atiovytes.
See also Jos. Antt. xviii. 1. 5. TO OG
belongs to evdpectov, not to rapacrjca.
THY AoyiKyv Aatp. tp.] “ This
may certainly be in apposition with @vciav
(Reiche, Meyer), the acc. denoting the
result and intention ;—@vola however
alone ean hardly be called a Aarpeta, but
mapactioa Ovctay may: therefore it is
preferable to take the ace. as in apposition
with the whole sentence, and supply some
verb of exhorting: see 1 Tim. ii. 6;
2 Thess. i. 5.” Tholuck. Aoytkyv
(reff.) is opposed to capkixfy, see Heb. vii.
16. So Chrys.,—ovdev €xovcay cwuatixdy,
ovdevy maxv, ovdev aic@ntdy. Theodoret,
Grot., al., take it as ‘having reason,’ ‘ra-
tional,’ opposed to sacrifices of animals
which have no reason: Photius, Basil, and
Calvin, ‘rational,’ as opposed to super-
stitious. But the former meaning is far
the best, and answers to the mvevuariucas
Ovolas of 1 Pet. ii. 5. fe) swvaxn-
parifecBar is not imperative in sense, but
dependent on waparad@. [Of course, in
all such questions between « and a, the
rec -oxnmati(ecbe and petapoppoveée, with B'L
-a. and -en 17: -e and -a &
om 2nd To F.
confusing element of itacism comes in:
but in no case where both forms are equally
admissible in the text, can the mere sus-
picion of itacism be allowed to decide the
question. | 6 aiav ovtos, here, the
whole world of the ungodly, as contrasted
with the spiritual kingdom of Christ.
The dat. avaxawdéoeis not the instrument
by which, but the manner in which the
metamorphosis takes place: that wherein it
consists : compare mepieTunOnTe mepiToUT
&xeporointw, Col. ii. 11. cis TO S0-
kiupdfev, that ye may prove, viz. in this
process and the active Christian life accom-
panying it, compare reff. Eph., Phil. : not
‘that ye may be able to prove, ‘acquire
the faculty of proving,’ as Bucer, Olsh.,
Riickert: the Apostle is not speaking of ac-
quiring wisdom here, but of practical proof
by experience. TO Gya8. K. evap. Kk.
TeX. are not epithets of 7d OéAnma T. Ocod
as in E. V., for in that case they would be
superfluous, and in part (7éAeov) inappli-
cable: but abstract neuters, see ver. 9,
that ye may prove what is the will of
God (viz. that which is) good and accept-
able (to Him) and perfect. The non-
repetition of the art. shews that the adjec-
tives all apply to the same thing.
8—21.] Particular exhortations grounded
on and expanding the foregoing general
ones. This is expressed by the yap, which
resumes, and binds to what has preceded.
And first, an exhortation to humility in
respect of spiritual gifts, vv. 3—8.
.| A€yw, a mild expression for ‘I com-
mand :’ enforced as a command by da 7.
X:-.+.-*by means of my apostolic office,’
‘ of the grace conferred on me to guide and
exhort the Church :’ reff. TaytTl TO
ovtt év ty.,—a strong bringing out of the
individual application of the precept. ovx
TO Setvi kal Te Set pdvov, aAAG kal
&pxovTs Kk. apxouevw, K. SovAwW Kk. eAEU-
B€pe, K. LdubTH K. TOPA, K. yuvaik) K. avdpl,
2—6.
Bn ‘bmepppoveiy ied "0 ee" ppovew, aXha " ppovery *
ro * cwpoovely,
40 xabameo wip ray
,
TLOTEWC.
a \ Se oO , 7 3h a > ‘ y P ~
EX OMEV, Ta O€ méAn TaVTa OV TYV AuTYV éeXel Toakw,
e e
5 oUrwe 01
oe > , ra) ,
cic aAAnAwy ° wéXn.
t , ‘ t 8 A _—
Kaper THY ovEeloav nw
Rxvili. 22 al. 2 Mace. xiv. 26.
iv. 7 onlyt.
x. 13. Heb. vii. 2.
n ch. iv. 6 reff.
Prov. Xxix. 24.
och. vi. 13 reff.
Mem. ii. 1. 6. q = ch. v. 15 reff.
iv. 8. 3 Macc. v. 34.
t ver. 3. u = Heb. ix. 10 (i. 4. viii. 6) only, Deut. xxii. 9.
w =1 Cor. xii. 10. xiii. 2 al.
IIPOS PQMAIOY®S.
1 roAAot - coma Eomev év XPT, TO Os “Kall
® Exovres os °
" Stapopa, *
k and constr., 1 Cor, vii. 17. (iii. 5.)
sch. v. 15. vi. 23. xi. 29.
44]
el fhere only t.
¢ Job xxxi. 13
& xi. 6
Symm.
mouTw
imepy po-
véoveat,
Herod. i. 199.
(See 2 Mace.
' Eueotoey nde
° pedn
ix. 12.)
constr, inf.,
Matt. v. 39.
xopionand kata THY KGt RICO.
= = aie xiv. 5
eiTE " mooguretay, | Sorat
i Mark v.15. Luke viii. 35. 2 Cor. vy. 13. on 11265 Pet:
1 = Mark vi.4l. Luke xii.13. 2 Cor.
ie m 2Cor. x. 13. Eph. iv. 7,13, 16. = Pan] only.
(Acts xix. 18 reff.) Sir. xi. 10. Xen.
r Mark xiv. 19. [John viii. #.] Rev.
1 Cor, xii. dal. P. only, exc. 1 Pet. iv. 10+.
v so 1 Cor, iii. 22. Col. i. 16,
p = here only.
(Rev. i. 3.) see Sir. xxiv. 33.
3. aft yapitos ins Tov deov Ld f m 5. 37. 48’. 67. 73. 113-4-5. 120-4 fuld guelph wth
arm Thl Aug.
vii. 17) A m guelph Syr arm.
4. for kafarep, wsrep D'F.
Damase Gc: txt BDF latt Thdrt Thi.
Syr lat-ff.
5. om eouey I,
om tap o Se ppovery F 70.
eueptoev bef o Oeos (see 1 Cor
rec weAn bef roAAa, with AL rel syrr goth Chr
mavta bef wedn F(not G), so also vulg
rec (for To) o (alteration to suit eis), with D?:3 rel vulg(and
F-lat) Syr Eus Chr Thdrt Thl dic: txt ABD! FX Antch Damase.
k. véw Kk. yépovtt. Chrys. pt Umepdp.
«.T.A.| There is a play on the words gpoveiv,
bmepppoveiy, and awpoveiv, which can
only be clumsily conveyed in another lan-
guage: ‘not to be high-minded, above that
which he ought to be minded, but to beso
minded, as to be sober-minded. Wetst.
quotes from Charondas in Stobzeus, Sen-
tent. xlil., mpostoetoOw 5é exactos Tay
TOALT@Y owppoveiy pardAov 7) ppovety,—
and from Thucyd. ii. 62,—iéva: 5€ Tots
exOpots budoe, My ppovjuatt pdvov, GAA
kal KaTappoyvjmatt. But gpovety must
not be taken, with Calvin, ‘ admonet ut ea
tantum cogitemus et meditemur, qu nos
sobrios et modestos reddere poterunt :’—
the thoughts implied init being, theughts
of one’s self. éxdoto ws] = as
éxdor@ (reff.), not (Aéyw) Exdorw, @S....
Hérpov miotews is the receptivity of
xaplouara, itself no inherent congruity,
but the gift and apportionment of God.
It is in fact the subjective designation of
n xapis 7 So0cica juivy, ver. 6. But we
must not say, that (Kwb.) “faith, in this
passage, means those gifts or graces which
the Christian can only receive through
faith :” this is to confound the receptive
faculty with the thing received by it, and
to pass by the great lesson of our verse,
that this faculty y is nothing to be proud of,
but God’s gift. 4.] yap, elucidating
the fact, that God apportions variously to
various persons: because the Christian
community is like a body with many mem-
bers having various duties. See the same
idea further worked out, 1 Cor. xii. 12 ff
5. 7d 8é kal’ cis] But as regards
individuals. A soleecism for 7d 5¢ eis Kal?
éva, as ev kad’ ev in ref. Rev. Wetst., on
ref. Mark, gives many examples of it.
Members of one another=fellow-members
with one another,—members of the body
of which we one with another are members.
6.] The 6¢€ = ‘and not only so,
but ” . XGpts, see above, ver. 3, on
petp. wiot. These xapicuata are called,
1 Cor. xii. 7, 7 pavépwois Tod myevuaros.
“These xaplouata diapopa are next spe-
cified. The two first accusatives are gram-
matically dependent on €xovres: by degrees
the Apostle loses sight of the construction,
and continues with the concrete 6 d:5acKwr,
which still he binds on to the foregoing by
etre,—but at 6 weradidovs, omits this also,
and, at ver. 9, introduces the abstract 7
ayann.” Thol. elite mpodyrtetav |
There is some dispute about the construc-
tion of these clauses. The ordinary ren-
dering regards them as elliptical, and sup-
plies ‘before kara and év, xpnodcbw adbtH
or &ste elvat ad’thy or the like. But
Reiche, Meyer, De Wette, suppose zo
ellipsis, joming Kata Thy avar., &e. to
the foregoing substantives, as kata Thy
xdpw to xaplouata. This construction
must however be dropped at év amrAdrntt,
which is manifestly to be rendered with
a verb supplied: and (2) it reduces the
four first mentioned gifts to a bare cata-
logue, and deprives the passage of its
aim, which is to keep each member of
the body in its true place and work
without any member boasting against
442
x here ontyt.
(-yws, Wisd. ~~ ;
y Acts a ea TH , ctakovia’
” ret. c
z=Lukeiii. Oo
18. Acts ii. afte ‘ ‘
se eisineL. (AmMOT YT (p
2 Cor. viil. 4.
1 Tim. iv. 13. Heb. xii. 5. xiii. 22. L.P.H.
only. L.P, Job xxxi. 17, Wisd. vii. 13.
only. P. 1 Chron. xxix. 17.
xxvi. 17.
2 = : =
TmapakaAdwy, ev Ty
7. ert. o Stakovwy X53 (m).
another. Tholuck quotes a passage of very
similar construction from Epictet. Dissert.
iii. 23.5. He is speaking of reading and
philosophizing from ostentation, and says
that every thing which we do, must have
its aim, its avadopa;—Aourdy, 7 pev Tis
éott Kowh avapopa, » 8 ida. mpaTor,
i as &vOpwros. ev TovTw Th wepiexeTat ;
-.. 48 (dia mpds 7d emithdevua Exacrov
kal thy mpoalpeow 6 KiOapwdds, es Ki-
Oapwdds' 6 TéxTwY, ds TEexTwY’ 6 piAdcogos,
&s pirdcopos’ 6 Pntwp, ws pyrwp. Seealso
the same construction in 1 Pet. iv. 10, 11.
On mpopnrteta, the gift of the rpopjra,
see note, Acts xi. 27. Kat. T. avad.
T. wiot.] (let us prophesy) according to
the proportion (compare Justin Mart.
Apol. i. 17, p. 54: “each will be punished
mpos avadoylay av €duBe Suvauewy Tapa
@cod”’) of faith. But what faith? Obd-
jective (‘fides que creditur’), or subjective
(‘fides gud creditur’) ? the faith, or our
faith? The comparison of wérpoy mistews
above, and the whole context, determine it
to be the latter; the measure of owr faith :
‘quisque se intra sortis suze metas conti-
neat, et revelationis sue modum teneat, ne
unus sibi omnia scire videatur.2. To un-
derstand avadoyla +. m. objectively, as
‘the rule of faith, as many R.-Cath. ex-
positors, and some Protestant, e. g. Calvin,
‘fidei nomine significat prima religionis
axiomata,’—seems to do violence to the
context, which aims at shewing that the
measure of faith, itself the gift-of God, is
the receptive faculty for all spiritual gifts,
which are therefore not to be boasted of,
nor pushed beyond their provinces, but
humbly exercised within their own limits.
7. Svaxoviay| any subordinate
ministration in the Church. In Acts ¥i.
1 and 4, we have the word applied both to
the lower ministration, that of alms and
food, and to the higher, the d:ax. tot Adyou,
which belonged to the Apostles. But here
it seems to be used in a more restricted
sense, from its position as distinct from
prophecy, teaching, exhortation, &e.
év TH Sent Let us confine ourselves
humbly and orderly to that kind of minis-
IJIPOS PQMAIOYS.
d oe ve 2 e me
TOOLOTAMEVOC, Ev oTovoy
d i Thess. v. 12.
e=2Cor. vii.1),12. 2Pet.i.5. Jade3. Exod. xii. 11.
XII.
\ “ tio X ’ ~ ' 5 Tv a7 y > ’ ,
kata Ty “avaXoyiay tHE TiaTEWC etre ¥ Orakoviayv, Ev
y oof ec s, ? = MF o
‘ gite o SwWackwy, ev TH CLdackadXia® 8 cite
a , seen , id
mapakAnoe’ oO ” weTadiovc, Ev
e f , ~ ,
0 &Aewy, EV
bch.i. 11. Lukeiii. 11. Eph. iv. 28. 1 Thess. ii. 8
e 2 Cor. viii. 2. ix. 1], 1%. 31.3. Eph. vi. 5. Col. ini. 22
1 Tim. iii. 4, 5, 12. v.17. Tit. iii. 8, 14 only. P. Prov.
fch. xi. 31 reff.
for o SidacKkwy, SidacKareray A.
8. om ete D'F latt Ruf Pelag Sedul Bede.
mpotoTavomevos N.
tration to which God’s providence has ap-
pointed us, as profitable members of the
body. 6 Si8dacKnwv} The prophet
spoke under immediate inspiration ; the
d:5doxaAos under inspiration working by
the secondary instruments of his will and
reason and rhetorical powers. Paul himself
seems ordinarily, in his personal ministra-
tions, to have used S:5acKaAtia. He is no-
where called a prophet, but appears as
distinguished from them in several places :
e.g. Acts xi. 27; xxi. 10, and apparently
xiii. 1. Of course this does not affect the
appearance of prophecies, commonly so
called, in his writings. The inspired 8:64-
oxados would speak, though not technically
mpopntetas, yet the mind of the Spirit in
all things : not to mention that the apos-
tolic office was one in dignity and fulness of
inspiration far surpassing any of the subor-
dinate ones, and in fact including them all.
év TH Si8acKadig.| as before: he is
to teach in the sphere, within the bounds,
of the teaching allotted to him by God,—or
for which God has given him the faculty.
8.| The mapaxadov was not neces-
sarily distinct from the mpopntrevwyv,—see
1 Cor. xiv. 31. 6 peradidouvs appears
to be the giver of the alms to the poor,—
either the deacon himself, or some dis-
tributor subordinate to the deacon. This
however has been doubted, and not without
reason: for a transition certainly seems to
be made, by the omission of the etre, from
public to private gifts. We cannot find
any ecclesiastical meaning for éAedv (though
indeed Calvin, al., understand by it “ vi-
duas et alios ministros qui curandis xgrotis,
secundum veterem Ecclesiee morem, preefi-
ciebantur”’),—and the very fact of the
three preceding being all limited to their
respective official spheres, whereas these
three are connected with qualitative de-
scriptions, speaks strongly for their being
private acts, to be always performed in the
spirit described. Add to all, that, as Vi-
tringa remarks, Sva5.déva: is more pro-
perly to distribute (Acts iv. 35), peta-
d:5dvar to impart of one’s own to another.
I would therefore render it : He that be-
ABDF
LNab
edfgh
kimn
o17
=
7-11.
TIPO POMAIOY®S.
443
c Fs ‘ € ° , h ’ , 12 ~ 4 i
© (Aaporntt. a) ayarn “ avuToKptroc. 'aroatuyouvreg TO ® prov wii
; , k , ] ae, eo - , ’ 22 only.
Tovnpov, * koAAw@pevor TY! ayabe* 19 ry” peAadeAPia sig (pss, 3 Cor.
Ses Oe eW. ecco! AS 5 nde? vis.
addAnAove " pirootogyou' TH ° Tysy adAAnXoOvE ? TOONYyoU- ©? G9" vi.
Jee ee Se SOR: es We Gti in eye) , sy 2 Tim i. 5.
MEvOL ™7 O7TOVO0y) BN OKV7OOL Tw TVEVMATL Céov- James iii, 17.
1 Pet. 1. 22
onlyt. Wisd. v.18. xviii. 16 only. constr., Heb. xiii. 5. i here only t. k = Luke
xv. 15. Acts villi. 24. 2 Kings xx. 2. Ich. ii. 10 reff. m 1 Thess. iv. 9. Heb. xiii.
1. 1 Pet. i. 22. 2 Pet. i. 7 (bis) only t. (-¢os, 1 Pet. iii. 8.)
2 Mace. ix. 21. -yea, 2 Macc. vi. 20.)
xlviii. 12, 20. p here only.
iii. 1) only. Prov. vi. 6, ¥.
9. for amoorvy., metcoutes F.
stoweth. éy GmAdtytt} ordinarily,
‘with simplicity.” But seeing that amad-
Ts, referred to alms-giving, bears another
and an objective meaning, this hardly
satisfies me, because omovd7_ and iAapérns
designate not so much the inward frame
of mind, as the outward character of the
superintendence and the compassion: as
might be expected, when gifts to be exer-
cised for mutual benefit are spoken of. In
2 Cor. viii. 2; ix. 11,13, Jos. Antt. vii. 13.
4 [where David admires Araunah, 77s
amAdryTos kal THs weyadoWuxlas |, the word
signifies ‘liberality :’ so perhaps amAas
also, James i. 5, but see note there. This
meaning is not recognized by Wahl, Lex.,
but defended by Tholuck, who connects
it with the phrase found in Stobzeus, Hclog.
Phys. i. p. 123, @rAotv ras xeipas, * to
open the hands wide :’—and I would thus
render it here. 6 mpoiotdpevos |
He that presides—but over what? If
over the Church exclusively, we come back
to offices again: and itis hardly likely that
the rulers of the Church, as such, would be
introduced so low down in the list, or by so
very general a term, as this. In 1 Tim.
iil. 4, 5, 12, we have the verb used of pre-
siding over a man’s own household: andin
its absolute usage here, I do not see why
that also should not be included. Meyer
would understand it of ‘patronage of
strangers’ (ch. xvi. 2), Stuart in his Ex-
cursus on this place, appended to his Com-
mentary, takes up and defends the same
view. But, not insisting on the general
usage of the word being preferable where it
occurs absolutely, will év orovdy apply to
this meaning ? Of course so far as oxovdh
is applicable to every employment, it might,
but more than this is required, where words
are connected in so marked a manner as
here. Giving mpotorduevos the ordinary
meaning, these words fit admirably : imply-
ing that he who is by God set over others,
be they members of the Church or of his
own household, must not allow himself to
forget his responsibility, and take his duty
indolently and easily, but must mpotorac@a
omovdelws, making it a serious matter of
Prov. xvii. 14 al.
r = Acts xvii. 16 reff.
n here onlyt. (-yws,
Acts sxviii. 10. ch. ii. 7 al. Ps.
q = Matt. xxv. 26 (Phil.
s Acts xvii. 25 (reff.) only.
o = John iv. 44.
2 Mace, iy. 40.
continual diligence. 6 éhedv] See
above: He that sheweth mercy, is the
very best rendering : and I cannot conceive
that any officer of the Church is intended,
but every private Christian who exercises
compassion. It is in exhibiting compas-
sion, which is often the compulsory work
of one obeying his conscience rather than
the spontaneous effusion of love, that cheer-
Sulness is so peculiarly required, and so
frequently wanting. And yet in such an
act it iseven of more consequence towards
the effect,—consoling the compassionated,
than the act itself. xpeloowy Adyos 7)
ddcis, Sir. xviii. 17. 9—21.| Ee-
hortations to varig ciples
and habits. fF 9.] Olsh., De Wette,
al., would wrid@rstand eoriy,—not éore,
—the ellipsis of the imperative being un-
usual. But I cannot see how this can be
here. Clearly the three preceding clauses
are hortative; as clearly, those which fol-
low are so likewise. Why then depart from
the prevalent character of the context, and
make this deseriptive ? arooTvy. |
This very general exhortation is probably,
as Bengel says, an explanation of avumd-
kpitos:—our love should arise from a
genuine cleaving to that which is good, and
aversion from evil: not from any by-ends.
10.] in brotherly love (dat. of
the respect or regard in which), affec-
tionate. giddor.] properly of love
of near relations ; agreeing therefore ex-
actly with piAadergdia. aT ponyou-
pevor] “invicem preevenientes,” latt. 4)
peve gidcioOar map ETepov, GAN adds
émmfda Toit Kal Katdpxov, Chrys.:
similarly Syr., Theophyl., Erasm., Luther :
—or, = GAAhAous 7yovmevor brepexXovTas
éavtov, Phil. ii. 3: so Origen, Theodoret,
Grot.: or, as in ref. 2 Macc. ‘ setting
an example to, ‘going before, which
however does not seem to apply here,
unless we render TH Timj, ‘in yielding
honour :’? ‘in giving honour, anticipat-
ing one another’ (so Stuart). 11. ]
in zeal (not ‘business, as E. V., which
seems to refer it to the affairs of this life,
whereas it relates, as all these in vv. 11, 12,
444
t = Acts xx.
19 ref. see
notes,”
u = Matt. x. 22.
xxiv. 13 |.
2 Tim. ii. 12.
James v. Li.
1 Pet. ii, 20).
Job xiv. 14.
v Actsi. 14
(reff.).
w Acts xx. 34
TEC’
ON Lee .
13
; Z
taic ~ YoEtate TWY
Ecviav * OLWWKOYTEC.
ee Loe \ ce
evAoyelre, Kat [Ly
IIPOX PQMAIOY®.
os Ul t ,
TW KUOLW) Sovdebovrec’
e tA e =
‘UTOMEVOVTEC’ TH
ty ~
: ayloy » KotywvourTEec’
14 be
kataoaa0s.
XI.
12 77 EATiOL Xaipovrec® TH
v
" mpocevyy T OOCKAPTEPOUVTEC
‘ z
THY dtXo-
? -~ ho a , [oh e-
evAoyelre ae SuwKovrac sine
” xatgew pera Xapov-
reff. ' \ , 6f fF
xhusix.is Twv, KAatev pera KAavTwr. 19! co fadro ete aXANAOUE
reff.
ych.xv.27. Gal. vi. 6. Phil.iv.15. 1 Tim. v.22. Heb. ii.14. 1 Pet. iv. 13. 2 John ll only. Wisd. vi. 25. Polyb.
ii. 32. 8 al. z Heb. xiii. 2onlyt. (-vos, 1 Pet. iv. 9.) a=ch. ix. 30, 31 reff.
=1Cor.iv.12. 1 Pet. iii. 9 al. c LUKE vi. 28. Jamesiii. 9. Gen. xii. 3. d = Matt. v.
44. Acts vii. 52 reff. 2 Kings xxi. 5. eas above (c). Matt.xxv.4l. Mark xi. 2lonly. Gen.v. 29. (-pa,
Gal. iii. 10.) fch. xv. 6. 2 Cor. xiii. 11. Phil. ii. 2. iv. 2.
11. Steph (for kupiw) kaipw, with D'F 5 G-lat lat-mss-mentd-by-Jer-Ruf-Bede
Nyss, Cypr Ambrstexpy :
txt ABD?3LN rel gr-mss-mentd-by-Jer-Ambrst-Ruf-Bede
Clem Ath Bas Chr Thdrt Euthal Thl ic Jer Rae Pelag Aug Primas Sedul Bede.
umomevovytes &.
13. for xpetas, pveras D!F mss-mentd-by-Thdor-mops(éia tay avriypapwv) am
Chr, Hil Ambrst Opt Aug
: txt ABD3N rel Clem Chr, Thdrt Thdor-mops Damase Thl
Cc Aug! Bede: Ruf Sedul Pelag speak of both readings.
14. om vuas (homeotel ?) B 47. 67? am Clem:
Siwn. vu. (passing from 1st evdoyerre to 2nd) F Ruf-ms Chrysol :
txt ALX rel (Orig) Chr Bas Thdrt.
katapacde in Dis:
TOUS ex 8pous nuwy Orig: om eva. T.
these po are aft
15. ree ins ka bef kAaew, with AD3L rel Syr copt (Orig) Chr Thdrt : om BD!FR
latt syr goth arm Tert Aug Ambrst Ruf Pelag Sedul Bede.
13, to Christian duties as such: as ‘ fer-
vency of spirit,’ ‘acting as God’s servants,’
‘rejoicing in hope,’ &c.) not remiss. féwv
T® tv. is used of Apollos, in ref. The
Holy Spirit lights this fire within: see
Luke xii. 49; Matt. iii. 11. T. Kupio
Sova. | The external authorities, as will be
seen in the var. read., are strongly in favour
of this reading. The balance of internal
probability, though not easy at once to
settle, is 1 am persuaded on the same side.
The main objection to kupiw has ever been,
that thus the Apostle would be inserting
here, among particular precepts, one of the
most general and comprehensive character.
So Hilary (in Wetst.) and al. But this will
be removed, if we remember, of what he is
speaking: and if I mistake not, the other
reading has been defended partly owing to
forgetfulness of this. The present sub-
ject is, the character of our zeal for God.
In it we are not to be oxvnpol, but fervent
in spirit,—and that, as servants of God.
A very similar reminiscence of this relation
to God occurs Col. iii. 22—24: of SotAa,
. 0 €av moinre, ex Wuxis epydlerbe ws
TG kuplw kal ovK av Oparrots, elddtes Srt
amd Kuplov darodhuiper be THY avramddoow
Tis KAnpovoulas. TO Kuplo XplaT@ Sov-
Aevetre. The comm: ind, TP KALPO Sovdcvey,
would surely come in very inopportunely
in the midst of exhortations to the zealous
service of God. At the same time, it is
not easy to give an account of the origin of
the reading. The efayopaCéuevor Tov Kat-
pév of Eph. vy. 16 may have led to the
filling up of the contracted kupiw (ko) with
this word: and the notion that omevd7
referred to worldly business, may have fa-
voured the sense thus given. For examples
of the phrase T@ katpd SovAcvew and ‘tem-
pori inservire,’ see Wetst. As to its appli-
cability at all to Christians, De Wette well
remarks, “The Christian may and should
_certainly employ (Eph. v. 16) roy katpdy
(time and opportunity), but not serve it.”
Athanas. (in Wetst.) ad Dracont. says, od
mpéemet TH KalpG Sovdcvew, GAAG Kuplo.
12.| The datives here are not parallel.
7H eAmtd: is the ground of the joy in xatpov-
Tes,—but TH OAtWe the state in which the
brouovy is found. 13.] The reading
uvelats is curious, as being a corruption
introduced, hardly accidentally, in favour of
the honour of martyrs by commemoration.
+. tdok. Sidk.| od« elev epya-
Copevor, GAAG SidKovres, mawdevwv Huas
a avamevewy Tous Seomevous, wore mpos
neas €AOwow, GAN adtods emitpexew K.
katadidxev. Chrys. Hom. xxii. 676.
14.} “The Sermon on the Mount must
have been particularly well known ; for
among the few references in the N. T.
Epistles to the direct words of Christ there
occur several to it: e. g. 1 Cor. vii. 10.
James iv. 9; v. 12 (we may add iv. 3; i. 2,
223 11.5, US sive 2.70, 010)- bebe wee,
14; iv. 14. Tholuck.
imperative: see Phil. and Winer,
edn. 6, § 43. 5. d. 16. | Having
(the participial construction is resumed,
as in ver, 9) the same spirit towards one
15.] Inf. for
ili. 16:
ABDF
LN ab
edfgh
klmn
017
12—20.
fs poovovvrec’ uy ta ™ vyna ©
TIIPOS PQMAIOYS.
445
poo OUNREM adXa rote = ch. vii
k aN
TATELVOLC aaa RAY AION- aan yivesGe " ppovimot Tap vBimg
net ~ ~- i. 3.
EaUTOLC. WM undevi ° kakov °avti Kakov ° QTOOLOOYTEC™ ich. xi. 20v.r.
q , Nore a2 , > 2 1s ee ee 62.
Ll deals ay KaXa ‘ evemiov mavtwy avOowmwy . Gee
BS , re \ , ? ff) , uu”? , James i. 9.
uvvaToyv, ‘roe bpiy META TAVTUY AVUPWTWY ELPNVEVOV- Isa. xi. 4.
ns > Pes \ A Fal. ii. 13.
rec’ 19 wy ™ Eavrove * EKdiKOUVTEC, “ ayatnrol, ada * dore ee ae
xiv. 6 only.
x , ‘Sag. ae , \ pied \
ToTOV TH Opyy’ yéypaTrat yao * Euor
4 20 adNXa ear ° Teva 0 éyAooc
>
’ avraToowaw, éyer KYPLOS
iii. 7. n 2nd pers., 2 Cor. vii. 11 reff.
p = Matt. vi. 4, 6. uke: 35 al.
ch. xiii. 14.) r = Acts iv. 19 reff.’ Mal. ii. 17.
t =here only. Hom, Il. a. 525, é& éuédev.
vy. 3 only. 3 King rs XKii. 49. Sir. vi. 6.
only. 4 Kings ix. 7. (- Kos, rs Bili. 4.)
xiv. ¥. Eph. iv. 27. Sir. iv. 4. xxxviii. 12.
2 Heb. x. 30. (JER. xxviii [1.] 8)
Vii. 11. 2 Thess. i. 8.
iv.2. v.6al. Prov. xxv. 21, 22,
17. aft kaAa ims evwmiov Tov Beov Ka (see 2
see ch. i. 15.
see Heb. xii. 17.
a as above (2).
1 Pet. i) 14 only. Judg. xi. 36.
7 EKOLKNGIC, eyo
m w. Tapa,
here only (see
ch. xi. 25
reff.). PRov.
01 Thess. v.15. 1 Pet. iii. 9. (Prov. xvii. 13.)
q 2 Cor. viii. 21. 1 Tim.v. 8only. Prov. iii. 4. (-vora,
s Matt, xxiv. 24. Gal. iv. 15.
u Mark ix. 50. 2 Cor. xiii. 11. 1 Thess,
v Luke xviii. 3,5. 2 Cor. x.6. Rev. vi. 10. xix. 2
w 2 Cor. vii. ] reff. x Luke
a y DEUT. xxxii. 35.
Luke xviii. 7, 8. xxi.22. Acts vii. 24. 2 Cor.
b ch. xi. 35 reff. c Matt.
Cor viii. 21; Prov iii. 4) A? [Polyc] ;
ov povoy evwr. T. 0. aAAa kat F vulg goth arm(not ed-1805) Lueif: om A'(appy) BDLN
rel Syr.
for mavtwy, ray A?D'¥ guelph harl tol Lucif: txt (A! ?) BDL rel vss
Chr (Thdrt) Damase Thl @e Ambrst Sedul Bede.
19. avramodw F: retribuo goth.
20. rec (for aAAa eav) eav ovy, with DL rel syr Chr Thdrt He Thl:
eay yap Syr Did Aug :
guelph D3-lat goth Cypr:
another, i. e. actuated by a common and
well-understood feeling of mutual allow-
ance and kindness. HA TO oy. | It
is a question, whether to?s tameivots is
neuter or mase. Certainly not necessarily
neuter, as De W.: the Apostle’s antitheses
do not require such minute correspondence
as this. The sense then must decide. In
Ta bWndAa& dpovovytes, the sbWndAd are
necessarily subjective, the lofty thoughts
of the man. But in tots tamewots cur-
amayduevor the adj. is necessarily objec-
tive; some outward objects, with which
the persons exhorted are cuvamd-yeo6a.
And those outward objects are defined, if
I mistake not, by the 7d aitd eis GAAHAOvS
povodytes. This spirit towards one an-
other is not to be a spirit of haughtiness,
but one of community and sympathy, con-
descending to men of low estate, as E. V.
admirably renders it. For ouvat., see reff.
and compare Zosimus, Hist. v. 6, cited by
Tholuck, kal adr} 7 Smdprn cuvaniyeTo
Th Kowh THs ‘EAAdSos GAdoe. The in-
sertion of the seemingly incongruous 41)
yiveocde . . EauTots is sufficiently ‘accounted
for by reference to ch. xi. 25, where he had
stated this frame of mind as one to be
avoided by those whose very place in God’s
church was owing to His free mercy. Being
uplifted one against another would be a
sign of this fault being present and opera-
tive. 17. | The construction is resumed,
eay (alone) D'F
txt ABN m vulg D!-lat Bas Damase
The Apostle now proceeds to exhort respect-
ing conduct to those without. mpovoovp.
ead acne -] from ref. Prov., which has
evémiov Kuptov Kal avOparwr.
18.] The ef dvvarév, as well remarked by
Thol. and De Wette, is objective only—
not ‘if you can,’ but if it be possible—if
others will allow it. And this is further
defined by 7d e& bua@y: all YouR partis to
be peace: whether you actually live peace-
ably or not, will depend then solely on how
others behave towards you. 19.] So
Matt. v. 39, 40. ayanrytot| ‘The
more difficult this duty, the more affection-
ately does the Apostle address his readers,
with this word.’ Thol. Sdéte TéTrov |
allow space, i.e. ‘interpose delay, to
anger. So Livy vii. 32, “ Legati circum-
stantes sellam orabant, ut rem in posterum
diem differret, et 7r@ sue spatium, et con-
silio tempus, daret. So that we must
not understand 77 opy7, ‘your anger,’ nor
‘ God’s anger,’ but ‘ anger, generally ;—
‘give wrath room :’ ‘proceed not to exe-
cute it hastily, but leave it for its legitimate
time, when He whose it is to avenge, will
execute it: make not the wrath your own,
but leave it for God.’ So in the main,
but mostly understanding r. dp. Tov Ocod,
Chrys., Aug., Theodoret, and the great
body of Commentators. Some Fathers
interpret it, ‘yield to the anger (of your
adversary’); but this meaning for déT«
446
11 ooo "pe (Ce autov"
dl Cor. xiii. v Ww uT
only. Num. ? i
x1. 4, PS al.
e Matt. XXV.
35, 37, 42. -
Job xxii. 7. avurou.
f Matt. x. 42.
1 Cor. ni. 2,
&e. xii. 15.
Rev. xiv. 8.
Judg. iy. 14.
g here only. Lc.
Ps.xvii.8,12. raggéa bar.
(-Kea, John
XViil. 18.) h 2 Tim. iii. 6 only.
k = Matt. xii. 27, 28. Mark xiv. 1 al.
10. vi.12. Tit. iii. 1.
1 Cor. ii. 1.)
Ruf Bede. THs KehaAdns B.
21. wn vixov A. for vio, ato F.
a wn viK@ UTO
‘ayabe ' TO ‘ KaKOV.
och, viii. 7 reff.
Cuap. XIII. 1. for maca Wuxn .. vrotaccec Aw, Tacats...
Tren-int Ambrst.
témov is hardly borne out. The citation
varies from the LXX, which has év juépa
exdikhoews avTaToddow 3—and is nearer
the Heb.,—p>v) 0729, “mine is revenge
and requital.” It is very remarkable, that
in Heb. x. 30 the citation is made in the
same words. 20.] The ody would
mean ‘ quod cum ita sit ;—carrying on the
sentence with the assumption of the last
thing stated. This perhaps may not have
been. understood, and hence may have
arisen the alteration or omission of ody in
the MSS. But the evidence is very strong
for its omission. What is meant by
av6pakas mupos gwpevoets? The expres-
sion kv Op. mup. occurs more than once in
Ps. xviii., of the divine punitive judgments.
Can those be meant here? Clearly not, in
their bare literal sense. For however true
it may be, that ingratitude will add to the
enemy’s list of crimes, and so subject him
more to God’s punitive judgment, it is
impossible that to bring this about should
be set as a precept, or a desirable thing
among Christians. Again, can the expres-
sion be meant of the glow and burn of
shame which would accompany, even in the
case of a profane person, the receiving of
benefits from an enemy? This may be
meant ; but is not probable, as not sufficing
for the majesty of the subject. Merely to
make an enemy ashamed of himself, can
hardly be upheld as a motive for action.
I understand the words, ‘ For in this doing,
you will be taking the ‘most effectual ven-
geance ;’ as effectual as if you heaped coals
of fire on his head. 21.] If you suf-
fered yourselves to be provoked to revenge,
you would be yielding to the enemy,—
overcome by that which is evil: do not
thus, —but in this, and in all things, over-
come the evil (in others) by your “good.
Cuap. XIII. 1—7.] The duty of cheer-
Sul obedience to the powers of the state.
IPO PQMAIOY®.
ry
éav
, 4 ’
OU y2o EOTLV
l.c. Judith xv. 1] only.
| Acts ii. 43 reff.
n= ] Pet. ii. 13 (Phil. ii. 3. iii.
XII. 21.
> = f , ee 3 ~
ula, . morice autov. TovTo
yap TOLWY * avOpaac Tuo » _seapeociete emt my Repaeay
k ?
‘zou ' Kakou, ahha vica “ev ‘tw
XIII. ! Maca ' poyn ™ ¢Eouciatc ” UTEDEY OVEAIC ° UTro-
m’ , ? ‘ ? ‘ - e
eSvucia él ft?) * aro Oeov, at
ich. ii. 9,10 (reff.).
m= 1 Cor. xv. 24. Eph. iii.
8. iv. 7) only. Gen. xli. 40. (-ox4,
vrotaccecbe D'F harl
*¥70 ABD*LN rel Bas Isid Chr Thdrt-ms Thl-comm @e-comm:
It has been well observed (Calv., Thol., De
Wette. See Neander, Pflanzung u. Leitung,
&e. 4th ed. p. 460 ff.) that some special
reason must have given occasion to these
exhortations. We can hardly attribute it
to the seditious spirit of the Jews at Rome,
as their influence in the Christian Church
there would not be great; indeed, from
Acts xxviii. the two seem to have been
remarkably distinct. But disobedience to
the civil authorities may have arisen from
mistaken views among the Christians them-
selves as to the nature of Christ’s kingdom
and its relation to existing powers of this
world. And such mistakes would naturally
be rifest there, where the fountain of
earthly power was situated : and there also
"best and most effectually met by these
precepts coming from apostolic authority.
The way for them is prepared by vv. 17 ff.
of the foregoing chapter. 1 Pet. ii. 13 ff.
is parallel: compare notes there.
1.] twotagcéobw, see 1 Cor. xvi. 16, is
reflective, subject himself, i.e. ‘be subject
of his own free will and accord.’ For
there is no authority (in heaven or earth
—no power at all) except from God: and
(so dé, 2 Cor. vi. 15, 16. It introduces a
second clause as if uév had stood in the
first) those that are (the existing powers
which we see about us), have been ordained
by God. We may observe that the Apostle
here pays no regard to the question of the
duty of Christians in revolutionary move-
ments. His precepts regard an established
power, be it what it may. J#, in all matters
lawful, we are bound to obey. But even
the parental power does not extend to
things unlawful. If the civil power com-
mands us to violate the law of God, we
must obey God before man. If it com-
mands us to disobey the common laws
of humanity, or the sacred institutions
of our country, our obedience is due to
—
XIII. 1—6.
oe sz € ‘ i) le , cA 4
€ OUVOUL UTO €0uU TETAYMEVAL ELolV.
MPO PQMAIOY2.
447
Pe q e q
WCTE O
Luke vii. 8.
,
UTt=- P
linia Acts xiii. 48.
, Sun 44 i 3 v O ee = 8 gape th ) xv. 2.
TAGDOOMEVOC TI) ECovola TH TOU €OU taTayn QVU- g Acts xviii. 6
rs
, 5 e et , e ~ t ~ , ret,
EOTHKEVY OL oe avOsornkorec gEauToig Kola Anpovrat, + Acts vii 53
? , - — of
3 oi yao “aoyorrec OUK ett poBoc ty “ ayaby “Eo,
/ ni a ‘ , ,
Oérstc & pr poPeroar Hy ™ efovolav 5
adda Tw Kako.
‘ 2 X , Nias th xy ¥ ? Le ety -
TO ayalov Tot, Kal Eelc eTAaLVOV aé auTne¢
\ , , ’ Vole te a x
yao Ouakovoce EoTW Gol ELC ~ TO
b s e roa > VS ie) Seem e oe
KaKOV TOMC, poBov Ov yao ELKY) THV Mayatoayv popet
~ \ , , > fv g Seen > ‘ os eb
Geov yap euaKovog EOTLY, EKOLKOC Etc ooynv Tw TO: Ka=-
‘ , 5 MP is ee of , rf) > , 8 \
KOV TPaooovTt. oto avayky UTOTAGGEDGUAL OV LOVOYV O14
‘ > , ? ‘ Vis ‘ ‘ ik ANY ‘ -
THY Ooyny, adX\a Kat dia tHY * ouvEtdnow. 6 Sia ToUTO
zch. viii. 28. xv. 2. xvi. 19 only. see] Cor. xi. 17.
¢ [Matt. v.22.) 1Cor.xv.2. Gal. iii. 4 (bis). iv. 11.
Xii. 2 reff. e Matt. xi. 8. John xix. 5.
27. Sir. xi. 5. x!. 4 only.
only. (-Ketv, -Knacc, ch, xii. 19.)
x. 25,27. 1 Pet. 1i.19.
aro D'F Orig Thdrt Damasc.
g 1 Thess. v. 9.
k 2 Cor. i. 12 refi.
ree aft ovea ins efovorm, with DL rel syrr Chr
nly. Ezra
iv. ll only.
see Gal. ili.
19.
s Acts vi. 10
4 son
= t=’ch. ii.
Geos St
u = Matt. ix.
18. xx. 25
al. fr.
v = here only.
Gen, xxxi.
2,43. Isa.
xxxiii. 3.
w sing., ch. ii.
7. plur.,
Acts ix. 36
reff.
x here only.
y ch. ii. 24 reff.
bch. ii. 9 reff.
aw
= ayalov. tav 0s °ro
a ch. ii. 10 reff.
Col. ii. 18 only. Prov. xxviii. 25 only. ad Acts
1Cor xv. 4Y (bis). Jamesii. 3only. Prov. xvi. 23,
f1 Thess. iv. Gonlyt. Wisd. xii. 12. Sir. xxx. 6
h = Heb. ix. 16, 23. i 1 Cor,
Thdrt Th] (Se: om ABD'FR latt copt goth eth arm Orig Iren-int, Did-int Ambrst
Aug.
Chr Damase Th! ec.
3. rec Twv ayalwv epywv a. Twv Kakwv, with
rec ins rou bef @eov, with LN3 rel Orig Thdrt Chr-ms,: om ADF! 1 m
D3L rel syrr Chr Thdrt Th! Ge: txt
ABD!ER latt copt goth Clem Damase Iren-int Cypr Tert Aug Ruf Pacian Sedul Bede.
4. om co I b! o 116.
exdixos D3(and lat?) 8' be fk no 17 Chr
5. om avoryxn (making vrotacced Oar =
the higher and more general law, rather
than to the lower and particular. These
distinctions must be drawn by the wisdom
granted to Christians in the varying cir-
cumstances of human affairs: they are all
only subordinate portions of the great
duty of obedience to raw. To obtain,
by lawful means, the removal or alteration
of an unjust or unreasonable law, is another
part of this duty: for all powers among
men must be in accord with the highest
power, the moral sense. But even where
law is hard and unreasonable, not disobedi-
ence, but legitimate protest, is the duty of
the Christian. 2.] avtitaca., see
above on trotaco. éavtois Kpipa X. |
shall receive for themselves (the dat.
incommodi) condemnation, viz. punish-
ment from God, through His minister, the
civil power. 3.] And the tendency of
these powers is salutary: to encourage
good works, and discourage evil. It is not
necessary to set a note of interrogation
after éfovetay : the clause may be treated
as hypothetical,—see 1 Cor. vii. 18. Tho-
luck observes, that this verse is a token
that the Apostle wrote the Epistle before
the commencement of the Neronian per-
secution. Had this been otherwise, the
principle stated by him would have been
the same; but he could hardly have
passed so apparent an exception to it
om Ist to B.
Thdrt.
-@e) DF goth Iren-int Sedul,.
om e:s opynv D'F: es opyny bef
without remark. 4.| viv pdxatpay,
perhaps in allusion to the dagger worn
by the Cesars, which was regarded as
a symbol of the power of life and death :
so Tacitus, Hist. iii. 68, of Vitellius,
“adsistenti Consuli exsolutum a latere
pugionem, velut jus necis viteeque civium,
yeddebat.” Dio Cassius also, xlii. 27, men-
tions the wearing of 7d Efpos on all occa-
sions by Antony, as a sign that he thy
povapxlay évedelxvuto. In ancient and
modern times, the sword has been carried
before sovereigns. It betokens the power
of capital punishment: and the reference
to it here is among the many testimonies
borne by Scripture against the attempt to
abolish the infliction of the penalty of death
for crime in Christian states. eis dpyrv
seems to be inserted for the sake of paral-
lelism with eis &ya0dy above: it betokens
the character of the éxdlknois,—that it
issues in wrath. The opyn is referred to
in Thy opyhy, ver. 5. 5.] 816, because
of the divine appointment and mission of
the civil officer. avaykyn—it follows
that we must subject ourselves—there is
a moral necessity for subjection :—one not
only of terror, but of conscience : compare
dd Tov Kdpiov, 1 Pet. ii. 13. 6.] Sa
zovTo .. Kat is parallel with 5:4, ver. 5,—
giving another result of the divine appoint-
ment of the civil power ;—not dependent on
448
1 here 3ce.
Luke xx. 22.
XxXiii.2 only. 0. 0 be
Judg. i. 28. auTO TOUTO
m = Matt. xvii. r?
24 only t.
(ch. ii. 27 al.)
n ch. xv. 16.
Phil. ii. 25.
Heb. a ,
(from Ps. ciii.
4). viii. 2 CE a
Josh.
i.1 (F.).
3 Kings x. 5.
o Acts xxiv. 15
IIPOS POMAIOY2.
P ToocKapTEpOUrTEC.
x
\ 4 , ~ ‘ ‘ ~ > ’
yao Kat | popouc ™redsire’ "Aetrovoyot yao Deov tow etc
’ , = \
74 q@rodore Tac Tac
- ~ x A
operac, Tw 5 cov ' pooov Tov ' popov, TW TO ‘ réAoc TO
{Hig 22 = ‘ , ‘ 7, ar ‘ ‘ ‘
téAoc, TW TOV poov TOV poBov, TH THY ThUnY THY
> > ,
8 Mndevt pndev opetAere, en to adAndAouc
> ~ € ‘ ’ = , -
ayaTayv. 0 yap ayaTwv “Ov ETEoOV vomov * wetAnpwKev"
N \ ow? , > , > a >
TO yao “ov potyevoetc, Ov povevaElC, OU KAeWetc, OvK
reff.
* , , . / « v7 2 , ’ ~ ,
pActsi14 — eriMuunoec, Kal “et tic *erépa evtoAn, Ev TH Noy
q ch. xii. 17 , y. - x 2 mall a , bes eb
it ae TOUTW avakepaAatovrat, [ ev rw | ayaTnoec TOV wAn-
r Matt. xviii.
26 ! € , € 2 b = fe , ‘
BE goulyt. GOV GOV WC GEaUTOY, De ayamTn TW mAnalov Kakov
(-nua, ch. :
iv. 4.) i 5 ellips., 2 Cor. viii. 15. Phil. iii. 14. Winer, edn. 6, § 64. 4. t = here bis. Matt.
Xvii. 25 only. Naum, xxxi. 28, &c. 1 Macc, x. 31. _ uch. ii. | reff. : v= ch. viii. 4 al.
w Exon. xx. 13, &c. x 1 Tim. i. 10. y Eph. i. 10 only ¢. Ps. 1xxi. 20 Theod. z Gal.
v. 14, see ch. viii, 26 reff.
al. fr. Exod. ii. 13.
6. om ca F (but F-lat has ef).
a LEVIT. xix. 18.
bch. xv.2. Matt. v.43. xix. 19
7. vee aft amodore ins ovy, with D3FLN3 rel syrr Chr Thl Gc Ambrst: om ABD'R!
am(with demid tol) coptt (Orig,) Damase Cypr Aug Ruf Cassiod.
8. opiAovtes N! c: optAnte R?.
rec ayarav bef adkAnrous (corrn of order to
agree with next clause ?), with L rel syr coptt Thl He: txt ABDFN m latt Syr arm
Orig Chr Cyr Thdrt Damase Cypr.
9. for to yap, yeypamta yap F Ambr.
rec aft xAeWers ins ov Wevdouaptupnsers
(corrn to the decalogue), with & rel copt Chr ec Ruf: var transp al: txt ABDFLc g
1 am(with fuld tol al) 17 Syr sah Clem, Orig, Cyr &e.
rec tovtw bef tw Aoyw, with AL rel vss Clem Dial Cyr: txt
om ev tw BF latt lat-ff: om ev Clem, Orig,: ins
rec (for ceav.) eavtoy, with F rel Chr Cyr
disapproving).
BDE® d m syr copt Orig,.
ADLX rel vss Clem Orig Chr Thdrt.
aft erepa ins eotiy &'(R3
Thl Gc: mss of Clem Dial vary: cavtoy g!: txt ABDX bc dh o Orig, Dial Thdrt
Damasc.
ver. 5. vTeetTe is indicative, not im-
perative : the command follows ver. 7.
For they (the apxovres) are ministers
of God, attending upon this very duty,
viz. Acitoupyeiv,—hardly (as Koppe, Olsh.,
Meyer) édpovs tedeiv, for in ver. 7 the
Apostle has evidently in view the whole offi-
cial character of these Ae:tovpyol. Reiche,
al., construe, “For those who wait upon this
very thing are ministers of God,” which
would require ot efs avT. T. mposk.:—
Koppe, ‘For Ae:toupyot are of God:’—
but this again would require of yap AeT.—
Tertullian remarks, Apolog. xlii. vol. i. p.
494, that what the Romans lost by the
Christians refusing to bestow gifts on their
temples, they gained by their conscientious
payment of taxes. 7.| Before the ac-
cusatives supply airodytu, as the correlative
of drddorTe. ddpos is tax, or tribute,
—direct payment for state purposes: TéAss,
custom, toll, vectigal. @dBos, to
those set over us and having power : tupy,
to those, but likewise to all on whom the
state has conferred distinction.
8—10.| Lxhortation to universal love of
others. 8.| delete is not indic. (as
Koppe, Reiche, al.), which would require
ovdev) ovdev,—and would be inconsistent
with the dpeAai just mentioned,—but
imperative: ‘ Pay all other debts: be in-
debted in the matter of love alone.” This
debt increases the more, the more it is
paid: because the practice of love makes
the principle of love deeper and more ac-
tive. Aug., Ep. excii. (Ixii.), ad Ceelest.
vol. ii. p. 868, says: “Redditur enim
(caritas), cum impenditur, debetur autem
etiam si reddita fuerit; quia nullum est
tempus quando impendenda jam non sit.
Nec cum redditur amittitur, sed potius
reddendo multiplicatur.” areTAHPw-
kev, hath (in the act) fulfilled: compare
the perfects, John iti. 18; ch. xiv. 23.
vopov is not the Christian law, but the
Mosaic law of the decalogue. “This
recommendation of Love has, as also the
similar one Gal. v. 23, kat& T@v ToiovTwY
ovk eoTw vduos,—an apologetic reference
to the upholders of the law, and depends
on this evident axiom,—‘ He who practises
Love, the higher duty, has, even before he
does this, fulfilled the law, the lower, ”
De Wette. 9.| avaxedad., brought
under one head,—‘united in the one
principle from which all flow.’ 10. ]
All the commandments of the law above
cited are negative: the formal fulfilment
XIII.
ABDF
LN ab
edfgh
kimu
017
C ovy
VOLOV...
ABCD
FLN ab
edfghh
kimn
017
7—12.
ovK ° goyaerac’
© rouro Evoorec TOV keaupor, ort ‘won
eyep Pavan’ vuv ie aeapnepn me n owrnpla
a vde mposKoper, 1 n O& 7 Nuéoa ' ” hy yecev®
k
ETLOTEVOUMEDV.
ne , z
aie OuUV Ta ° Epya TOU
xiv. 15. and constr., Gen. xxix. 7.
= Matt. xxiy. 32 al.
TIIPOS PQMAIOY®.
d , a , Co, ae
mAnpwma ovy vonov 7» ayaTy.
Ezek. xxx. 3. comp., here only.
449
lle Kat Sea ii. 10
” eies ? e aeineroonly ¢
8m vuac e& UITVOU © (hei 12,
n ¢ 2
oe vi. 6,
He OTE Eph. ii.
: Phil. i.
28: 3 John
° sKkorouc, ° evducwmeba f= John xii.
h = Eph. v. a whe vi. 9.
g—=ch. i, 10.
k = Acts xix. 2. _1 Cor. iii. 5. xv. Eph,
i. 13. 1 Luke ii. 52. Gal. i. 14. 2 Tim. ii. 16. iii. 9, 13 only. L.P.+ Ps. xliv. 5, ‘Incert.
in Hexapl. (-komy, des Hy ies
vii. 58 reff = Col. iii.
v.1¥. 1 Thess. i. 3.
10. om 7 ay. to epya(. A.
de D?F spec Augsepe(txt,) :
11. ovres AIFG?.
goth Clem Chr Thdrt Thl Ge
with DFLN? rel: om syr Ruf: ‘txt A B(sic :
for amobwu. ., atoBarwucda D'3h.
12. nyyioey A.
m = Matt. iii. 2. xxi.34. Lam. iv. 18.
for ov epy., ov katepy. D' b f 17.
yap 115: quia Syr:
rec nuas bet ndn (corrn for euphony ?), with FL rel
: txt ABCDX m vulg Damase Jer Ambrst.—rec quas,
n Acts
o Eph. v. 11 only. see John vi. 28, 29. viii. 39,41. Gal.
p = 1 Cor. xv. 53, 54 reff.
for ovy,
om 93 lect-12 Oros.
see table)CX ‘dm.
rec for evduo. de, Kat
evduc. (corrn, no contrast seeming to be implied), with C3D?3FLN* rel Chr Cyr
of them is therefore attained, by working
no ill to one’s neighbour. What greater
things Love works, he does not now say:
it fulfils the law, by abstaining from that
which the law forbids. 11—14. }
Enforcement of the foregoing, and oc-
casion taken for fresh exhortations, by
the consideration that THE DAY OF THE
Lord Is AT HAND. 11.] Kat TovTo,
and this, i. e. ‘and let us do this,’ viz.,
live in no debt but that of love (see reff.),
for other reasons, and especially for this
following one. Spa dyn éyepOAvat |
“The Inf. Aor. here, as after verbs of
willing, ordering, &e., betokens the com-
pletion of the act in question. See Winer,
§ 45. 8. [edn. 6, § 44. 7].” De Wette.
Umvos here = the state of worldly
carelessness and indifference to sin, which
allows and practises the épya Tod wxétous.
The imagery seems to be taken originally
from our Lord’s discourse concerning His
coming: see Matt. xxiv. 42: Mark xiii. 33,
and Luke xxi. 28—36, where several points
of similarity to our vv. 11—14 occur.
eyyUT. Hp. HY owt. 7 Ste emiat.| cwrnpia,
as a@moAvtpwots Luke xxi. 28, and ch. viii.
23, of the accomplishment of our salva-
tion. ‘pov may be taken with éyydrepor,
‘nearer to us, seech.x.8. But éeyyie: 7
amodvrpwois juoyv, Luke xxi. 28, seems to
favour the usual connexion with gwrnpia.
émiat.| we first believed ;—sce
reff. Without denying the legitimacy of
an individual application of this truth, and
the importance of its consideration for all
Christians of all ages, a fair exegesis of this
passage can hardly fail to recognize the
fact, that the Apostle here as well as else-
where (1 Thess. iv. 17; 1 Cor. xv. 51),
speaks of the coming of the Lord as rapidly
approaching. Prof. Stuart, Comm. p. 521,
Vou. II.
is shocked at the idea, as being inconsistent
with the inspiration of his writings. How
this can be, I am at a loss to imagine.
“ OF THAT DAY AND HOUR KNOWETH NO
MAN, NO NOT THE ANGELS IN HEAVEN,
NOR THE SON: BUT THE FATHER ONLY.”
Mark xiii. 32. And to reason, as Stuart
does, that because Paul corrects in 2 Thess.
ii. the mistake of imagining it to be zmme-
diately at hand (or even actually come,
see note on évéaornxev there), therefore he
did not liimself expect it soon, is surely
quite beside the purpose. The fact, that
the nearness or distance of that day was
unknown to the Apostles, in no way affects
the prophetic announcements of God’s
Spirit by them, concerning its preceding
and accompanying circumstances. The
‘day and hour’ formed no part of their
inspiration :—the details of the event, did.
And this distinction has singularly and pro-
videntially turned out to the edification of
all subsequent ages. While the prophetic
declarations of the events of that time
remain to instruct us, the eager expecta-
tion of the time, which they expressed in
their day, has also remained, a token of
the true frame of mind in which each suc-
ceeding age (and each succeeding age a
fortiori) should contemplate the ever-ap-
proaching coming of the Lord. On the
certainty of the event, our faith is grounded :
by the uncertainty of the time our hope is
stimulated, and our watchfulness aroused.
See Prolegg. to Vol. III. ch. v. § iv. 5—10.
12.| 4 vvé, the lifetime of the
world, —the power of darkness, see Eph.
vi. 12: 4 Hpepa, the day of the resurrec-
tion, 1 Thess. v. 4; Rev. xxi. 25; of which
resurrection we are already partakers and
are to walk as such, Col. iii. 1—4; 1 Thess.
vy. 5—8. Therefore,—let us lay aside (us
GG
St
450
\ NN
q ch. vi. 13 reff. Og
r = ] Thess. vy. os ae
5,8. 2Pet. 8
1. 19
sl "Thess. iv.
12.
t as above (s).
1 Cor. xiv,
40 only t.
(-nov, d
-socuvn,
1 Cor, xii.
23, 21.)
a Gal. y. 21.
Vasabove (u). 1 Pet.iv. 8only+t. Wisd. xiv. 23.
above(u). Luke xxi. 34 only. Isa. xxviii. 7.
here only. z Mark vii. 22. 2 Cor. xii. 21.
11 reff. b 1 Cor. iii. 3. 2 Cor. xii. 20.
d Acts xxiy. 2 only (reff.). e = ver. 4al.
h = Acts xxviii. 2'reff.
Thdrt Cypr: evduc. (only) &': txt ABC'D! coptt goth Clem Damase.
epya AD.
13. epiot x. (nAots B Ambr.
14. [adda, so ABD3N. }
goth: om xp. c k Ambr.
TPO POQMAIOY®.
¢ - ,
1O7Aa Tov pwroc.
, S uvw iA af
TEOLTATHOWUEV, [LN KWuolc Kal
2 Mace, vi. 4 only.
Hag. i. 6. Judith xiii. 15.
1 Pet.iv.3 al + Wisd. xiv. 26 only.
Gal. v. 20. Sir. xl. 5.
om xupiov B: add ruwy sah.
om ka D'F Sedul.
XIII. 13; 14.
13 we &v * MEO ag EVTXNLOVUC
aN U
""* wzBac, pn “Y Kol-
raic Kal “” ase yeiatc, pn “?? Zoe Kat “" ZndXw* 14 aKa
Pevdtoasbe tov Ktbovov Inaovv ypistov, Kal THE oaoKoG
Tocvotay jn Troretabe ° ac ‘ emJuuiac.
XIV. ! Tov 8: SacGevowwra ry * riore " rpockanPa-
w dat., ch. iv. 12. xX aS
y ch. ix. 10 reff. plur.,
al Cor. i.
ec = Acts xiii. 45 reff.
fch. i. 24 reff. g ch. iv. 19 (refi.).
for omAa,
xp. bef inc. B
aft capk ins nuwy sah.
ev emiOuuiors F latt latt-ff: ess emsOuptay AC Cyr Ath Thdrt-ms-comm Damase: ev
emOuuia Ambr: txt BDN rel Clem Ps-Ign Chr Thdrt Th] (ec.
it were a clothing) the works of darkness
(see Eph. v. 11—14, where a similar strain
of exhortation occurs), and put on (dé cor-
responding to an understood uév) the ar-
mour of light (described Eph. vi. 11 ff.—
the arms belonging to a soldier of light—
one who is of the viol dwrvs and viol
nuéepas, 1 Thess. v. 5,—not, as Grot. ‘arma
splendentia’). 13.] kotrats, in a bad
sense: the act itself being a defilement,
when unsanctified by God’s ordinance of
marriage. See reff. acedyetats, plural
of various kinds of wantonness: so b70-
Kptoeis, pOdvous, KaTadadids, 1 Pet. ii. 1.
14.] Chrys. says, on Eph. iv. 24,
ottw Kal em pidwy Aéyouev, 6 Setva Toy
deiva evedioato, Tiy woAAnY aydmny dé-
yovTes, K. THY didAELMTOY GuVoValav. See
examples in Wetst. The last clause is
to be read, rijs capkds mpdvotay uh mot-
eiade | eis emOvulas,—not THs capKds mpo-
votay | wy tovetabe els emiOvulas, — and
rendered, Take not (any) forethought for
the flesh, to fulfil its lusts, not ‘ Take
not your forethought for the flesh, so,
as to fulfil its lusts’ (Wartet des Leibes,
dod) alfo, daB er nidjt getl werbde, Luth.).
This latter would be thy mpdvotay T. capK.
fi) m. eis eri0.,—or Tis o. mpdv. moetobe
wy cis ém8.: see construction of the next
verse. Crap. XIV.1—XV.13.] On
THE CONDUCT TO BE PURSUED TOWARDS
WEAK AND SCRUPULOUS BRETHREN.
There is some doubt who the ao@evotyres
7H mloTet were, of whom the Apostle here
treats; whether they were ascetics, or
Judaizers. Some habits mentioned, as
e g. the abstinence from all meats, and
from wine, seem to indicate the former:
whereas the observation of days, and the
use of such expressions as kowdy, and
again the argument of ch. xv. 7—13, as
plainly point to the latter. The difficulty
may be solved by a proper combination of
the two views. The over-scrupulous Jew
became an ascetic by compulsion. He was
afraid of pollution by eating meats sacri-
ficed or wine poured to idols: or even by
being brought into contact, in foreign
countries, with casual and undiscoverable
uncleanness, which in his own land he
knew the articles offered for food would be
sure not to have incurred. He therefore
abstained from all prepared food, and con-
fined himself to that which he could trace
from natural growth to his own use. We
have examples of this in Daniel (Dan. i.),
Tobit (Tob. i. 10, 11), some Jewish priests
mentioned by Josephus, Life, § 3, who
having been sent prisoners to Rome, ovd«
efeAaOovto THs eis Td Oetov evaoeBelas,
dietpépoyto S€ avKots kal Kapvos. And
Tholuck refers to the Mishna as containing
precepts to this effect. All difficulty then
is removed, by supposing that of these over-
scrupulous Jews some had become converts
to the gospel, and with neither the ob-
stinacy of legal Judaizers, nor the pride of
ascetics (for these are not hinted at here),
but in weakness of faith, and the scruples
of an over-tender conscience, retained their
habits of abstinence and observation of
days. On this account the Apostle charac-
terizes and treats them mildly: not with
the severity which he employs towards the
Colossian J udaizing ascetics and those men-
tioned in 1 Tim. iv. 1 ff. The question
treated in 1 Cor. viii. was somewhat dif-
ferent: there it was, concerning meat
actually offered to an idol. In 1 Cor. x.
25—27, he touches the same question as
here, and decides against the stricter view.
ABCD
FLN ab
edfgh
klmaoa
017
XIV. 1—4.
‘ , i ’
veoOe wy “ete ' dtakoloetc
m , oo) , Lit: 8:
TLOTEVEL Payely TWavTa, UO OF
5" e ’ U ~ ‘ ’ U “
o éofiwy tov py eoMiuovra py
? , ‘ ’ ’ Sap ,
eabiwy TOV aeatie Lec esa
: mooceA aero. 4
m = Acts xv. 11 reff.
xvili. 9. Actsiv. 11. ver. 10.
1&c. Col. ii. 16. James iv. 11.
15, 16. Ps. eviii. 11.
Cuap. XIV. 2. os de acd. F.
3. for efov9ev., kpiverw A 68 lect-5.
vulg Epiph Thdrt Thl ce:
Damase. yap bef @cos L 77.
See the whole matter discussed in Tho-
luck’s Comm. in loc., De Wette’s Hand-
buch, and Stuart’s Introd. to this chap.
in his Commentary. 1—12.|° Ex-
hortation to mutual forbearances, en-
forced by the axiom, that every man
must serve God according to his own
sincere persuasion. 1.| The gene-
ral duty of a reconciling and uncontro-
versial spirit towards the weak in faith.
The 8€ binds this on to the general ex-
hortations to mutual charity in ch. xiii.
q. d. ‘in the particular case of the went
in faith,’ &c.: but also implies a contrast,
which seems to be, in allusion to the
Christian perfection enjoined in the pre-
ceding verses,—‘ but do not let your own
realization of your state as children of
light make you intolerant of short-coming
and infirmity in others.’ ac8., see
reff.: the particular weakness consisted in
a want of broad and independent principle,
and a consequent bondage to prejudices.
amiotis therefore is used in a general
sense, to indicate the moral soundness con-
ferred by faith,—the whole character of
the Christian’s conscience and practice,
resting on faith. tq, better the faith,
than ‘his faith:’ ‘weak in his (subj.)
faith? would be opposed to ‘ strong in his
(subj.) faith,’ ‘his faith,’ remaining in sub-
stance the same: whereas here the (subj.)
faith itself is weak, and ‘weak in the
faith? = holding THE FAITH imperfectly,
i.e. not being able to receive the faith in
its strength, so as to be above such preju-
dices. amposkapB.] ‘give him your
hand, as Syr. (Thol.) ‘count him one of
you :’ opposed to rejecting or discouraging
him. p} eis] but not with a view
to: ‘do not adopt him asa brother, in order
then to begin’... Siaxpico. Sia. |
discernments of thoughts, lit.: i.e. ‘dis-
putes in order to settle the points on
which he has scruples. In both the reff.,
didxpiois has the meaning of ‘ discernment
I{POX PQOMAIOYS.
; duaAoytopov.
® acbevav
® eSovBeveire, 0 68 a
n Matt. xiii. 32 J.
1 Cor. i, 28. vi. 4 al.
q Luke xvi. 12. John x. 5.
r Luke xvi. 13. Acts x.7.
ovde o py (omg py aft) F:
451
21 oc piv il Cor. or. xii, 10.
eb Jot
” Naxava coQier. oni Hob
XXXVii. 16
only.
k ch. i. 21.
1 Cor. ili. 20
(from Ps.
xciii. 11).
James ii. 4 al.
0 Oeoc 4p avrov
av Tic eto! ’ KoWwY 1 adAdrotov * OLKET NY$ 5 REE apie ee
Matt. xiii. 8.
ch. ix. lal.
o = Luke
p = Matt. vii. I. ch. ii.
Acts vii. 6. ch. xv 20. 2 Cor. x.
1 Pet. ii. 18 only. Gen. ix. 25.
Luke xi. 42 only. Gen. ix. 3.
Prov. i. 7.
ecGiero D'F Jatt sah eth Ambrst Pelag.
rec (for o Se un) kat o uy, with D3LN3 rel
txt ABCD'N' goth Clem,
of, ‘the power of distinguishing between.’
And diadoyiouol in the N. T. implies
(ordinarily in a bad sense), ‘ thoughts :’
what kind of thoughts, the context must
determine. Here, evidently, those scruples
in him, in which his weakness consists,—
and those more enlightened views in you,
by which you would fain remove his scru-
ples. Do not let your association of him
among you be with a view to settle these
disputes. The above ordinary meanings
of the words seem to satisfy the sense, and
to agree better with efs than ‘ad alterca-
tiones disputationum,’ as Beza, or ‘ad cer-
tamina cogitationum,’ as Estius :—and are
adopted by most of the ancient and modern
Commentators. 2.] The és pév, the
strong in faith, so indicated by what follows,
is opposed to 6 5¢ aaGevay (not to be taken
6 Se, aa0evav, «.7.A.), by which Tbv doGe-
vouvta of ver. 1 is resumed. Tis-
Tever payetv, either believes that he may
(egetvar) eat,—or ventures to eat. The
latter is favoured by ref. Acts, misretoper
cwOijvat, ‘we trust to be saved ;’ though
that also may be expanded into ‘we be-
lieve that we shall be saved,’ as E. V.
Ady. éo9.] See remarks introductory to
this chapter. 3.| There is no need
to supply mdvra after éo@. and py éo8. I
would rather take 6 éc@. as the eater, and
6 wh eo. the abstainer. éfov9., for
his weakness of faith,—xpwétw, for his
laxity of practice. For God has ac-
cepted (adopted into his family) him (i. e.
the eater, who was judged,—his place in
God’s family doubted: not the abstainer,
who was only despised, set at nought,—-and
to whom the words cannot, by the con-
struction, apply). 4.| Who art thou
(see ch. ix. 20) that judgest the servant of
another (viz. as De W., of Christ,—for 6
kupios in this passage is marked, vv. 8, 9,
as being Christ,—and the Master is the
same throughout. 6 eds before is uncon-
nected with this verse)? to his own Mas-
G@2
452
~ ’ , ,
sPaul(1 Cor. pay te Kvplw
L t l
TIPOS PQMAIOY®S.
8 , wn
OTHKEL H
XIV.
‘ du-
’ , ,
‘rimre. “orabnoerar oé,
xvi.13. Gal.
v. 1. Phil. - N Gg , w - ouns, 5x8 \ y ’
i.27.iv.l. VATEL om” oO sti ar OoTNnOaL AUTODV. Oc MEV KOLVEL
1 see Pe on) xa V5 ; a cowl
8. 2 Thess.
ii. 15) only, wee ‘rag nnépay, oc de KOUVEL Tacav nucoay.
exc. Mark ay a ! 6° b ~
iii. 31. xi, 25. €KAGTOC ev Tw U lw vot aAnpopooetaIw. Oo poovwy
Exod, xiv. ’
13 F. t=ch. xi.11, 22. 1 Cor. x. E. Prov. xi. 28. a 2 Cor. xiii. 1. v 2 Cor, ix.
8. xiii. 3 only t. w = here only? see ch. iii. 31. Ps. exviii. 38. x 1 Cor. xi. 21 reff. see
ver. 2. y = Acts xiii. 46 reff. z—=ch.i.25. Luke xiii.2. Ps. cxxxiv. 5. a— che
iv. 21 (Col.iv.12, 2Tim.ivy.5,17. Lukei.1)only. Eccles. viii. ll only. (-péa, Col. ii. 2.) b see
ch. vili. 6 reff.
4. rec Suvatos yap eat (more usual expression), with L rel Thdrt: dSvvaros yap?
omg cori, D8 syr(adding eory with ob) Bas Chr:
txt ABCDF8 rec for kuptos>
eos (corrn to suit ver 3? Oeos there does not vary), with C'DFL latt syr Chr Thdrt :
txt ABC!€ vulg-ms Syr(addg avrov) coptt goth arm Aug, Opt.
5. aft os wey ins yap ACN! latt goth Ruf Ambrst: om BDFILN3 rel Dial Aug, Jer,.
om ev A 38. 54 fuld Chr Thdrt.
ter (dat. commodi or incommodi according
as oT. or mint. befalls: ‘it is his own
master’s matter, and his alone, that’) he
stands (‘remains in the place and estima-
tion of a Christian, from which thou would-
est eject him ;’ not, as Calv., Grot., Estius,
Wolf, al., ‘stands hereafter in the judg-
ment,’ which is not in question here: see
1 Cor. x. 12) or falls (from his place, see
above): but he shall be made to stand
(notwithstanding thy doubts of the cor-
rectness of his practice): for the Lord (or,
his Lord, in allusion to T@ idim Kupio
above) is able to make him stand (in faith
and practice. These last words are inap-
plicable, if standing and falling at the
great day are meant). Notice, this argu-
ment is entirely directed to the weak,
who uncharitably judges the strong,—not
vice versa. The weak imagines that the
strong cannot be a true servant of God,
nor retain his stedfastness amidst such
temptation. To this the Apostle answers,
(1) that such judgment belongs only to
Christ, whose servant he is: (2) that
the Lord’s almighty Power is able to keep
him up, and will do so. 5.| One man
(the weak) esteems (selects for honour,—
Kplver agiay Ttiuns) [one] day above (reff.)
[another] day; another (the strong) es-
teems (aiiay Tiyujs) every day. Let each
be fully satisfied in his own mind. It is
an interesting question, what indication is
here found of the observance or non-obser-
vance of a day of obligation in the apostolic
times. The Apostle decides nothing ; leav-
ing every man’s own mind to guide him in
the point. He classes the observance or
non-observance of particular days, with the
eating or abstaining from particular meats.
In both cases, he is concerned with things
which he evidently treats as of absolute in-
difference in themselves. Now the question
is, supposing the divine obligation of one
day in seven to have been recognized by him
in any form, could he have thus spoken ?
The obyious inference from his strain of
arguing is, that he Anew of no such obliga-
tion, but believed all times and days to be,
to the Christian strong in faith, ALIKE. I
do not see how the passage can be other-
wise understood. If any one day in the
week were invested with the sacred cha-
racter of the Sabbath, it would have been
wholly tmpossible for the Apostle to com-
mend or uphold the man who judged all
days worthy of equal honour,—who as in
ver. 6 paid no regard to the (any) day. He
must have visited him with his strongest
disapprobation, as violating a command of
God. J therefore infer, that sabbatical
obligation to keep any day, whether seventh
or first, was not recognized in apostolic
times. It must be carefully remembered,
that this inference does not concern the
question of the observance of the Lord’s
Day as an institution of the Christian
Church, analogous to the ancient Sabbath,
binding on us from considerations of hu-
manity and religious expediency, and by
the rules of that branch of the Church in
which Providence has placed us, but not
in any way inheriting the divinely-ap-
pointed obligation of the other, or the strict
prohibitions by which its sanctity was de-
fended. The reply commonly furnished to
these considerations, viz. that the Apostle
was speaking here only of Jewish festivals,
and therefore cannot refer to Christian ones,
is a quibble of the poorest kind: its as-
sertors themselves distinctly maintaining
the obligation of one such Jewish festival
on Christians. What I maintain is, that
had the Apostle believed as they do, he
could not by any possibility have written
thus. Besides, in the face of wacav 7mé-
pay, the assertion is altogether unfounded.
6.] The words “in brackets were
probably omitted from the similar ending
ppover of both clauses having misled some
ABCD
FLNab
edfgh
kilmn
017
d5—10.
‘ Rin af. c U
ie ae eer
se aplae yap Tw Dew"
eobiet Kat “ evyaptoret TW Dew.
# Z *
Cy, Kat ovoric 1
c = , ved
Tw KUolW Comer,
> ,
atoOunokomer.
e = ! , , Of
TOU KUOLOU EGLEV.
‘go fe \ ~ ‘ , h ,
Kal ECNoEY, tva Kal VEKOWY Kal Cwvrwy KUPLEVOY).
xx.4. 4 Kings xiii. 21.
only. L.P. Gen. iii. 16.
IIPOX PQMAIOYS.
b = \ e x
ppovei| , om Oo Ly
b
nnépay, * Kupiy ov ° ppower |. Kal 0 éobiwy © sia eater,
Kal 0 uy ealiwy ©
7 ovdet a ov * aut
Li Z c yap nu !
EaqUTm aTrobynoke
»>s ? 7
tay TE aTolvycKkwper,
es Lg ~ by 2 3 st
gay te ouv Cwpev Eav TE avoOvnokwper, |
> ~ ‘ ‘ >
&l¢ TOUTO yao yoloToC av Davey
h Luke xxii. 25. ch, vi. 9, 14, vii.1.
453
b ~
c dat., ch. vi. 2
aipgney THY 10 al. Winer,
edn.
931. 4. b.
To matpi
Gavies,
Dion. Hal.
ii. p. 153.
Geots
TéEOunKev
ourTos,
ee : Soph. Aj.990.
TW KUPUD a chii. Sef
evptp ovK
8 27 iN aa
€av TE yao WHEY,
f (Mark i i. 38.)
John xviii.
37. Acts ix.
10 21, 1John
iii. 8 al.
g = Rev. ii. 8.
2Cor.i. 24. 2 Tim. vi. 15
6G. om ka o wy dp. THY nu. K. ov op. (homeotel) ABC DFN vulg copt eth Aug Jer
Ruf Ambrst Pelag (om from nucpay to nuepay 66!, from eae: to eoOier 71. 73 lect-19 :
from Tw @ew to Tw Pew L Chr-ms,) :
Phot Thl Ge.
vss Chr Bas Thdrt Damase Thl ic Ruf Ambrst Pelag.
Creatori Ambrst.
8. for Ist ato@vnckmmev, amobynoxouey ADF at Ephr Damasc:
the former for uniformity, imagining that Gomer,
the latter for the sense, as representing the state after death :)
17: (both appear to be corrns:
Caper were both indic ;
amodavouey n: txt BN rel Chr Cyr Thart.
atoOvnckapey FX d) k.
amoOvnokoney ADF f m! n Thi:
Thdrt.
9. rec ins cae bef ameBavey, with C?D?LN? rel am syr Chr, Thdrt Thl Ge:
Cyr-jer Chr, Cyr Anast Damase Sedul.
ABC!D'3FR! ac g 17 vulg copt Orig,
ins ka aveorn bef x. e(noev (see notes), with LX* rel Thl Gc: aft, Syr:
rec om rat bef o eo 6. (with none of our mss) :
aft last eay re ins ow F.
amolavwpey 108-35. 219: txt BCLX 17 rel Chr Cyr
ins C’L rel syrr Chr-txt Thdrt-txt Bas Damase
ins ABCDFLX rel
for Ist @ew, kupiw A 52:
amobavemey CLlo
for amodvnokoper,
for 2nd amodyneKwuer,
om 2nd Tw F.
om
ree
ins kat aveoTn,
putting eno. bef x. armed. k. averTn D Iren-int Aug, Gaud Ambrst: om ABCFN! fuld-
vict syr copt arm Dion-alex Cyr-jer Chr Cyreepe . Anast Damase Ruf.—ree ave(noer,
with (none of our mss) Thdrt: aveotn F vulg Orig
rel.
early copyists; but perhaps it may have
been intentionally done, after the observa-
tion of the Lord’s Day came to be regarded
as binding. gpovev, taking account
of, ‘regarding.’ evxaptotet, adduced as
a practice of both parties, shews the uni-
versality among the early Christians of
thanking God at meals: see 1 Tim. iv.
3,4. The edxapiotia of the uy éo0iwv was
over his ‘ dinner of herbs.’ Kupl@ is
CHRIST. 7. | This verse illustrates the
kupiw of the former, and at the same time
sets in a still plainer light than before, that
both parties, the eater and the abstainer,
are servants of another, even Christ.
é€avto and kvpiw are datives commodi:
{qv and amoOvyicKew represent the whole
sum of our course on earth. 8.] The
inference,—that we are, under all circum-
stances, living or dying (and a fortiori eat-
ing or abstaining, observing days or not
observing them), CuRrist’s: His property.
9.| And this lordship over all was
the great end of the Death and Resurrec-
tion of Christ. By that Death and Resur-
rection, the crowning events of his work of
, Cyr, Pelag Fulg: txt ABCDLN
Redemption, He was manifested as the
righteous Head over the race of man,
which now, and in consequence man’s
world also, belongs by right to Him alone.
The rec. text here, a7éé. k. averrn
kK. avé(noev, may have arisen by the inser-
tion (1) of ave(noev as clearer than &(yoev,
and (2) of avéorn from the margin, where
it was a gloss (1 Thess. iv. 14) explaining
avé(noev or *@(noev. Or, on the other
hand, supposing it to have been the ori-
ginal, avé(noev may have been altered
to @(joev and x. avéorn left out, to con-
form it to vv. 7 and 8. In such a case of
doubt, the weight of early authority must
decide. ef{noev, lived, viz. after His
death ; = avé(yoev. The historical aorist
points to a stated event as the commence-
ment of the reviviscence, viz. the Resur-
rection. k. vekp. «. Covtwv| here,
for uniformity with what has gone be-
fore: in sense comprehending a@/l created
beings. 10.] He returns to the
duty of abstaining,— the weak, from judg-
ing his stronger brother; the strong,
from despising the weaker, It seems
454
ivv. 3, 4 reff. oe rl
k oe Matt. vii. ;
lye Bret, TOV adeA pov oOU 5
m = Acts xxvii.
24, Dan. vii, »
, ~ ~
Phare rou Qezov.
IIPOS PQMAIOYS.
maw yap
MLV
t S k >? , ne BS ‘ N eal
' koivetc TOV adeA pov cov; 1 Kal ov TL eLovbeveic
" wapacrnaopeGa TW)
yéyoamrat yao eae, éyw, déyet
10.
ii \ \
ae xapjee Port mou * Kkaprbet may 1 yovu, Kal Taoa yAwooa
o = Num. xiy. 9 :
eer oe " eLoporoynoerat ra) Oew. 12s apa [-odv] « EKAGTOC Nov TEL
er. i. -
Ezek.v.l1. & a cts ty a an ers 13 t Fue
Zeph. ii, 9. €QAUTOU oyov avo jowor TW VEew. MnkeTt ovv AAAN-
p Isa. xlv. 23 i ’ > . - , ’ - iN N
cous. of Aouc kpwepey, adXa “rovuro * 1 dead padXov, TO My
oa 2 or, c 4 9
a riBévar © Tpockonpa TW adedpy i 7 skavoaXov. ; vida
qch, xi. 4 reff. 7Q\ Zz a
r= ch. xy. 9, Kal Y rémeiomat ray Kol "Inoov OTe oveev *Kotvov * ou
att. xi. 25. | S ’ q “~ b , z . % c? '
Bieta east. EAUTON, een Tw AoyCopévy te” Kowov etvat, ° EKELVD
50. , d nN ~ ig) , f -
sch. 18 ref. 2xcowovr. Peat yao ova * Bowua O adeA Hoc cou | Aumst-
cts 21x. 40
reff. u 2 Cor. ii. 1. see 1 Pet. ii. 19. v= Acts xvi.4. xx.16. 1 Cor. vii.37. 2 Cor. ii. 1.
w ch. ix. 33 (reff.). x = Matt. xvi. 23. 1 Cor.i. 23. Rev. ii. 14. Ps, xlix. 21 y constr.,
ch. viii. 38 reff. z= Acts x. 14 reff.
asee ch. ii. 27. ver. 20. 2 Cor. il. 4. v. 7.
b= ch. vi. ll. Phil. iii, 13. Wisd. xv. 15. e dat., =1 Cor. iv. 3. d = John xv. 3. ch, xv.
15. 1 Cor. vii. 5. e Matt. xiv.15 9. Lukeiii. 11. 1Cor.x.3al. Hag. ii. 13. f Matt. xix.
226. 2Cor. ii. 2, &c., al. Sir. xxvi. 28.
10. aft Tov adcAp. cov (1st)
add ev tw un eo@ery D'F am? Ambrst:
Ambrst aft adeA@. cov (2nd) add ev Tw e098.
also g am?
rec for Qeou, xpiotou (see note), with
C?(appy) LX? rel syrr goth Orig Chr Cyr Gennad Thdrt Thdor-mops Aug g,(elsw,
Domini) :
txt ABC'DFR! am(with fuld harl mar tol) copt Damase Ruf(quod vero in
presenti quidem loco tribunal Dei, ad Cor. vero tribunal Christi posuit, ego quidem
puto nullam differentiam) Aug).
Ml. for ort, ec wn D'F (G-lat has both).
etouoroynoetat bef maca yAwooa (so
rxx-4a) BD!'3F goth Ruf Ambrst Sedul: txt ACD?LN rel vulg syr copt Chr Thdrt
Damase Thl Gc Aug.
12. om ovv BD'F:
eav., avtou C. atrodwoe: BD'F Chr:
(Ke.
18. kpwere D'F,
Naz Antch.
14. for kup., xpicorw Lb kk mno.
txt BCR d m Chr Damase Thl.
probable that ypiorod has been sub-
stituted for @cov0 in the later MSS. from
2 Cor. v. 10. The fact of Origen once
citing it, decides nothing, in the presence
of the expression Bjuatos Tov xypicrod in
2 Cor. ll.] The citation is according
to the pr esent Alexandrine text, except that
our (@ éy@ = Kar’ euavrod dui.
éfop. | shall praise, see reff. LX X-vat. fol-
lowing the Heb. has dmetra: maca yeooa
Toy Oedr. 12.] The stress is on wept
eavTov: and the next verse refers back to
it, laying the emphasis on GAAfaAous.
‘Seeing that our account to God will be
of each man’s own self, let us take heed
lest by judging one another (kpivopev here
in the general sense of ‘ pass judgment on,’
including both the efovdevetv of the strong
and the 1 xpivew of the weak) we incur the
guilt of amoAAvew one another.’
13—23.] Exvhortation to the strong to
have regard to the conscientious scruples
of the weak, and follow peace, not having
ins ACD°LN rel vss Chr Thdrt.
vuwv C 116. for
dwoet ACD3LN rel Polye Thdrt Chr-ms, Thl
om Tw dew BF(Polyc) Cypr Aug,:
ins ACDL® rel Chr Thdrt Ambrst.
om mposkoupya and 4% B Syr.—tor 7, es b! mn o Chr-ms Cyr
for eavrov, avrov ADFL rel Thdrtexp, He:
respect merely to his own conscience, but
to that of the other, which is his rule, and
being violated leads to his condemnation.
18.] See above. The second xpi-
vate is used as corresponding to the first,
and is in fact a play on it: ‘pulchra mimesis
ad id quod precedit,’ Bengel : see James
ii. 4 for another instance:—but deter-
mine this rather. mpdoKxoppa (see ver.
21), an occasion of stumbling, in act:
oxavdadov (ib.), an occasion of offence, in
thought. 14.) The general principle
laid down, that nothing is by its own
means,—i. e. for any thing in itself (dice,
Chrys.),—unclean, but only in reference
to him who reckons it to be so.
mémerop. év Kup. Ino.| These words give
to the persuasion the weight, not merely
of Paul’s own AoyiCouat, but of apostolic
authority. He is persuaded, in his capacity
as connected with Christ Jesus,—as having
the mind of Christ. 15.] The reading
dp, besides the overwhelming authority in
ABCD
FLNab
edfgh
kimn
017
11—19.
’ , AQ ’ , ~
Tal, OvK éTL Kata ayanny © wEpuTrareic.
’ ~ h ’ , c \ = ‘ ? ,
gov Exeivov 'a7oXAvE, UTED OV yptaTOC ar eUauews
i , zs oad k Ny oD) ,
BracdnpeicOw ovv Vue “70 ayafov.
, ~
™ BaotAsta TOU
, \ Bo 1 \
oun Kat Taba Kal
" xapa ev
év ToUTW * SovAsbuy Tw Xororw
/ U
aa ToIC pee ceatecl 1
n = John iv. 32. vi. 27 (bis), 55.
only. Gen. ii. 9 al.
Xvii. SL reff.
t (=) ch. xvi. 10.
uch. v. 18 reff.
1 Cor. viii. 4.
q 1 Thess, i. 6.
1 Cor. xi. 19.
v ch. ii. 14 reff.
TIPOX PQMAIOYS.
2 Cor. ix. 10.
o John vi. 55. Col. ii. 16 only. Dan. i. 10 only.
2 Cor. x. 18, xiii. 7.
see Luke xiv. 32.
455
rene =ch. xiii. 12.
fad] Tw Bonus othe ty.
S12 al. fr.
° pen h = 1 Cor. viii.
"7 Haan
ames iy. .
ov yao ' got 7 2 Pet. ili. 9.
i=ch., iii. 8
™ Mcov epee i of mate, andra P Sexato- * ref
k = here only.
s as
caiuenere ayiy” 18 Oo yap i ii. 10
apes Tw) EW Kal I= sai XVii.
u m=1 Cor. iv.
our Yra THC Elonvnc cn see Rev.
Col. ii. 16. Heb. xii. 16 (Matt. vi. 19, 20)
p absol., Acts
sch. xii. 1, > ret.
r = Acts Xx. 1Y reff.
(1 Chron. xxviii. 18.)
2 Tim. ii. 15. James i. 12 only.
15. rec for yap, 5¢ (see note), with 17 rel goth Chr Thdrt: txt ABCDFLX d m vulg
syr-marg copt Damasc Ruf Ambrst Jer.
n-marg: Kkatadve ni};
16. om ovy F goth arm.
Damase Ruf Ambrst.
om 6 F. amoAve D'L ah! k m
amoAAvey and «ataAvey in ver 20 (as latt) F.
quov DF vulg Syr copt goth eth Clem Ath-int
18. rec (for Tovrw) TovTors (see note), with D°LN3 rel syrr goth Chr Thdrt Tert : txt
ABCD!FR! vulg coptt Orig Chr Damase Rufexp, Augg
ins BCD*LN® rel Chr Thdrt Damasc.
kot Tots avOpwmots Soxigmo.s 77.
tw bef xpior. AD'F:
Cpwros BG! gr;
its favour, is the more difficult and charac-
teristic. It can hardly (as Meyer and Tho-
luck) depend on the ef ui «.7.A., for thus
an awkwardness would be introduced into
the connexion of the clauses: but I believe
it to be elliptical, depending on the sup-
pressed restatement of the precept of ver.
13: q.d. ‘ But this knowledge is not to be
your rule in practice, but rather,’ &c., as in
ver. 13: ‘forif, ke. Bpdpa, barely put,
to make the contrast greater between the
slight occasion, and the great mischief
done. The mere Avmety your brother, is
an offence against love : how much greater
an offence then, if this Avmetv end in aoA-
Aveey—in ruining (causing to act against
his conscience, and so to commit sin and
be in danger of quenching God’s Spirit
within him) by a MEAL of thine, a brother,
for whom Christ died! “ Ne pluris feceris
tuum cibum, quam Christus vitam suam.”
Bengel. See an exact parallel in 1 Cor. viii.
LORE: 16.| Your strength of faith
(Orig., Calv., Beza, Grot., Estius, Bengel,
Olsh., al., interpret 76 ay. ‘your freedom,’
as in 1 Cor. x. 29; but here the contrast is
between the weak and the strong :—so De
W. Chrys. leaves it doubtful: 4 rhv
miatw nov, } thy péAdAovooy éAnida
Tay erdbAwy, } Thy aanpticnerny evoe-
Betav) is a good thing ; let it not pass into
bad repute: wse it so that it may be
honoured, and encourage others. 17.]
For it is not worth while to let it be dis-
graced and become useless for such a trifle ;
for no part of the advance of Christ’s gospel
can be bound up in, or consist in, meat and
drink: but in righteousness (6 evdpetos
Ambrst Pelag Bede. om
Kat Sokimois Tols a=
Bios, Chrys., but of course to be taken in
union with the doctrine of the former part
of the Epistle—righteousness by justifica-
tion, —bringing forth the fruits of faith,
which would be hindered by faith itself
being disturbed), and peace (7 mpbs tov
GdeAGoy eiphyn, H evavTiodTat avTy H Pido-
veixla, id.), and joy (7 é« Tis duovoias
Xapa, hy avowpet atltn H ewimAntis, id.)
under the indwelling and influence of, as
xatpere ev kuply (Phil. tv. 4) and the ex-
pressions éyv kup., ev xpioT@, generally :—
not, as De W., ‘joy which has its ground
in the Holy Ghost,’ though this is true.
So, on the other hand, a man under the
influence of, possessed by an evil spirit, is
called &vOpwros év mvetuatt aKaldpTo,
Mark i. 23. 18.| The reading ror»
is too strongly supported to be rejected for
the rec. tovTois, as is done by Thol. and
De Wette, because the latter is the easier
reading, and might refer to 6x. eip. and
xap. Ihave therefore adopted it. But I
do not understand it (as Orig., al.) of mvev-
matt ayie. It would be unnatural that a
subordinate member of the former sen-
tence, belonging only to xapa, should be at
once raised to be the emphatic one in this,
and the three graces just emphatically men-
tioned, lost sight of. I believe tovtw to
express the aggregate of the three, and év
Toute to be equivalent to oftws, as Baumg.-
Crusius. Sé«. 7. av9p., as a man of
peace and uprightness: ob yap ottw ce
OavpdoovTa: THS TeAELSTNTOS, WS THS €iph-
nS K. THS Omovolas mavTes’ TovTOU meV
yep Tov KaAodD mavtes GmrodatcorTal,
456
: w , Nira ‘ sd
eet) a SuwK WME Kat “ta tne
TIPOX POQMAIOY®.
XIV. 20—23.
* oikodoune TNC sic aAAnAove:
x = Paul only , ‘ ” - ~
sor atai x 20 fa EVEKEV y Bpepatoc zs KaraAuve TO Eo yov TOU Qcov.
Or. (11.
xiv. 3, &e. S * im 5 “ eb .
x3. qavra piv Kafaoa, adda Kakov tw avlowmm ty ° da
x. 8. xii.19. ¢ ¢ ? aH 91d ae \ ‘ - e ,
Hear tr TPOCKOUMaTOC EQULOVTL. KQaAOV TO UN pa ye Kpéa
iv. 29. (Matt. = lid aug , ,
XXiv. Lal. s 3 Na gfe? “ & :
gee Aube TlELVY OLVOYV pede év 0) a aden poe oOuU é oS ees
We, / i - s ‘ ion e ’ <
y ay 15 Nn okavoadAiZerat 1} ; aoGevet. 22 OU TLOTLV [iv | EX ELC [sy
z= Matt
XxXiv. 2. xxvi.61. Actsv.38. 2Cor.v.1. Gal.ii.18. Ezra v.12. a = Phil. i. 6. b=ch.
ii. 27 reff. c ver. 13. d= Matt xviii. 8. 1Cor. vii. 1, Wc. 1Tim.ii.3. Gen. ii. 18.
e1 Cor. viii. 13 only. Gen. ix. 4 al. fr. fch. ii. 1. 1 Pet. ii. 12. ech, ix. 32 reff.
h = Matt. xv. 12. 1 Cor. viii. 13 (bis) al. fr.
iv. 19 reff. k Acts xiv. 9 reff.
19. diwrouey ABF LN a o Chr-ms:
ey DF vulg(not demid) lat-ff(not Aug).
20. azrodAve X!.
21. kpcas D? m.
txt -corr!.
BDFLN’ rel vulg syr Bas
mew D!;
éexelvou S¢ ovde cis. Chrys. Hom. xxvii. p.
713. 19.] Inference from the fore-
going two verses—oikod. r. eis GAX., edifi-
cation towards one another, i. e. the
work of edification, finding its exercise in
our mutual intercourse and allowances. So
7H aya eis GAX., 1 Thess. iii. 12.
20.| To Epyov t. Beod has been variously
understood: by Fritz. and Baumg.-Crusius,
as = dikatoo. eiphyn, x. xapa: by Meyer
and Krehl, as = the Christian status of
the offended brother, so as to be parallel
to ver. 15: by Theodoret and Reiche, as =
the faith of thy fellow-Christian : by Mo-
rus, Rosenm., al., as = 7 BaciAela Tov 0.,
‘the spread of the Gospel.’ But I believe
the expression oikodoun having just pre-
ceded is the clue to the right meaning :
and that 7d épyov = thy oixodounjy in the
Apostle’s mind. He calls Christians in
1 Cor. iii. 9, cod yedpytov, Ocovd oikodoun.
Thus it will mean, thy fellow- Christian, as
a plant of God’s planting, a building of
God’s raising. So, nearly, De Wette and
Tholuck. All things indeed are pure,
but (it is) evil to the man (‘there is cri-
minality in the man;’ Meyer supplies
7 Kabapdy, Grot. To BpOua, Fritz. 7d
mavrTa payeiv: but nothing need be sup-
plied, any more than to xaddv) who eats
with offence (i.e. giving offence to his
weak brother, as Theodoret, Calv., Beza,
Grot., Estius, Bengel, Thol., De Wette, al.
That this is the right interpretation is
shewn by the sentence standing between
two others both addressed to the strong
who is in danger of offending the weak.
But Chrys., Theophyl., dic., Meyer, al.,
take the sense of ‘receiving offence, and
understand it of the wea/). 21.] It
is good not to eat meats nor to drink
wine, nor (to do any thing: the ellipsis is
Sir. ix. 5, xxiii. 8. xxxv. (xxxii.) 15 only.
txt CD rel vss gr-lat-ff.
ivv. 1,2. ch.
at end add gvaAakw-
aft ka8apa ins Tois Kabapots &3.
mew E Clem.
om 7 oKavdarr(. n acdever ACN! Syr copt eth Damase Ruf Aug:
» Chr Thdrt Thl Ambrst Pelag.
22. rec om nv, with DFL rel vulg syrr copt Chr Thdrt Aug, Ambrst :
for mposkomret. Avmeitat N!:
ins
ins ABC fuld
a harsh one. Fritzsche says, “ aut supple
gpayety 2) meiy TovTO, ev @ K.T.A., as Thl.,
Beng., Flatt, al..—or aoe [or mpac-
ce | TovTO ev @ k.T.A., as Grot., Meyer,
&e. Preefero illud, quoniam per totum
hune locum de cibo potuque agitur.” But
why should not the Apostle, as so often, be
deducing a general duty from the particular
subject?) in (by) which thy brother stum-
bles, or is offended (see on ver. 13), or is
weak (Thol. remarks that the three verbs
form a climax ad infra). 22.] The
faith which thou hast (this reading, which
is the more probable on critical grounds,
was perhaps changed into the od mictw
éxeis of the rec. on Y account of the position
of the ov. But this is quite in St. Paul’s
manner: cf. ver. 4; 1 Cor.xv.36; 2 Cor.
ii. 10. However, the other reading is
very ancient, and it is impossible to de-
cide positively between them. If it is
taken, the interrogative rendering, “ Hast
thou faith?” better suits the lively cha-
racter of the address than the affirmative,
“Thou hast faith”: have [it] to thy-
self (reff.) before God,—Chrys., who does
not read the last words (ev. 7. @.), says,
miotiv evTav0a ov THY mepl doyuatwv,
dAAG Thy mepl THs mporemens trobecews
A€yet O85 éxelyn Mey yep MY dpHoAovyou-
bévn KaTaoTpepet, atrn 5€ duodroyoumervn
akatpws. Hom. xxvii. p. 714. ‘ Before
God,’ —because He is the object of faith :
hardly, as Erasm., ‘‘comprimens inanem
gloriam que solet esse comes scientiz,”’—
for there is no trace of a depreciation of
the strong in faith in the chapter,—only a
caution as to their conduct in regard of
their weaker brethren. With pardpios
begins the closing and general sentence of
the Apostle with regard to doth: it is a
blessed thing to have no scruples (the
ABCD
FLNab
edfgh
klmn
017
XV. 1, 2.
] ‘ ‘ a
KaTa GeavTOY EYE
/ e a f? od /
" Kplvwy EavTOY Ev w © SoxmaZee.
IIPOS PQOQMAIOY®S.
, 7, ~ ~
™scvywmtiov tov Asov.
457
iHeador vii.
16. (De W
exenvien | K.
Kata cav-
pakaoloc o M1)
aie 0 oe E eat
aN , q , ¢ > r? 8: TOV EXE Ke
éav payy “KaTakéKpital, OTL OUK * EK Tlotewc’ av 6é pects
? ’ ’ c ’ ? , s? ' \ goale
ovk "Ek mlotewc, auagtia éotiv. XV. !* oeiAomev 3: Jos. Antt. ii.
e = 2 t \ N rh , ~ vy? , 11.1. see Acts
music ov * duvato. Ta aoDevnpara trav * aduvvarwy at 16
, \ N e - ? ch. 17.
? Bacralay kau wm : ee ’ apéokety. 2¢ arse MOV eae
* rw * rAnatov ¥ avEeckeTw * etc TO “ayalor T00C » otkodopny.
ff,
n=vvy.3,4
reff.
aor: xvi. 3. 2 Cor. viii.8. 1 Thess. ii. 4. Jos, Antt. iii. 4. 1. p = Matt. xxi. 21. Acts
. 20. ch.iv. 20. Jamesi.6t. (Jer. xv. 10.) qch. ii. 1 reff. (perf , ch. xiii. 8. John iii. 18.)
r llipp., ch. ii. 8 reff. s = Luke xvii. 10. John xiii. ia! xix.7. Acts xvii. 29 al. t = 2 Cor.
xiii. 9. u here only t. v Acts xiv. 8 reff. w ch. xi. 18 reff. Matt.
viii. 17. Gal. vi. 2. x Ist pers., 2 Cor. iii. 1 reff. vy ch. viii. 8 reff. zcb, xiii.
Y, 10 reff. ach. xii. 4 reff. b — ch. xiv. 19 reff.
tol Ruf Aug, Pelag. rec (for ceav.) cavrov, with rel: ceavtw F: txt ABCDLN c
gklnoli7. om evwmioy Tov Peov &!: ins X-corr!.
23. ay B. for 6, to D' m ‘71. om av to motews (homeotel) &': ins
X-corr!, aft auaptia ext ins ch xvi. 25—27 AL rel and most other mss (nearly
200 in number) syr goth arm-zoh, of these A 5. 17. 109 have it in both places :
om in
both places F (but in G there is a space left here and in F a space at xvi. 24): txt
BCD® 16. 80. 137. 176 vulg Syr copt ath Ruf Ambrst Pelag Bede.
Cuap. XV. 1. apecroy F.
2. rec aft exactos ins yap (with none of our mss): om ABCDFLN® rel vulg syr copt
Bas Chr Thdrt Damase Thl (2c Ruf Ambrst.
Damasc Thl Ruf Pelag Jer Leo: txt ABCD'*LX dh kn17 syrr copt.
to aya0oy X': ins N-corr!.
strong in faith is in a situation to be
envied) about things in which we allow
ourselves (Olsh. refers to the addition in
the Codex Beze at Luke vi. 4,—where
our Lord is related to have seen a man
tilling his land on the Sabbath, and to have
said to him, ef pév oidas Ti movets, uaKdpios
el, ef 5 wy) oidas, emikatdpatos, Kal Tapa-
Barns ei tov vduov): but he that doubteth
(the situation just described not being
his), he incurs condemnation if he eat
(the case in point particularized), because
(he eats) not from faith (i.e. as before,—see
Chrys. above,—from a persuasion of recti-
tude grounded on and consonant with his
life of faith. That ‘faith in the Son of
God’ by which the Apostle describes his own
life in the flesh as being lived (Gal. ii. 20),
informing and penetrating the motives and
the conscience, will not include, will not
sanction, an act done against the testimony
of the conscience): but (introducing an
axiom, as Heb. viii. 13) all that is not
from (grounded in, and therefore consonant
with) faith (the great element in which the
Christian lives and moves and desires and
hopes), is sin. Augustine, Thomas Aqui-
nas, al., have taken this text as shewing
that ‘omnis infidelium vita peccatum est.’
Whether that be the case or not, cannot be
determined from this passage, any more
than from Heb. xi. 6, because neither here
nor there is the ‘infidelis’ im question.
Here the Apostle has in view two Chris-
tians, both living by faith, and by faith
doing acts pleasing to God: and he re-
vuwy D*F rel vulg Bas Chr Thdrt
om es
minds them that whatever they do owt of
harmony with this great principle of their
spiritual lives, belongs to the category of
sin. In Heb. xi. heisspeaking of one who
had the testimony of having (eminently)
pleased God: this, he says, he did by faith;
for without faith it is impossible to please
Him. The question touching the ‘ infi-
delis,’ must be settled by another enquiry,
can he whom we thus name have faith,—
such a faith as may enable him to do acts
which are not sinful? a question impossible
for us to solve.
Cuap. XV. 1—13.] Further exhorta-
tions to forbearance towards the weak,
Srom the example of Christ (1—3),—and
unanimity (4—7) as between Jew and
Gentile, seeing that Christ was pro-
phetically announced as the common
Saviour of both (8—13). 1.] By
ucts of Suv. the Apostle includes himself
among the strong, as indeed he before
indicated, ch. xiv. 14. Ta ac#. are
general, not merely referring to the
scruples before treated. a&péoketv
(reff.) to please or satisfy as a habit or
motive of action. Tholuck quotes from
the Schol. on Aisch. Prom. 156, zap’
€avt@ Sikaioy €xwy Zevs,—mravra Sixalws
oiduevos Toeiv, avTOS EavT@ apécKav Ka)
Sikaov? voulCwy elvar Omep by BovAnrat
TpaTTey. 2.] The qualification, eis
70 ay. mpos oik., excludes all mere pleasing
of men from the Christian’s motives of
action. The Apostle repudiates it in his
own case, Gal. i. 10. Bengel remarks,
458
IIPOX PQMAIOYS.
mY.
\ ‘ e 4 ’ e = » of by ‘ ‘
"iB see kal yap 0 xelaTog ovy EauTwW ) npsoev, “adda kabwe
ch.i u e d? \ ~ e? , f°?
a1 Tim: ii. bs sypamrae Ot “ovedionot tev ovetdiZovrwy Of €7T-
Heb. x. 33. ? e
ae émeoav tr EME. 4 Oca yap & Tooeypagn glc THY "nee
Isa. xliii. 28.
e Psa. Ixvili. 9. TEOAV SWaccaXiny € Eyou iva ova THC Oro vowing Kat
Matt. v. 11 a sds I
ele ova me * mapakAngewe TWD ‘ypapov m™yY éAmioa & EX WMEDV,
f Act 37 S i
a LOT SS Beoc tne ‘| vumo Lovin Kat THe TapakAnoew
Acts viii, 16 f =
Q
refi. | Exod. own v vu "TO auto ™ ppovev ev adAnXrore "Kata XYotorov
Gallien S a © y see ke :
eeu ’s. Inoovy, ° twa ° opodupadey Pey Evi * oromare 4 SuEaZnre
Jude4donlyt. ,
Pear ay rov 'Oeov Kat " matépa TOU Kuplou Nuwy ‘Tng0u Xptorov.
1] Mace. x.
36 enig? 7 O10 * roocAapPaveobe NAG Naive, kalloc Kal 0 XoLoT0¢
h objective,
here only. see ch, xi. 3], 1 Cor. xv.31. ich. ii. 7 reff. k = 2 Cor. i. 3, &c., al. Ps. xciii. 19.
I plur., Acts xvii. 2 reff. m ch, xii. 16 reff. nch. viii. 27. 2 Cor. vii. 9—11. o Acts
i. id reff, _Pch.x.9ouly. Ps, Ixxxviii. 1. = Acts xxi. 20 reff. r Paul (2 Cor,
i. 3. xi. 31. Eph. i. 3. iii. 14 Col. i. 3) only, exc. 1 Pet. i. 3. Rev. i. 6. see 1 Cor. xv. 24. Gal. i. 4.
s = Acts xxviii. 2 refi. on xiv. 1.
3. om 6 D'F,
4. mposeypapyn D'l':
txt ACD°LX® rel.
rec eremecov, with L rel: txt ABCDFR (g! ?) 1 mn 17 Damasce.
eypapy B latt eth :
add mayra B m 17,
rec (for eypapn) mpoeypapn, with ALN? rel syr Chr Thdrt Damase Thl, Mc:
txt BCDFN! vulg Syr copt goth eth Clem Thl, Aug, Ambrst.
with DF vulg syr copt goth Chr Thdrt, (and elsw-ms,) Thl (ic Aug Ambrst Oros :
aft exwpev ins Tns TapaxAnoews B.
ABCLN b df gn Thdrt,.
ree om 2nd 6a,
ins
5. ino. bef xp. AC? F(mot G-lat) & m vulg syrr Did Thdrt Ambrst.
‘bonum, genus, edificatio, species :’—to a
good end, and that good end his edification.
3.] e&fv atte wh overdo Ova, etjy py
madety amep emabev, elye j0ceAc TO EavToOv
okoTetv? GAN buws ovK HOEANTEV, GAAG TO
MEeTEpoy okoTHGas TO EavTOV ‘Tapetde,
Chrys. Hom. xxviii. p. 721. The cita-
tion is made directly, without any thing
to introduce the formula citandi, as in ch.
ix. 7, where even the formula itself is want-
ing:—there is no ellipsis. The words
in the Messianic Psalm are addressed to
the Father, not to those for whom Christ
suffered : but they prove all that is here
required, that He did not please Himself ;
His sufferings were undertaken on account
of the Father’s good purpose—mere work
which He gave Him to do. 4.| The
Apostle both justifies the above citation,
and prepares the way for the subject to be
next introduced, viz. the duty of unanimity,
grounded on the testimony of these Scrip-
tures to Christ. The 60a mpoeyp. applies
to the whole ancient Scriptures, not to
the prophetic parts only. per. viz. of us
‘hristians,—npoeyp. implying mpd 7uav.
tva Ova 7. Um. K.7.A.| TovTéoTIy,
tva ph exmécwpmev’ moulAot yap of ayaves
towlev, iwOev’ tva vevpovmevor Kk. Tapa-
KaAovmevol Tapa TY Yypapey brouoviy
emiderroucba’ iva ev browovh CHvTes pe-
vomev emt THs eAmldos. Tavita yap dAAAwY
eat) KaTAaTKEVACTIKA, 7H VTOMoV?) THS eATI-
dos, 7 eAmls THs Uromovis’ Gmrep aupotepa
arb tav ypapav vyiverat, Chrys. Hom.
xxviii. p. 721. As in this comment, d7o0-
povjs, as well as mapakAjoews, is to be
joined with rév ypapev,—otherwise it
stands unconnected with the subject of
the sentence. The genitives then mean,
the patience and the cemfort arising from
the Scriptures,—produced by their study.
5, 6.] Further introduction of the
subject, by a prayer that God, who has
given the Scriptures for these ends, might
grant them unanimity, that they might
with one accord shew forth His glory.
In the title given to God, the tronovy
and mapdxkAnots just mentioned are taken
up again: q. d. ‘The God who alone can
give this patience and comfort.” The
later form of the opt., d¢7, is also found
2 Tim. i. 16,18; Eph. i. 17 al., in LXX
Gen. xxvil. 28; xxviii. 4. al. See Winer,
edn. 6, § 14. 1. g. Kata xp. Incoty,
according to (the spirit and precepts of)
Christ Jesus,—see reff. 6. tév
@edv x. wat.| De Wette regards roy bedy
as independent of *Incot xp.,—‘ God, and
the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
The usage of the article will not decide
the matter, because on eithcr rendering,
the accusatives both refer to the same
Person: but the ordinary one, the God
and Father ....is preferable on account
of its simplicity. 7.| Wherefore
(on which account, viz. that the wish of
the last verse may be accomplished) re-
ceive (sce ch. xiv. 1) one another, as also
Christ received you,—with a view to
God’s glory (that this is the meaning of
cis ddfav Tov cov, appears by ver. 9, Ta de
ABCD
FLNab
edfgh
klmn
017
3—11.
* mooceAaBero vuac, “sic So<ay tov Ozov.
IPOS PQMAIOYS.
459
8\27 \ yeast
Atyw yao teh zing.
uch, iii. 7 reff.
s ee , = 0 -~ Wi es ar ff) ,
KpPloTOV taKOVOV YEyevne cl TEOLTOUNC UTED aay €lac v see Gal. ii, 17.
~ > - ~
Qcov * ec ro? BeBawwoar rac * erayyeAiac TWY “TaTéowy, 13
/
9a Se ZOvn UTED
yéyoatrat
\ oy , a =
Kat Tw OvOmatt cou ° Wado.
poavlyre E0vn peta TOU Aaov autou.
iii. 16.
reff, Psa. xvii. 49.
e = Gal. iii. 16. see 1 Cor. vi. 16.
a absol., Acts vii. 19 reff.
d1 Cor. xiv. 15 (bis). Eph. v.19. James v.13 only.
f Acts vil. 41 rett.
w = Phil. ii.
x ch. iv. J] reff.
Mark xvi. 20
b yz , ‘ ,
éhéove Tdoacar tov Oedv, Kabwc ¥ MRE 2-
A “ ~ cate. r {2 ’ , 4
ta TOUTO €SOuO oynooMal oot év EOveaw,
10
4
Kat wadw * Neyet an re
ll
aL A cxviii.
, 8 only.
mwaAw z ch. ix. 4,
(iv. 13.) Gal.
ech. xiv. 11
1 Kings xvi. 16.
‘
Kal
bch. xi. 31 reff.
DEUT. xxxii. 43.
7. rec quas, with BD! rel xth Thdrt: txt ACD? 3FLN bc g 1? mn o 17 syrr copt
goth arm Chr Ruf Ambrst.
ABCDER® m.
rec om Tov bef @cov, with L rel Chr Thdrt: ins
8. rec (for yap) de (see note), with L rel syrr Chr Thdrt: txt ABCDFN vulg copt
goth Cyr Ruf Ambrst.
rec ins inoour bef xpiorov, with DF harl syrr ; aft xp. L
rel vulg goth Thdrt, Thl Ce lat-ff: om ABCX b o copt Ath Epiph Chr-comm Cyr
Damasc Ruf Ambrst.
Epiph Chr Cyr Thdrt Damasce.
9. for Tovto, Tov mpopytov &!: txt X-corr!.
o. DG.
é6rn brép edcovs Bofdoar Tov Gedy).
The Apostle does not expressly name Jewish
and Gentile converts as those to whom he
addresses this exhortation, but it is evident
from the next verse that it is so. 8.]
For (reason for the above exhortation.
This not having been seen, it has been
altered to 5¢) I say, that Christ hath been
made (has come as: the effects still en-
during. It can hardly be that the usual
historical aorist yevéo@a: [see var, readd. |
was altered to the unusual perfect yevye-
vnjo8a. The tendency of correction was
entirely the other way) a minister (He
came diaxovjoa, Matt. xx. 28) of the cir-
cumcision (an expression nowhere else
found, and doubtless here used by Paul to
humble the pride of the strong, the Gen-
tile Christians, by exalting God’s covenant
people to their true dignity) on account of
the truth of God (i.e. for the fulfilment of
the Divine pledges given under the cove-
nant of circumcision) to confirm the pro-
mises of (made to, gen. obj.; cf. 7 evrAoyla
Tov ~ABpadu, Gal. iii. 14) the fathers
(i.e. Christ came to the Jews in virtue of a
long-sealed compact, to the fulfilment of
which God’s truth was pledged): but (1
say) that the Gentiles glorified God (or
‘should glorify God :’ Winer, in his former
editions, § 45. 8, took it as a perfect, and
co-ordinate with yeyevjc#a: I would re-
gard it [and so, apparently, Winer now,
edn. 6, § 44. 7. ¢] as the historic aorist,
and understand ‘each man at his con-
version. least of all can it be sub-
ordinated to eis 76, as is done in E. V.) on
account of (His) mercy (the emphasis is
yevesOat (corrn?) BC'D'F e Ath: txt AC?D°LN rel
om rat NX}. War bef tw ov.
on brép éAgous: the Gentiles have no cove-
nant promise to claim,—they have nothing
but the pure mercy of God in grafting them
in to allege—therefore the Jew has an ad-
vantage), &¢. The citations are from
the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms.
The first, originally spoken by David of his
joy after his deliverances and triumphs, is
prophetically said of Christ in His own
Person. It isadduced to shew that among
the Gentiles Christ’s triumphs were to take
place, as well as among the Jews.
10.] kat wad. Adyeu, viz. 7) ypadh, or 6 beds,
which is in substance the same: not im-
personal: see ref. 1 Cor., note. The
present Hebe text of Deut. xxxii. 43 will
not bear this, which is the LXX render-
ing. But Tholuck remarks, “ According
to the present text the difficulty arises, that
we must either take Dia of the Jewish
tribes, or construe p37 with an accus., in-
stead of with 5 (Gesen.): the reading of
the LXX may therefore be right.” There
is however a reading jy-nx found in one
and perhaps another of Kennicott’s MSS.
which will bear the rendering of our text.
In several passages where the Gentiles are
spoken of prophetically, the Hebrew text
has apparently been tampered with by the
Jews. See Kitto’s Journal of Sacred Lite-
rature for January, 1852, pp. 275 ff.
11, 12.] The wniversality of the praise to
be given to God for His merciful kindness
in sending His Son is prophetically indi-
cated by the first citation. In thelattera
more direct announcement is given of the
share which the Gentiles were to have in
460
f here only.
Psa. cxvi. 1.
(elsw., Gedv,
Acts ii. 47
rele) = Xz
g Luke xvi.
1 Cor. xi. 2, e
17, 22 only.
Ps. exlvii.
12 (1).
h plur., Acts
iv. 25
(from Ps. ii.
1), 27. Rev.
vii. 9. x. 11.
xi. 9. xvii.
15.
ilsa. xi. 1,10.
see Rev. v. 5.
"Eorat
saree
m? ?
eT
n
: apxew vor,
Oeoc Te eXmidoc
14 t
xxii. 16. x c -~ 7] \ ’ \
k = Heb vii. ULWV OTL KQ@L AUTOL
ot iar et L OFF ee
et., Acts
iii. 22 (from OWMEVOLE TAGNC [rnc |
Deut. xviii. , c Sa
15), 26. AnAove ~* vovberetv
Fo Oe er
i. 26, 28 al. vpiv[, aoe pol, | aE)
m constr.,
1 Tim. iv. 10. vi.17. Ps. xxi. 5. dat. only, Matt. xii. 21.
1 Pet. iii. 6.
gq ch. iv. LI reff.
uch. i. 29 reff.
w=1Cor.i. 5 al. fr.
eis, Johny. 45. 2 Cor. i. 10.
p = Acts iv. 30 reff.
t constr., ch. viii. 38 reff.
ix. 35.
11. ins Aeyet BDF syrr copt goth eth Jer:
rec Tov kup. bef 7. ta €Ovn (corrn to txx, where none read
txt ABDX vulg syr goth arm Chr Thdrt.
Thl Ge Ambrst Bede.
as in tat), with CFL rel Syr Thi He:
IIPOX PQMAIOYS.
U f ae , \ 7 Q ,
[° Agyee] Awetre wavra ta &Ovn rov " k¥oLov, Kal
s, , 2 , e
VEGATWOAV AUTOV TAVTEC Ol
Dp lA e -
iia ae es Mute
eiphyne P ey TW TLOTEVELV,
u a.
JLEOTOL EOTE
i vr. x Acts xx. 31 reff.
TOAMNpOTEpoy EyXEipEtv Tos Mpcypace. (-pds, Sir. xix. 2, 3.)
XV.
\ ’
5 erat-
"aot. 1 Kat tad ‘Hoatac
* avorausvoe
ee 13 6 ée
° maonc Xapac kau
4 ste 0 " rEeolaaEvE vuac év TH
~ » , Yat
tou lecoal, Kat o
iu 7
auTW EOvn
éAmloe * ev parce TvEevMaToC ayiov.
‘
Tlémeopar d&, adeApot pov, Kat avrog eyw Tepl
f aya)wavrne, ” aremAn-
WwW , , \ >
yuwoewc, Ouvapevot Kat ad-
15 y \ ”
de Eyoaba
e y , c =f
péoovc, we * eTavanimvyokwy vuac
ToALNOOTEOY
1 Pet. i. 13 (iii. 5 rec.). w.
n Acts xiii. 52 reff. o = Acts xx. 19 reff.
rch. iii. 7 reff. Sir. xix. 24. sch. i. 4reth
v Gal. v.22. Eph. v. 9. 2Thess.i.ll only. Neh.
yhere only t. Polyb.i.17. 7,
z ch. xi. 25 reff. a here only t.
w. é7i and acc., 1 Tim. v. 5.
om ACLN rel vulg Chr Thdrt Damase
rec emaivecate (so rxx-z Ye), with DFL rel Chr Thdrt: txt (so rxx-a) ABCR Chr-
ms, Damase.
12. Acyer bef noaas &.
avittavouevos ® (see digest ch xii. 8).
13. mAnjpopopnoa vuas [ev] racn xapa x. etpnyn BF.—ins ev B: om F: txt ACDLN
rel.
Chr-mss Vig.
om ets To mepiocevery (homeotel) B 57.
om ev bef ty Amo: DIF
14. x. a. €. 7. vp. bef adeAdor wou DF Syr Thdrt.—om pov D'F Thdrt Ambrst.
for wept, vrep B.
vulg Ambrst Pelag.
yywoews BR k n Clem:
D)3F,
(f?).
15. roAunpotepws AB: txt CDFLX& rel.
Aug Ruf: ins DFLN? rel vulg Syr Thdrt Ambrst.
the root of Jesse. The version is that of
the LXX, which here differs considerably
from the Heb. The latter is nearly literally
rendered in KH. V.: ‘ And in that day there
shall bea root (Heb. ‘ and it shall happen in
that day, the branch ’) of Jesse, which shall
stand for an ensign of the people: to it
shall the Gentiles seek.” 13.] The
hortatory part of the Epistle, as well as the
preceding section of it (ver. 5), concludes
with a solemn wish for the spiritual wel-
fare of the Roman church. The words
THs éAmidos connect with Amite of the
foregoing verse, as was the case with rijs
bromovis kK. TIS TapakAhoews in ver. 5.
Xapas «. eipyvys, as the happy result of
faith in God, and unanimity with one
another ; see ch. xiv. 17.
XV. 14—XVI. 27.]| CONCLUSION
OF THE EPISTLE. Prrsonat no-
TICES, RESPECTING THE APOSTLE HIM-
om rat avto. DF Chr-comm.
ins kat bef metAnpwmevor DF hal! Syr.
om ACDFL rel.
for aAAnA., adAous L rel vulg syrr Chr Thdrt Thl He Ruf: txt ABCDFR
for ayabwaovrns, ayarns F
ins tns bef
adAnaAous bef Suvauevor and om kat
om adeAgpor ABCN! copt eth Chr Cyr
for eravam., avauiuvnokwy B:
SELF (xv. 14—33),—RESPECTING THOSE
GREETED (xvi. 1—16), AND GREETING:
TOGETHER WITH WARNINGS AGAINST
THOSE WHO MADE DIVISIONS AMONG
THEM (xvi. 16—23);—AND CONCLUDING
DOXOLOGY (xvi. 24—27). 14—33. }
He first (14—16) excuses the boldness of
his writing, by the allegation of his office
as Apostle of the Gentiles. 14. | attos
eyo, I myself, = ‘idem,’ Lat.,— ‘ notwith-
standing what I have written :’ see ch. vii.
25, note. Meyer understands it, ‘ without
information from others: Bengel and
Olsh., ‘ Linyself, as well as others :’ Riick-
ert, ‘I not only wish it (ver. 13), but am
persuaded for myself that it is so?
Kal avtot, ye also yourselves, i. e. with-
out exhortation of mine. 15.] awd
H-€pous restricts the toAunpdrepoy to cer-
tain ‘parts of the Epistle, e. g. ch. xi. 17, ff.
25; chaps. xiii. and xiv. éypaa, the
ABCD
FLRab
cedfgh
klmn
ol7
12—18.
Boge S. 2
oa ithe
TO sival He
ig \ og
lepovp yourra TO
IPOS PQMAIOYS.
461
gaat THY © Sobstoay pot uTo Tov Oeov 164 ec fe xiv. 15
* Netrovpyov Xptsrou "Inoov °
c 1 ‘Gur i. 4 reff,
ELC Ta 20vn, dch. xiii. 6 reff.
e = Col. i. 25.
evayyéAtov rou © Ocou, iva yevarrat feet!
see re
ra h QA ~ a0) ~ ji >} , 3 1.14.
1) 7 pocpopa TwWV € oie wi Rage * nytagpévn * (acts. 24.)
kee ’ © ah 171
E a é one ae 7°
év wy at Tl aytw EX ouv my m katy noey év 1 Thess. ii. 2,
I ee Tees Ne 06 18 x 8, 9. (1 Tim.
XOloTw noOoVv Ta 7 OOC Tov £ov" ov yao ° ro pra i 11.) 1 Pet.
o - pee > q , ’ ~ ’ iv. 17 only.
t AaXsw @Wv OU KaTéloyaoaTo Xousroc ou EuOu " ELC h Brae xxi.
Se LVe
17. Eph.v, 2. Heb. x. 5 (from Ps. xxxix. 6), &c., only. iver.31. 2Cor. vi. 2. viii. 12, 1 Pet.
ii. 5 only t. k (and constr.) John Xvii. 17,19. 1Cor.i.2. Heb. x. 10, 29. Isa. x.17.
11 Cor. xv. 31. m ch, iii. 27 reff, n Luke xiv. 32. Acts xxviii. 10. Heb. ii. 17. v. 1.
o Phil. i. 14. see 2 Mace. iv. 2. p atir., Acts xxi.19. 1 Cor. vii. 1. 2Cor. xii.17. Heb.
vy. 8. Winer, edn. 6, § 24. 2, end.
uTavap.. 0.
16. for eva, yeverbar D'F.
yevntat, yevnen B.
m. ree om tov, with b:
bef 71, with L rel copt ic:
Aadew, emery DE Cyr:
dabam or scribebam of the Latins in episto-
lary writing. Os érrav. tp., as put-
ting you anew in remembrance.
dia. T. xapiv..., on account of the grace,
&c.; i.e. ‘my apostolic office was the
ground and reason of my boldness :’—not
=dia THs xapitos ch. xii. 3. 16.| That
I might be (eis 7d gives the purpose of the
grace being given, not of the éypaya) a
ministering priest of Christ Jesus for
(in reference to) the Gentiles, ministering
in the Gospel of God (icpoupyotvra, mpos-
pépovta bvaiav, Hesych.: but the evayyéa.
T. Oeod is not the dvola, but signifies that
wherein, in behoof of which, the tepoupyety
took place: so Josephus, de Mace. § 7,
speaking of the martyrs for the law, says,
To.ovrous Set civat TOUS tepovpyovvTas Tov
vépov idlm atuati, Kal yevvalm [dperi
Tots méxpt Oavatov ma0cow sbmrepacti-
(ovras), that the offering of the Gen-
tiles (gen. of apposition: the Gentiles
themselves are the offering ; so Theophyl.
alTn pot iepwovvn, TO KaTayyeAAEw evay-
yéAtov. pdxaipav exw Tov Adyor" Avota
eote jets) may be acceptable, sanctified
by the Holy Ghost. The language is
evidently figurative, and can by no possi-
bility be taken as a sanction for any view of
the Christian ministerasa sacrificing priest,
otherwise than according to that figure—
viz. that he offers to God the acceptable
sacrifice of those who by his means believe
on Christ. “ Facit se antistitem vel sacer-
dotem in Evangelii ministerio, quipopulum,
quem Deo acquirit, in sacrificium offerat,
atque hoe modo sacris Evangelii mysteriis
q ch, ii. 9 ret.
for vmo, aro BFS! Damasc:
reh.i. 5 (reff.).
txt ACDLN3 rel.
rec ino. bef xp., with DL rel Syr copt Chr Cyr,
Thdrt : txt ABCFX m vulg syr Orig Cyr, Thdrt Aug.
om = jae F Fulg.
17. rec om tnv (the art not being understood), with ALX rel Chr Thdrt
ins ABCDFLN® rel Did Chr Cyr Damase Thdrt (ec.
18. toAuw BN? latt Did Dial-w-Maced Thdrt, Cyr(in Thdrt) lat-ff.
om eis Ta €Oyvn B. for
: ins BCDF
rec AaAeiy
txt ABCDFN m Ath Did Chr Cyr Bas Thdrt Archel.—for
Aeyerv and AaAnom gr-tf
Kkatnpyacato DEL. ins
operetur. Et sane hoc est Christiani pas-
toris sacerdotium, homines in Evangelii
obedientiam subigendo veluti Deo im-
molare: non, quod superciliose hactenus
Papiste jactarunt, oblatione homines re-
conciliare Deo. Neque tamen ecclesias-
ticos pastores simpliciter hic vocat Sacer-
dotes, tanquam perpetuo titulo: sed quum
dignitatem efficaciamque ministerii vellet
commendare Paulus, hac metaphora per
occasionem est usus. Hic ergo finis sit
Evangel preconibus in suo munere, ani-
mas fide purificatas Deo offerre.” Calvin.
17—22.| The Apostle boasts of the
extent and result of his apostolic mission
among the Gentiles, and that in places
where none had preached before him.
I have therefore (consequent on the grace
and ministry just mentioned) my boasting
(i.e. ‘1 venture to boast:’? not = éyw
Kkavxnua, ‘I have whereof to boast, as
E. V., but, as De W., = éxw kavxacba,
‘I can, or dare, boast’) in Christ Jesus
(there is no stress on ev xp. *Ino.,—it
merely qualifies ty kavxnow as no vain
glorying, but grounded in, consistent with,
springing from, his relation and subser-
viency to Christ) of (concerning) matters
relating to God (my above-named sacer-
dotal office and ministry). 18.] The con-
nexion is: ‘I have rea/ ground for glorying
(in a legitimate and Christian manner) ;’
for I will not (as some false apostles do, see
2 Cor. x. 12—18) allow myself to speak of
any of those things which (av for éxeivwy,
&, attr.) Christ did nor work by me (but
by some other) in order to the obedience
462
IIPOS PQMAIOYS.
XY.
c ‘ ’ = , \ w £3 ,
s2Cor.x.U. 7 yraKonV éOvwv, *Aoyw Kat * Eoyw 19 t ey Suvauer
Col. iii. 17. ’ t t?
1 John iii. 18. ’ ‘ou , tus’, 5 , , ite et
(eel Cor. iv, ONMELWY Kal “ TEpaTwY, © Ev OUVa"EL TVEDMATOC [ayiov],
20. | ¢ oe ee N \ , F oN
_dthes.i5) Gere we awd LeoovoaAnp Kat ‘ xtkXw “ péxor rou [\-
u Acts vii. 36 - , ‘ > ~ =
ret Avpicov * wemAnowKévat tO evayyéAvov Tov yptsrov.
"aed. vie, 20 ourw oe % ptAort ovpevoyv * evayyedrtZeaO vy O
eee povn payyedileafar, ovX Omrov
12 only. bd a , 7 ve aL oe eG) ,
roves, “@vouacOn xyptotoc, wa pn em ° addAoroiov © OeuéXvov
XXxXxiv. 6.
a3 ~ D1e? ‘ ‘ t e ? t2
w. gen., Rev. a 7 =
w. gen., Re OLKOOOLG), artAa Kaloo yéyoamrat Oig ovKk “avny
vii. 11 only. tr \ > o ” \ a ? > , g
Gen xxce.5 EAN MEPL avToU, OWovTal, Kal Ol OVK aKNKOaoW © cuV-
al. , 929.8 he , ha est . k ~ > -
w of place, here MOOUGLY. ~~ Ovo Kat " évexomrouny ‘ta 'wodXa “rou Ede
ay, 2 < :
14 reff.) Jo = ie
xxxviil. ll, WOOC vac’
x = Col. i. 25.
see Acts xii. 25. y
7. 1 Cor. i. 17. ix. 16 bis,18 only. Nah. i. 15.
23
\ A /
vuvl O& PNKETL
2 Cor. v.9. 1 Thess. iv. 11 only ft.
1 , , ’ -
TOTOV EYWY EV TOLC
z absol., Luke ix. 6. xx. 1.
Isa. xxVvi. 13.
Acts xiv.
a = 2 Tim. ii. 19 only _ bch.
xiv. 4 reff. c = 1 Cor. iii. 10, 11, 12. Heb. vi. 1. d =Gal. ii. 18. (¢muck., 1 Cor. iii. 12.)
e ver. 3. f Acts xiv. 27 reff. Isa. lii. 15. ech. iii. 11. Matt. xiii. 13, Wc. Eph. v.17. Ps.
ii. 10. Prov. ii. 5. h Acts xxiv. 4 reff. ihere only. Xen. Hell, vi. 2. 30. k constr.,
Acts xiv. 18 reff. 1= Acts xxv. l6 reff. Sir. iv. 5.
o bef xpiotos F. aft 5: ewov add Aoywy B. for urak., axony B.
19. aft Ist Suvau. ins avtov DIF. (G! also ins avtov aft 2nd 5uv.) ree aft
aveunatos ins Geov, with D?LN rel Syr Chr-txt Cyr Thdrt Thl He; ayiov ACD'3F c m
17 vulg copt syr arm Ath Chr-comm Bas Cyr Dial Ruf-comm: om B Pelag-comm Vig).
wste TeTAnpwaOai aro Lep. EXPL TOV LAA. Kat KUKAW TO DF,
20. girotimovuar (corrn of constr) BD'F: -woumevos 116. 120: om vulg D-lat Ruf
Pel: txt ACD?-3L® rel Orig.
xpiotos D'F Chr.
22. for evexomtouny, evexomnv DF.
rel Chr Thdrt.
(subjection to the Gospel) of the Gentiles
(then, as if the sentence were in the affirma-
tive form, ‘I will only boast of what Christ
has veritably done by me towards the obe-
dience of the Gentiles,’ he proceeds) by word
and deed, 19.] in the power of signs
aud wonders, in the power of the | Holy |
Spirit (the signs and wonders (reff) are not
spiritual, but external miraculous acts, —
see 2 Cor. xii. 12), so that (result of the
kateipyaoaro) from Jerusalem (the eastern
boundary of his preaching) and the neigh-
bourhood (xkdxA@ is not to be joined with
péxpt T. “IAA. as Calov., al., but refers
[reff.] to Jerusalem, meaning perhaps its
immediate neighbourhood, perhaps Ara-
bia [ ?], Gal. i. 17,—but hardly Damascus
and Cilicia, as De W. suggests, seeing that
they would come into the route afterwards
specified, from Jerusalem to Illyricum) as
far as Illyricum (Illyricum bordered on
Macedonia to the S. It is possible that
Paul may literally have advanced to its
frontiers during his preaching in Mace-
donia; but I think it more probable, that
he uses it broadly as the ‘terminus ad
quem,’ the next province to that in which
he had preached), I have fulfilled (ref. :—
‘executed my office of preaching,’ so that
ebaryyéAtov TOU Xp. = Td edayyerlCecOau
tov xp.) the Gospel of Christ.
for ovx omov, orov ovx D!F Chr Bede.
ew amoAAoTpiw Ocepedio I.
21. amnyyedn C (238 ?): avnyyeAAn(sic) & ch k? o.
for ta moAAa, moAAaKis BDF: txt ACLN
ins o bef
oWovrat bef ors B m.
20.] But (limits the foregoing assertion)
thus (after the following rule) being
careful (reff.: the word in the Apostle’s
usage seems to lose its primary meaning of
‘making a point of honour? The par-
ticip. agrees with ue, ver. 19) to preach the
Gospel, not where Christ was (previously)
named, that I might not build on the
foundation of another, but according as it
is written (i.e. according to the following
rule of Scripture: I determined to act in
the spirit of these words, forming part of a
general prophecy of the dispersion of that
Gospel which I was preaching), &c. The
citation is from the LXX, zrep) avrod refer-
ring to 6 mats pou, ver. 13, but being un-
represented in the Heb. Our E. V. ren-
ders: “That which had not been told
them, shall they see: and that which they
had not heard, shall they consider.”
22.] 81d, not, because a foundation had
been already laid at Rome by another :
this would refer to merely a secondary
part of the foregoing assertion: 5:4 refers
to the primary, viz. his having been so
earnestly engaged in preaching elsewhere.
7a moda, these many times:
not, as Meyer, Fritz., ‘ the greater number
of times,’ —which would suggest the idea
that there had been other occasions on
which this hindrance had not been opera-
ABCD
FLNab
edfgh
kimn
017
19—27.
’ ,
2 KAipaow ToOuTOIC,
q
~
‘ ce P ? ‘
Tooc vuag * aTo
> ’ ,
gic THY LDraviay, (eAmiZw yao * Stamropevopevoc Qzacac-
— \ > , ~ ~ roe ~ ~
Par vuac Kat ap vpwv “roorenpOnvar “ éxel, Eav VoV
~ > > ~
7 OWTOV “amo “ pépouc * eumrAnaOo. )
> e ~ ~
onat sic lepovoaAdnu % ctakovwv roic
oo ‘ , \ ’ A 4
oKnoay ‘yap Makxedovia Kat Ayata
’ ~ ~ e
momoaabat © ete Tove TTWYOUC TWV *ayiwy tiv ev Leoou-
«
, 2a7 \d
cadnu. 7! * eddKnoav yap, Kat
> ‘ ~ e - [ee a eD , ,
él yap Toic “mvevpatiKoig autwy * Exkowwwrnaav ta eOyn,
IIPOS PQMAIOY®S.
> , \ DA
“emimoOiay Oe =
e ~ , ~
“ikavwy ' etTwv,
463
~ ’ = i
sou eXbew 220% 10
Wv
94s € n Gee , : only; sande
WwW av vwuUa xx. 2F.
¢ us ? G n here only t.
(-@etv, ch.
i. 11.)
o constr., Acts
xiv. 9 reff.
\ 3 , gy ot 5
© = q = Acts ix. 2
UPUE\OE ROOF: Soa
a
évu-
25
xxiii. 8 al.
t2 Mace. i. 20.
x. S=—1 Cor. xi
Tliva 34. Phil. ii.
23.
t absol., Luke
xvili. 36 (vi.
ZnS
aylotc.
b ,
KOoLvwrylay
1, xiii, 22.
Acts xvi. 4)
only. Zech.
ix. 8. Xen.
> , 3, 34 3: oa
operrérat ELOLV AUTWY.
g > , ‘ > - h ~ i ~ > ~ ae
opetA ovary KQL Ev TOLG GAPKIKOLC Aetrovpynoat QUTOIC, w Acts xv. 8
Tet,
Sv = Malt. ii. 22. John xi. 8. xviii. 3.
vi. 12) only. Eccl. vi.3. Polyb. i. 17. 3.
13. Heb. vi. 10. pres. part., Winer, edn. 6, § 45. 1.
Ps, lxvii. 16.
a = Luke xii. 32. 1] Cor.i. 21. Gal. i. 15.
only. (-vetv, ver. 27. ch. xii. 13.)
(ch. i. 11. vii. 14.
h =1 Cor. ix. 1) (iii. 3 reff.).
-yos, ver. 16.)
23. for 2nd exwv, exw (corrn of constr) D'F m o.
w ver. 15.
see Acts xiv. 17.
1 Cor. ix. 11 al.) only, exc. 1 Pet. ii. 5, bis t.
i = here only. (Acts xili.2 reff.) 3 Kingsi.4. (-ya, 2 Cor. ix. 12.
x = here (Lukei. 53. vi. 25. John
y = 2Tim.i. 18. Philem.
Acts vi. 1l. xv. 27. z= Acts ix. 13 reff.
b = 2 Cor. ix. 13. Heb. xiii. 16
c = 1 Cor. xvi. 1 reff. dch. i. 14 reff. e Paul
f ch. sii. 13 reif. g ver. 1 reff.
om tov A. rec (for
ikaywv) moAAwy (more usual exprn), with ADFLN rel Chr Thdrt: txt BC m Damase.
24. rec eav, with L rel Chr, Thdrt: txt AB C(appy) DFX Chr, Damase.
mopevoua DF al b' cfm! n:
ovy DF.
add
-couat L, 1227: txt ABCN rel Chr Thl.
rec aft oraviay ins eAcevoouat mpos umwas (to fill wp the aposiopesis: see note),
with LN? rel syr Thdrt Thl @c: om ABCDFR! latt Syr coptt eth arm Chr Damase
Ambrst Pelag Ruf Sedul Bede.
om yap F latt Syr copt eth Chr lat-ff (videbo
vos et a vobis deducar Ambrst): ins ABCDLN syr Thdrt, Damase Thl Cc: de a? 3.
5. L08!-20 Chr-ms Thdrt,.
ACLNX rel Chr: txt B(amo) DF.
mopevouevos A 62 Damasce,.
rec (for ap) up, with
25. for diaxoverv, diarovnoa DF latt: Siaxovnowy &!: txt ABCLN’ rel.
26. evdoxnoev B 62.120 Thdrt,: G-lat has both (yv5. B'& m: so & m Chr-ms in
next ver).
ayiwy DF.
27. for evdor. yap Kat opetAetat, opetA. yap DF Ambrst.
with FL rel: txt ABCDN vulg(am &c agst fuld &c) spec Syr copt Ambrst.
2nd avtwy L.
tive. 23.] py. Td. Exwv, I have
no more occasion, viz. of apostolic work.
The participial construction prevails
throughout, the participles standing as
direct verbs. This not having been seen,
the words éAcvcouat mpds buds have been in-
serted to fill up what seemed an aposiopesis.
Now, however, I have no longer any busi-
ness in these parts, but have had for many
years past a desire to see you, whenever
(as soon as) I journey into Spain. Re-
specting the question whether this journey
into Spain was ever taken, the views of
Commentators have differed, according to
their conclusion respecting the libera-
tion of the Apostle from his imprison-
ment at Rome. I have discussed this
in the Prolegg. to the Pastoral Epistles,
§ ii. The reader may see, on the side of
the completion of the journey, Neander,
Pi. u. Leit., ed. 4, pp. 527—552,—and
Makaidoves Kat axatakoe F, D!-lat also has paratdoves.
TWY €V LED.
ree avtwyv bef eo,
om
on the other side, Dr. Davidson, Introd.
to N. T. vol. ii. pp. 96—132, and Wie-
seler, Chron. der Apost. Zeitalt., Ex-
cursus I., where a copious list of books
on both sides is given. 24.| amo
fépous is an affectionate limitation of
é€umAnoO@, implying that he would wish
to remain much longer than he anti-
cipated being able to do,—and also, as
Chrys., ovdeis ydp me xpdvos éumAjoa
Sivarat, odde eumoinoat wor Kdpov Tis
cuvoucias buav. 25.| See Acts xix.
21; xxiv. 17; 2 Cor. vill. 19. d:axovar,
not the future, because he treats the whole
action as already begun: see reff.
26.| See 2 Cor. ix. 1, ff. Kolvov. |
See reff. Olsh. remarks, on tovs wrw-
Yous T. ayiwv, that this shews the com-
munity of goods in the church at Jerusa-
lem not to have lasted long: cf. Gal. ii. 10.
27.| The fact is re-stated, with a
464
D} ~ 5
k 2 Cor. vii. 1. 28 TOUTO OUV
Viii. 6, 1} bis.
1 Kings iii.
J2. of sacred
a ~
ie koomoy TOUTOV
rites, Heb. ix.
29
1 see John iii.
33.
m = Gal. v. 22.
Eph. v. 9.
Heb. xii. 11.
James iii. 18.
n = Matt. viii.
IIPOX PQMAIOY®.
k » , \
émiteAgoac Kal
n? , LH Ge ee
atéAcvcouat Ou umwY
Aoylag Yolorov eheboouat,
] , 5) ~ N
opoayicamEevoc auTol¢c TOV
, ,
"gic Lraviay’
AG care ’ , N Owe > 9 p.?
ol a Oe OTL EO OMEVOC 7ooc upac Ev 7Anpwpare €u-
9 ~ ~
304 raoakahw 6& vac,
[aed poi, ] 1 Ota TOU kupiov jw Inoov ypictov Kat “dua
To. x. Sal Tne "ayarne TOU ' mvebpaToc, * suvaywvicarbat fo ev
fr. Josh. ee t
=f iil. Tale MOOGEY MIC Unép EMOU ™0¢ Tov Oeov, oles aie
o = Eph. iii.
1: pvobw aro TwDv
p ch, xvi. e
1 Cor. x. AS x ¢
2 Cor. ix oc lakovia fLou 7) ELC
al. Ezek. 327
XXXiv. 26. s
q ch. xii- 1 reff. * aytouc yevnrat, tva
r here only.
see Col, i. 8.
shereonlyt. q x a Aa
es Col. fede TNC
iv. 12.
t Acts xii. 5 reff. u=ch. vii. 24 reff.
x ellips., ch. ii. 8 al. fr. y ver. 16 reff.
j.1. 2Cor.i.1. viii. 6. Eph.i.1. Col. i. 1.
vii. 13.) Isa. xi. 6 only.
v. 23. Heb, xiii. 20. (2 Thess. iii. 16.)
28. aft Tovto ovy ins apa F.
d: vuas F.
rel: om ABDFN! m Chr.
29. for o6a de, yerwworw yap F.
‘ ameBovvrwy ray ™
a? Cat) f x (5 ix
ev yuoa EADw moo vac
b , b o Nic
OeAnuatoc Deov[ , Kal
’ , e A , ¢ ~
ELPNVNG = fAETA TWAVTWY VEY.
Z = vv. 25, 26.
2 Tim. i. 1 only.
dch. xvi. 20.
ecllips., Matt. i. 23. ch. xvi. 20 [24].
oppayicauevors(sic) &.
rec ins tTyv bef omavav (none om Thy in ver 24), with CLNé
(4
>
lovdaia, Kat 1
ee ToC
b ‘
oud
€ \
339 8:
5)
aun Vv. e
w = Acts vi. 1 reff.
a =1 Ovr. ii. 3 al. b 1 Cor.
c here only. (see 1 Sor. xvi. 18, 2 Cor.
1 Cor. xiv.33. 2 Cor. xiii.1J. Phil.iv.9. 1Thess.
1 Cor. xvi. 23, 24 al.
om avtots B 76. 108.
‘TeoovsaA nu
ca € _
ovvavaTavowmat vty | .
7
v = Acts xiv. 2 reff.
om epxouevos F. TtAnpopopia DIF.
rec ins Tov evaryyeAov tov bef xpiotov (prob a gloss), with LX? rel vulg syrr
Chr Thdrt: om ABCDFN! am(with demid harl) copt «th arm(om xp. also) Clem lat-ff.
30. om adeApor B 76 eth Chr:
a has it in red at the beg of ver:
add jou syrr
copt: bef mapa. vu. lectt (and C3-marg); bef vu., demid (the variations in posn are
SUSPICIOUS :
but may not the word, characteristic as it is here, have been first rejected
as unnecessary, and then noted in the margin, and variously inserted ?
it). ins ovowatos Tov bef kupiov La 74. 120 lectt.
DF vulg-ed(not am demid fuld harl?) Pelag.
Lachm retains
aft mposevxas ins vmwy
om umep euov F Ruf Bede.
$1. rec aft «a: ins wa, with D?3LX3 rel syr Chr Thdrt : om ABCD'F®! latt Syr copt
arm Damasc Ruf Pelag Ambrst.
ness of Siakov. ets tep.:
for diakovia, Swpopopia (corrn to avoid harsh-
see below) BD'F, remuneratio D-lat, munerum meorum minis-
tratio Ambrst: txt ACD?3LN vss (administratio G-lat, obsequii oblatio vulg Sedul
Bede, ministerium D?-lat Ruf) Chr Thdrt Damase Thl Gc.
for es, ev BD'F:
rec yevntat bef Tots ayiors, With DEL rel vss gr-lat-ff: txt ABC m.
for 6eov, kuptov encov B: xpiotov inoov D'K:
inoov xpiotov &!: txt ACD°LN? rel vss Chr Thdrt Damase Th] (Ke lat-ff.
ins AC(DF)L(&) rel vss Chr Euthal Thdrt Damase Thl Gc
avayuxw F.—ped vuwy DF latt.
37. 73. 93. 122 Thdrt, Chr-mss.
Thdrt, Thl.
32. eAOwv AC NX! (bef xapa) 17.
cuvavaravowua vuw B:
lat-ff: om ka: 8!.—avapviw D:
33. ins 7Tw bef pera D'F Jatt syr.
Thdrt Damase Thl (ie lat-ff
view to an inference from it, viz. that the
evddxnoay was not merely a matter of
benevolence, but of repayment: the Gen-
tiles being debtors to the Jews for spiritual
blessings. This general principle is very
similarly enounced in 1 Cor. ix. 11. It is
suggested by Grot., al., that by this Paul
wished to hint to the Romans the duty | of
a similar contribution. 28.] kapmév,
hardly, as Caly., al., ‘* proventum quem
ex Evangelii satione ad Judeos redire
nuper dixit :”? more probably said gene-
rally, —fruit of the faith and love of the
Gentiles. oppayia., ws cis BariArKa
Taopera amobeuevos ws ey ATVA® K. aoda-
om 2nd7 Lb! hm
txt ACD'‘LN rel Chr-ms
om Kat
om aunvy AF: ins BCDLN rel vss Chr
Ae? xwpiw, Chrys. Sv tpav, through
your city. 29.| The fulness of the
blessing of Christ imports that richness
of apostolic grace which he was persuaded
he should impart to them. So he calls his
presence in the churches a ydpis, 2 Cor, i.
15. See also ch. i. 11. 30—82. |
T. aya. T. wvevp., the dove shed abroad
in the heart by the Holy Ghost ;—a love
which teaches us to look not only on our
own things, but on the things of others.
ovvaywv.| “Ipse oret oportet, qui
alios vult orare secum. Orare, agon est,
preesertim ubi omnes resistunt.” Bengel.
81.] Compare Acts xx. 22; xxi.
ma;
XY. 28—33.
ABCD
FLNab
edfgh
klmn
017
XVI. 1—4.
XVI.
ae pe 7™¢ exeAnoiag Tc ev Keyxoeaic, *
" mpocdeénabe aura i ey _Kupiy
w
High aury Ev @ av vUugV
\
p28 auTy ° gpootaric moARiov eyernOn, Kal ELLOU avrov.
3” Neracachs Tloiscay Kal
jou ev Xplore "Inoov, +4
3 John 6 only t.
Jer. xv. 11.
ii. 12.
m = 2 Tim. iv. 17 only.
xi. 7 vat. (only ?)
p Paul (vv. ¥, 21.
q = Acts x 4 reff.
CHap. XVI. 1. om de D'F eth Sedul.
BC!N? 47.
IIPO2 POQMAIOY®S.
‘ Zuvior mut Of Upty Doi Buy THY adeApay 1 mov,
vitivec UTip THC
Wisd. vii. 15. xvi. 1.
n Matt. vi. 32.
o here only t.
Sir. xiv. 11 only.
1 Cor. iii. al8.) only, exc. 3 John St.
r= Acts xv. 26 reff.
465
f = 2 Cor. iii.
1, v.12. (ch.
iii. 5 reff.) 1
iva Mace. xii. 43.
. f= Phil. i 1.
‘ayloy Kal ne ae iii, &,
foe , here
‘akiwe TWY
xencn moayware Kal h = = Phil ii.
i. 8, 12.
J eee XVi.
Wa
"AktXav roue P suvep your eRe iter
r p eae 1.27.
Uv 7 LOU Jol. i. 10.
xX it 1 Thess.
1 = Acts ix. 13 reff.
Luke xi. 8. xii. 30. 2Cor. iii. only. Judg.
(-tns, 1 Chron, xxvii. 31. see Rom. xii. 8.)
2 Macc. viii. 7. xiv. 5 only. (-yetv, ch. viii. 28.)
vuwy AK Thi. aft ovcay ins kat
2. rec avtny bef mposdeénode, with ALN rel vulg Syr Chr Thdrt Ambrst : txt BCDF
d harl syr copt.
Kk. €. K. a. Tapactaters |,
for mpooratis to emov, Kat E“ov Kat aAAwY TpooTaTts eyeveTo D ;
ree avtov bef exov, with L rel Chr-c-montf Hc:
Kal
auvTov kat euou NX: txt ABC dm vulg syr copt Chr-2-mss Thdrt Damase Thl., exov t<
autov A,
3. rec mpioxtdXav (corrn to Acts xviii. 2, ¥c),
with rel syrr Chr Thdrt(riy
yop IIploxiAdav 7} Mploxav, dupdrepa ydp éotw ebpety ey tots BiBAlors) Ambrst: txt
ABCDFLR® d g h m 17 vss gr-lat-ff.
ok. aut. exkaA. DF,
10—14. The exceeding hatred in which
the Apostle was held by the Jews, and
their want of fellow-feeling with the Gen-
tile churches, made him fear lest even the
ministration with which he was charged
might not prove acceptable to them.
32.| Sta Ged. Oeod = cay 6 KUpios OeAjon,
1 Cor. iv. 19: otherwise in reff.
[k. ouvav. tp., and may refresh myself
together with you;-—i.e. ‘that we may
mutually refresh ourselves, I after my dan-
gers and deliverance, you after your anxie-
ties for me.’ But the text is in some
confusion. ] Cuap. XVI.1—16.] Re-
COMMENDATION OF PH@BE: GREETINGS.
1, 2.] In all probability Phoebe was
the bearer of the Epistle, as stated in the
(rec.) subscription. Sidaxovoy | Dea-
coness. See] Tim.iii. 11, note. Pliny in
his celebrated letter to Trajan says, “ ne-
cessarium credidi, ex duabus ancillis que
ministre dicebantur, quid esset veri et per
tormenta querere.” A minute discussion
of their office, &e. in later times, may be
found in Suicer, Thesaurus, sub voce ; and
in Bingham, book ii. chap. 22, § 8. Ne-
ander, Pfl. u. Leit., ed. 4, pp. 265— 267,
shews that the deaconesses must not be
confounded with the xjjpa: of 1 Tim. v.
3—16, as has sometimes been done.
KeEncurim, the port of Corinth (Trav
Kopw@iwy énivecov, Philo in Flace. § 19,
vol. ii, p. 539: kdun tis THs KoptyOov
beylorn, Theodoret, h. 1.) on the Saronic
gulf of the Aigean, for commerce with the
east (Acts xviii. 18): seventy stadia from
Vor. I:
at end, instead of in ver 5, ins kat T. Kart.
Corinth, Strabo viil. 880. Pausan. ii. 2, 3.
Livy xxxii. 17. Plin. iv. 4. The Apos-
tolical Constitutions (vii. 46, p. 1053,
Migne) make the first bishop of the Cen-
chrean church to have been Lucius, con-
secrated by Paul himself (Winer, RWB.).
The western port, on the Sinus Corinthia-
cus, was Leche (Paus.), Lechex (Plin.),
or Lecheum (Strab., Ptol.). 2.] év
Kupt, in a Christian manner,—as mindful
of your common Lord: dagiws +r. ayiwv,
‘in a manner worthy of saints ;? i.e. ‘as
saints ought to do, —refers to mposdeinabe,
and therefore to theiv conduct to her ;—
not, ‘as saints ought to be received.’
mapaoTHTe| Her business at Rome may
have been such as to require the help of
those resident there. TPOTTaTLS
mo\N@v| This may refer to a part of the
deaconess’s office, the attending on the poor
and sick of her own sex. K. €f.00
avTod | when and where, we know not.
It is not improbable that she may have
been, like Lydia, one whose heart the Lord
opened at the first preaching of Paul, and
whose house was his lodging. 3, 4. |
The form Prisca is also found 2 Tim. iv. 19.
On Prisca and Aquila see note, Acts xviii. 2.
They must have returned to Rome from
Ephesus since the sending of 1 Cor. :—see
1 Cor. xvi. 19: and we find them again at
Ephesus (?), 2 Tim. iv. 19. Their en-
dangering of their lives for Paul may have
taken place at Corinth (Acts xviii. 6 ff.) or
at Ephesus (Acts xix.). See Neander, Pfl.
u. Leit., p. 441. “ tarotBévar est pignori
Hai
466 IIPOX PQMAIOYS. xXVL
> ‘ g = st s ey ® > oe ,
rauy tov eautwv “ roeaynAov “ume nkay, olc ovK EYW pOvog
(but not =). vy > ~ i) ‘ \ - es ’ s & i
tAcisxv.10 “ euyaptotw adda Kat macae at “ éxkAnotar tw ever,
rel,
. \ ‘ , ct Sine ’ ’ > 7,
ulTimiv.6 5 kat tyv *Y kat otkov autwy *éxKAnoiay. aomacaacbs
v to man, here ? ’ ‘ z? ‘ ? a? x ~
aug (chet Ezatvetov tov “ayarnrov pov, 0¢ éotw “ataoyn THC
reti.)
6
e b] , bi , > , , cc ‘
Lee Actag ttc XKeloToy, aonacacle Mapuay, nric 7oAXa
Col. iv. 15. d ? [2 , Go 7 ? ‘ ? , \
Philem. 2. EKOTLAGEV ELC upac. aoracac(s Avdoovikoy Kal
y Acts i. 465 na ‘ oe 4
reff. 2 = 5 ate f
PANGS loumay Touvc GUY YVEVELC f4ou Kal ouvatynadwroug hou,
reff. c aS / , g , ] , ~ h? , a \ ‘
a ch. viii. 23 OLTLVEC ELOLY ETLONMOL EV TOLC avooroAaotc, Ol Kal 790
reff.
b see ch. xv. 26. c Acts x. 41 reff. d Matt. vi. 28. Acts xx.35 al. Ps. exxvi.1. ech.
xi.3. Lukei. 36,58. Actsx.24al. Levit xxv. 45. f Col. iv. 10. Philem. 23 only t. g Matt.
XXvii.16 only. Esth.v.4. 3 Mace. vi.1. Polyb. xviii. 38.1. Jos. Antt. v.7.%. h see Acts xiv. 4 note.
5. for amapxn, am apxns D!, in principio D!-lat: a principio G-lat. rec for
agtas, axatas, with D?3L rel syrr Chr Thdrt Thl Ge: txt ABCD'FR latt(not harl)
copt zth arm Damase Orig-int Jer Ambrst Ruf.xp, Pelag Jer Sedul Bede. (The rec
has prob been an error of the scribe, who had anapxn ts axatas, 1 Cor xvi. 15, in his
mind. To suppose, with De Wette, that he altered ax. here to ac. to avoid the incon-
sistency of two persons being the first fruits of Achaia, is surely too far-fetched.)
for «1s xpiotov, ev xpiotw DF latt.
6. rec pap:ap, with DFLN rel Chr Thdrt Thl: txt ABC Syr copt. rec quas,
with C*L rel syr Chr-comm Thdrt Damase Thl Ge Ruf-ms: ev vai DF latt Ambrst :
txt ABC’ Syr copt «th Chr-txt(and ms,).
7. ins tous bef cuva:xuadwrous B.
om a: XN}. for ot Kk. Tpo Ep. yery-, Tals
po EM. yey
opponere. Demosth.in Aphobum: érética gregations of the Church.” 5.] Epe-
Thy Aettoupylav, Srobels Thy Oikiay kal
TamavTov mavra. Aischines: bré0ncay
avTgé Tov TadrddyTov Tas OSynuootas mpos-
ddous.” Wetst. The ‘churches of the
Gentiles’ had reason to be thankful to
them, for having rescued the Apostle of
the Gentiles from danger. It seems to
have been the practice of Aquila and
Priscilla (ref. 1 Cor.) and some other Chris-
tians (reff. Col., Philem.) to hold assem-
blies for worship in their houses, which
were saluted, and sent salutations as one
body in the Lord. Some light is thrown
on the expression by the following passage
from the Acta Martyrii S. Justini, in
Ruinart, cited by Neander, Church Hist. i.
330, Rose’s trans. ‘ The answer of Justin
Martyr to the question of the prefect (Rus-
ticus) ‘Where do you assemble ?’ exactly
corresponds to the genuine Christian spirit
on this point. The answer was; ‘ Where
each one can and will. You believe, no
doubt, that we all meet together in one
place ; but it is not so, for the God of the
Christians is not shut up in a room, but,
being invisible, He fills both heaven and
earth, and is honoured every where by the
faithful” Justin adds, that when he came
to Rome, he was accustomed to dwell in
one particular spot, and that those Chris-
tians who were instructed by him, and
wished to hear his discourse, assembled at
his house. (This assembly would accord-
ingly be 7 Kar’ oikov Tov “lovortivov ek-
kAnoia.) He had not visited any other con-
netus is not elsewhere named. arapxy,
the same metaphor being in the Apostle’s
mind as in ch. xv. 16,—the first believer.
On ’ Actas see var. readd. cis Xp.,
elliptical: the full construction would be
Tis Tpospopas eis xp. 6.] None of
the names occurring from ver. 5—15 are
mentioned elsewhere (except possibly Ru-
fus: see below). De Wette remarks,
that, notwithstanding the MSS. authority,
eis jas is perhaps the more likely reading,
(1) because the Apostle would hardly men-
tion a service done to themselves as a
ground of salutation from him, and (2) be-
cause komigy without being expressly fol-
lowed by Ady (1 Tim. v. 17: see Phil. ii.
16; Col. i. 29), said of women, most likely
implies acts of kindness peculiar to the sex.
7.] *lovviay may be fem. (Iovvlay),
from *Iovvla (Junia), in which case she is
probably the wife of Andronicus,—or masce.,
from “Iovvias (Junianus, contr. Junias).
It is uncertain also whether ocuyyeveis
means fellow-countrymen, or relations.
Aquila and Priscilla were Jews: so would
Maria be, and probably Epznetus, being
an early believer. If so, the word may
have its strict meaning of ‘ relations.’ But
it seems to occur vy. 11, 2] in a wider
sense. ovvatxp.| When and where,
uncertain. érionpor év T. &trooT. |
Two renderings are given: (1) ‘ of note
among the Apostles, so that they them-
selves are counted among the Apostles:
thus the Greek ff. (1d amoorédaAous eivau,
ABCD
FLN ab
edfgh
klmnon
017
5—14.
ELOU yéyovay ‘ev XpLaTy.
“ayarntoy jou ev Kupliy.
ouVvEpyov Nuov év Xeuery, Kal arayey rov
AweXAnv rov
™ rev "AotsroPovAov.
10 acTacaals
pov.
> ,
aoTacaobe ToUC EK
e
Howdiwva Tov © ouyyen pov.
/
Napxisoov Touc ovrac » pan Hii
vay Kal Tovpwoar rac
Heootda thv “ayarntny, nric moAAa
13 ea ‘Povgow Tov
bntépa avurou Kal EMOU. Cs
apo exov DF.
XpioTtw add imcov DF Pelag Ambrst Jer.
acTacacs OvoBavov Tov
> , ‘ ?
acracacl: TOUC EK
? ,
1 kommoac gv KuOlw,
? ‘ ’ ¢ \ ‘
” exXsKkTov €v Kuplw, Kat TIV
rec yeyovaow, with CL rel: txt A B(sic:
IIPOS PQMAIOYS. 467
8 aonacacbe “Aprdtav tov i }osr i 3.
1 Pet. v. 14.
>
: ayarnroyv k ver. 3 reff.
ie: ~
év XPLOTW.
> ,
Ul asracachs
OOKtLOV Ich. xiv. 18
reff.
m see | Cor. i.
ns
m -
TWYV
aes 7 ,
12 Aomacacb< Tovpa-
> ,
aoTacaals
a , , '
EKOTTLAGEV EV KUuplw.
neh. viii. 33
asTracaal: "AcvyKetrov, PE-
see table) &. aft
8. autAiatov AF latt copt eth Euthal lat-ff: txt BC(appy) DL rel syrr Chr Thdrt
Chron Damase Thl Cc.
ll. cuyyevnv AD'.
12. om from ev kupiw to ev kupiw AF (and G).
peyas 7d Se Kal ev TovTos émiohmous
elvat, evvdnoov jAlkov eyx@mov, Chrys.),
Calv., Est., Wolf, Thol., K6élln., Olsh., al. :
or (2) ‘noted among the Apostles,’ i.e.
well known and spoken of by the Apostles.
Thus Beza, Grot., Koppe, Reiche, Meyer,
Fritz., De W. But, as Thol. remarks,
had this latter been the meaning, we
should have expected some expression like
dia macev Tay exkAnoiwy (2 Cor. viii. 18).
I may besides remark, that for Paul to
speak of any persons as celebrated among
the Apostles in sense (2), would imply that
he had more frequent intercourse with the
other Apostles, than we know that he had ;
and would besides be improbable on any
supposition. ‘The whole question seems to
have sprung up in modern times from the
idea that of amécTroAo: must mean the
Twelve only. If the wider sense found in
Acts xiv. 4, 14; 2 Cor. viii. 23; 1 Thess.
ii. 6 (compare i. 1) be taken, there need be
no doubt concerning the meaning.
ot kat... .] refers to Andr. and Jun.,
not to the Apostles. In the use of yéyo-
vay, there is a mixed construction—* who
have been longer than me,” and “who were
before me.” 8 ff.] Amplias=Ampli-
atus : see v. r. ay. év kup., beloved
in the bonds of Christian fellowship.
ouvepy. év xp., fellow-workman
in (the work of) Christ. Origen and
others have confounded Apelles with the
well-known Apollos, but apparently with-
out reason. Cf. Hor. Sat. i. 5. 100.
Soxup. év xp., approved (by trial) in (the
work of) Christ. It does not follow that
either Aristobulus or Narcissus were them-
om pou B F(not G
9. for xpiotw, kupew CDF c¢ m arm Chr-3-mss :
txt ABLN rel.
KkoTiagas C.
selves Christians. Only those of their
familie (rots é« tv) are here saluted
who were év xupiw: for we must under-
stand this also after "ApsotoBovAov.
ovyy., see above. Grot., Neander, al.,
have taken Narcissus for the well-known
freedman of Claudius. But this can hardly
be, for he was executed (Tac. Ann. xiii. 1)
in the very beginning of Nero’s reign, i.e.
cir. 55 a.D., whereas (see Prolegg. § iv. 4
and Chronol. Table) this Epistle cannot
have well been written before 58 A.D.
Perhaps, as Winer (RWB.) suggests, the
family of this Narcissus may have con-
tinued to be thus known after his death (?).
13.] Rufus may have been the son
of Simon of Cyrene, mentioned Mark xy.
21: but the name was very common.
éxAextév—not to be softened, as De W.,
al., to merely ‘eximium,’ a sense unknown
to our Apostle ;—elect, i.e. one of the
elect of the Lord. —_ kat énov the Apostle
adds from affectionate regard towards the
mother of Rufus: ‘my mother, in my
reverence and affection for her. Jowett
compares our Lord’s words to St. John,
John xix. 27. 14.| These Christians
of whom we have only the names, seem to
be persons of less repute than the former.
Hermas (= Hermodorus, Grot.) is thought
by Origen (in loc. “Puto, quod Hermas
iste sit scriptor libelli istius qui Pastor ap-
pellatur’’), Hus. H. E. iii. 3, and Jerome,
catal. script. eccl., c. x., vol. ii., p. 846,
to be the author of the ‘Shepherd. But
this latter is generally supposed to have
been the brother of Pius, bishop of Rome,
about 150 a.p. The ody gitots adeApot
H a 2
468
o = Acts ix. 13
reff.
TIPOX PQMAIOY®.
ba E B
yovra, Eppny, TlareoBav, “Eppay, Kat rove avy avTolc
aaa adeh pove. 15 Gomacaals Piddoyou Kal ‘lovAtay, Nnpéa
1 Thess
26. see Pet Kal THY adeA ny avTov, Kal Odvprav, Kal Tove ovY
a He ahive (0) f ¢ °ayiouc. 16 Go af adAnroug P ev
asabove (P)- GyTOIc mavrag © ayiouc. aoracas0s aXAnAouvc P¢
Xxii. 48 only.
Prov. xxvil.
6. Cant. i. 2
only.
r plur., Acts xv.
4l. xvi. 5.
ver.4. 1 Cor.
vii. 17, xi. 16
al.
s=ch. xii.1
Pq peAnpare P ayiiy.
TOU Xetorov.
reff.
t Luke xi. 33.
2 Cor. iv. 18.
Gal. vi. 1.
Phil. ii. 4.
iii. 17 only t.
2 Mace. iv. 5
only.
u Gal. v. 20
onlyt.
1 Maec. iii. 29 only v=ch. xiv. 13 reff.
y 1 Pet. iii. 11 (ch. Ve 12) only. Ps. xxxvi. 27.
Kxiv. 15. b here only t.
J1 reff.
Maa Or ala
aX\Xa TH EQUTWY 4
2¢
? s
acmadovrat v vuac al
~ ~ ’
is Tapaxkadte oe vac, acer pol,
, \ Sy lA WwW
duyooraciacg Kat ta ‘ okavoada
UEC emabere mTolourTac, Kal
~ = '
10 TOLOUTOL Tw KUPLO)
\ ‘ ~
KowAta, Kal dra THC
c = here only. see note.
e = here (Heb» vii. 26) only. Prov. i. 4. viii. 5 al.
t ! =
exkAnolat Tacat
t ~ ‘\ \
oKOTELY TOUC Tae
\ \ \ nv
Tapa au *6daXny ny
L Ye«KXt ire 18 5
EKKALVATE an aUTO@Y.
€ om >’ zZzND dN ,
Nuwv XeLoTW OV ~ CoVAEVOVOLY,
; Xpnororoyiac Kal
> , d = \ Uj - e? , c
“ suAoytac eSaTaTwotv Tac Kagolac Twy akakwy,. 19
w=ch. i. 26 reff.
z = Acts xx. 19 reff.
x = Acts ii. 42 reff.
a= Phil. iii. 19. Prov.
(ch. xy. 29 reff.) ch. vii.
14. rec epuay . epuny, with D*L rel Syr Chr Thdrt Chron Ambrst: txt ABCD!FR
am(with fuld harl flor mar) syr copt eth ‘Euthal Ruf Bede.
15. wovviay C'F.
F: oAvutiay D.
16. om acma(ovTa...
TOU Xp.
ynpeav AF.
oAvpmerda (Olympiadem latt Ruf Ambrst)
xpicrov DI, but aft cuyy. wou ver 21 read rat at exkA. Tacat
rec om aca (see note), with rel Chr Thl Hc:
ins ABC(DF)LX m vulg
Syr copt eth arm (Chr-comm ?) Cyr Thdrt Ruf Ambrst Pelag Bede.
17. for waparadw, epwtw D3, rogo latt.
Sing-cler. for mapa, wep: D}.
exkAwvere BCR! m Thdrt Damase.
18. om tw F.
of ver. 14, and ody abtots mdvres Gyiot
of ver. 15, have been taken by De W. and
Reiche to point to some separate asso-
ciations of Christians, perhaps (De W.) as-
semblies as in ver. 5: or (Reiche) unions for
missionary purposes. 16.| The mean-
ing of this injunction seems to be, that the
Roman Christians should take occasion, on
the receipt of the Apostle’s greetings to
them, to testify their mutual love, in this,
the ordinary method of salutation, but
having among Christians a Christian and
holy meaning, see reff. It became soon a
custom in the churches at the celebration
of the Lord’s Supper. See Suicer under
gonacuds and piAnua, and Bingham, xv.
3. 3. agomal. tp. at éx«d. a. | This as-
surance is stated evidently on the Apostle’s
authority, speaking for the churches; not
implying as Bengel, “ quibuscum fui, ¢. xv.
26. His significarat, se Romam scribere,”
but vouching for the brotherly regard in
which the Roman church was held by all
churches of Christ. The above misunder-
standing has led to the exclusion of raca.
17—20.] WARNING AGAINST
THOSE WHO MADE DIVISIONS AMONG
for cxotmew, acpadws cxoTmerte DE
ins Aeyortas 7 bef moiovyt. DF Sing-cler.
rec ins imoov bef xpictw, with rel Syr copt #th-pl Chr: om
ABCDEN® e m vulg syr eth-rom arm.—xp. bef nuwy DF.
om kat evdAoyias (homaotel) D'F 17 Chr-ms.
SovAevoovary F.
THEM. To what persons the Apostle re-
fers, is not plain. Some (Thol., al.) think
the Judaizers to be meant, not absolutely
within the Christian pale, but endeavour-
ing to sow dissension in it: and so, nearly,
Neander, Pfl. u. Leit., p. 452. De W.
thinks that Paul merely gives this warn-
ing 7” case such persons came to Rome.
Judging by the text itself, we infer that
these teachers were similar to those pointed
outiin’ Phil ane 2) 18s 1 Tmnsevie 3) ts
2 Cor. xi. 13, 20: unprincipled and selfish
persons, seducing others for their own
gun: whether Judaizers or not, does not
appear: but considering that the great op-
ponents of the Apostle were of this party,
we may perhaps infer that they also be-
longed to it. 17.] oKxometv = Bré-
mew, Phil.iii. 2. The 5:50x7 here spoken
of is probably rather ethical than doctri-
nal; compare Eph. iv. 20—24. 18. |
xpnotodoyla, coAakela, Theophyl. Wet-
stein cites from Julius Capitolinus, in Per-
tinace, 13, ‘omnes, qui libere conferebant,
male Pertinacem loquebantur, chrestolo-
gum eum appellantes, qui bene loqueretur
et male faceret.” evAoyias, fairness
@€mav Kat
TOUS wee
ABCD
FLNab
cdefg
hklm
nol7
15—23.
. e ~ f e - > ,
yep UUWYV = gig Tavrac
Xaipe, Dédw O& U eRe sopouc elvat " cle TO *ayaben, |
205
k
oatouc Of Fata To “ kakov.
Tpiber TOV GaTavay UTO TOUC TOOAC VuwY "ev © TAX Et.
Xapre Tov Kuolou ney "Incov [xetorov | ° ue vmov.
al Aowacerat vac Tyo8co¢ O eaepea se pov, Kat
Aovktoc Kat laswy Kat Lwotrarpoc ol
99 >
re aomaCopat v vac eyo Téprioe 0 ypabac * THY EmLoTOANY
>
F v Kup iw . 23
4. Rey.i.1. xxii Gonly. Deut. xxviii. 20.
reff. q vv. 7, 11 reff.
47, Xen. Anab. ili. 1. 4.
19. urakon bef vuwy DF (not D-lat).
IIPO>) POMAIOY®S.
8 agixero”
oe | Oeoc tie ' ipnyne "
aomaZerat vaac Tétoc 0
rsee 1 Cor. v. 9 reff.
469
98) fe ne
fch.i. 5 reff.
ep aes ouv. g here omy.
? Prov. i.
AKE= —=Sir. ee
16.
ou)p- h ch. xiii. 4
reff.
a Y v i Matt. x. 16.
Phil. ii. 15
onlyt.
keh. ii. 9 reff.
Ich. xy. 33 reff.
\ m Matt. xii. 20,
Mark v. 4.
xiv. 3. Luke
ix. 39. John
xix.36. Rev.
ii. 27 only.
Gen. xix. 9.
8 27 \ n Luke xviii. 8.
EVO 10U Ka Acts Xii. 7.
3 ¢ A xxii. 18. xxv.
0 ellips., ch. xv. 33 reff. p ver. 3
s = hereonly. Diod. Sic. xvii.
ne yee poou.
rec xalpw ovy To ep vay, with (DF) N? rel
vulg syrr copt Chr Thdrt: ro ed’ vai cvvxaipw, omg ovy,m: txt ABCLN! arm Damasc
Ruf.—om ro D'F d.
Czs(but om also de follg) Chr Thdrt.
for 0. 5¢, kat OeAw D!F Syr.
(on account of Se follg?), with ACN rel syr Thl Ge Aug:
rec aft copous adds pev
om BDFL copt Clem
20. cvytpuja: A 67? vulg(am demid harl F-lat agst fuld tol) G-lat spee Thdrt-comm
Ambr.
xpiotov BN.
rel vss gr-lat-ff.
ev Taxet bef vro T. 7. nuwy A.
elz at end adds ayny (with none of our manuscripts) :
om last clause DF Sedul. om
om ABCLN
21. rec aoma(ovra, with DL rel Syr Thdrt Gc: txt ABCD'FX m latt syr copt arm
Chr Thl Ruf Ambrst.
om Ist “ov B 67?
om 2nd rat B. at end DF
add kat at exkAnoia Tacat Tov xv (see ver 16).
of speech: so Plato, Rep. iii. 400 D, evAo-
yla upa x. evappootia x. evoxnuocivn kK.
evpvOula cineca a&xoAovet—or perhaps
‘eulogies’ (flatteries), as Pind. Nem. iv. 8,
ovde Cepudy tdwp tdcov| ye padrdaka
Tebxet | yuia, Téccov evAoyla pédp | meyye
ovydopos. 19.] See ch. i. 8. Their
obedience being matter of universal noto-
riety, is the ground of his confidence that
they will comply with his entreaty, ver.
Ge Some slight reproof is conveyed
in xalpw, 0€Aw 5 x.7.A. They were well
known for obedience, but had not been
perhaps cautious enough with regard to
these designing persons and their pretended
wisdom. See Matt. x. 16, of which words
of our Lord there seems to be here a re-
miniscence. 20.| emeidy) yap elie
Tovs Tas OixooTaclas Kk. Ta oKavdara
motouvtas, elmev eiphyns Oedv, tva Gap-
phowot mepl Tis TovTwy amadAayiis.
Chrys.: and so most Commentators. De
W. prefers taking 6 @.77js etp. moregenerally
as ‘the God of salvation ;’ and the usage
of the expression (see reff.) seems to favour
this. ouvtp. T. oat. is a similitude
from Gen. iii. 15. ovuvtpiwper, not as
Stuart, ‘ for optative,’ nor does it express
any wish, but a prophetic assurance and
encouragement in bearing up against all
adversaries, that it would not be long be-
fore the great Adversary himself would be
bruised under their feet. A xapts
k.T.A.| It appears as if the Epistle was
intended to conclude with this usual bene-
diction, but the Apostle found occasion to
add more. This he does also in other
Epistles : see 1 Cor. xvi. 23, 24; similarly
Phil. iv. 20, and vv. 21—23 after the dox-
seen iii. 16, 17, ;
16, 17 ff. :—2 Tim. iv. 18, 19 ff. 21—
24. | GREETINGS FROM VARIOUS PERSONS.
21.| Lucius must not be mistaken
for Lucas (= Lucanus),—but was proba-
bly Lucius of Cyrene, Acts xiii. 1, see note
there. Jason may be the same who is
mentioned Acts xvii. 5,7, as the host of
Paul and Silas at Thessalonica. A
‘Sopater (son) of Pyrrhus of Berea’
occurs Acts xx. 4, but it is hardly likely
that this Sosipater is the same person.
ot ovyyeveis, see above, ver. 7. These
persons may have been Jews; but we can-
not tell whether the expression may not be
used in a wider sense. 22.| There is
nothing strange (as Olsh. supposes) in this
salutation being inserted in the first person.
It would be natural enough that Tertius
the amanuensis, inserting domd(era: ou.
Tépt. 6 yp. 7. éw. év xup., should change
the form into the first person, and after-
wards proceed from the dictation of the
Apostle as before. Beza and Grot. sup-
pose him to have done this on transcribing
the Epistle. Thol. notices this irregularity
as a corroboration of the genuineness of
470
t Acts v. il.
xv. 22.
1 Cor. aoe ,
u=hereonly. p
(Luke a. we , niet
&e. 4 or. xXaprc
Esth. viii. % ¢° ~
Jos. Antt. Xi. ULwW Vv.
6: 12.
v1 Tim.i.17.
w ch. i. 1].
Loke xxii.
32 al. Ps.1. 12 (14).
died
=x ch. ii. 16.
23. rec Tr. exkAnotas bef oAns, with L rel Chr Thdrt: oda: at exxAnoia F: oAn 7
exkAnowa vulg(not am) copt(eccl. omnis) Sedul Pelag: txt ABCDN m am syrr.
[24. om ver ABC am(with fuld harl! &) copt eth-rom Ruf: ins DFL rel Chr
Thadrt Thl Ge Sedul Bede; and (but aft ver 27) 17. 80 Syr-mss syr eth-pl Ambrst.—
vuov L.—om ino. xp. F.]
25, 26, 27. These verses are variously placed: (I) in BCDX 16. 80. 137-76 latt
the chapter. On the supposed identity of
Tertius with Silas see note on Acts xv. 22.
23.| Gaius is mentioned 1 Cor. i.
14, as having been baptized by Paul. The
host of the whole church probably implies
that the assemblies of the church were held
in his house :—or perhaps, that his hospi-
tality to Christians was universal. — Eras-
tus, holding this office (oixovdues, the pub-
lic treasurer, 6 émi THs Snmocias Tpamé ns,
arcarius, Wetst., who quotes from inscrip-
tions, NelAw oikovduw *Aclas,—Secundus,
arkarius Reip. Armerinorum), can hardly
have been the same who was with the
Apostle in Ephesus, Acts xix. 22. It is
more probable that the Erastus of 2 Tim.
iv. 20 is identical with this than with that
other. 6 adeAgds, the brother,—the
generic singular; one among of adeAgol,
‘the brethren. The rest have been spe-
cified by their services or offices.
[24.] The benediction repeated ; see above
on ver. 20. The omission (see var. rea.)
has perhaps been by the caprice of the
copyists. ] 25—27.| CoNCLUDING
pDoxotocy. The genuineness of this dox-
ology, and its position in the Epistle have
been much questioned. The external evi-
dence will be found in the var. readings ;
—from which it is plain, that tts genuine-
ness as a part of the Epistle is placed
beyond all reasonable doubt. Nor does
the variety of position militate here, as in
some cases, against this conclusion. For
the transference of it to the end of ch. xiv.
may be explained, partly from the supposed
reference of ornptéa: to the question treated
in ch. xiv. (so Chrys., maAw yap éxelvwy
éxeTat Tov acbevGv, kK. Mpos avTovs ToETEL
Tov Adyov), partly from the supposed in-
appropriateness of it here after the bene-
diction of ver. 24, in consequence of which
that verse is omitted by MSS. which have
the doxology here,—partly from the un-
usual character of the position and diction
of the doxology itself.
IiPOX PQMAIOY®.
~ > , > , Cc. / c ’
‘oAne tne ‘exkAnoiac. aoraZerat vuac’ Epaorocg 0 “ otKo-
~ , A , € ? ,
mc moAewe, Kat Kovaprocg o adeAgoc.
- , ~ , ~ -~ . ¢
rou Kvolov nuwy Inoov ypistov ° peta TavTwy
25 Tw ‘ oe Ouvapen@ vnac “ otnoitar kata TO * evayyeAtov
2 Tim. ii. 8 only. see 2 Cor. iv. 3. 1 Thess. i. 5.
XN.
[26 ‘H
2 Thess. ii. 14.
This latter has been used as an internal
argument against the genuineness of the
portion. Paul never elsewhere ends with
such a doxology. His doxologies, when he
does use such, are simple, and perspicuous
in construction, whereas this is involved,
and rhetorical. This objection however is
completely answered by the supposition
(Fritz.) that the doxology was the effusion
of the fervent mind of the Apostle on
taking a general survey of the Epistle.
We find in its diction striking similarities
to that of the pastoral Epistles :—a phe-
nomenon occurring in several places where
Paul writes in a fervid and impassioned
manner,—also where he writes with his
own hand ;—the inferences from which I
have treated in the Prolegg. to those
Epistles (vol. iii. Prolegg. ch. vii. § i.
30—33). That the doxology is made up
of unusual expressions taken from Paul’s
other writings, that it is difficult and in-
volved, are facts, which if rightly argued
from, would substantiate, not its interpola-
tion, but its genuineness: seeing that an
interpolator would have taken care to con-
form it to the character of the Epistle in
which it stands, and to have left in it no
irregularity which would bring it into
question.
The construction is exceedingly difficult.
Viewed superficially, it presents only an-
other instance added to many in which the
Apostle begins a sentence with one con-
struction, proceeds onward through various
dependent clauses till he loses sight of the
original form, and ends with a construction
presupposing another kind of beginning.
And such no doubt itis: but it is not easy
to say what he had in his mind when com-
mencing thesentence. Certainly, é 4 dda
eis T. ai@vas forbids us from supposing
that Sofa was intended to follow the da-
tives, —for thus this latter clause would be
merely a repetition. We might imagine
that he had ended the sentence as if it had
24—27.
IPOS PQMAIOY®S.
471
L. 1 Cor.
Ld SK "Incov i ward * God ¥(~) uate
Cz q - =) i ~ xi.
pov Kat TO Ky OUYyHa vee XeloTtou Kata aTvToKka vent ii
» b ! e , c ! d , 26 e
vbw MvaTNpPLOV XEOVOLE aLwVLOIG © GEoLyNMeEVOU pa-
AZ oe ~ 8 v. f ~ g ~ ae) ed
VvEOW €VTOC CE VUVY Ola TE yeoagbwry TOOPHTIKWY KaT ent
‘ ~ ; , , i ~
Tayyv tov ‘atwviov 'Oeov * ac
, Se al, 1 t 9 , =
TavrTra Ta eOun yrwo.sfivroc, 7 nove " copy
a ch. viii. 19 refi. bch. xi. 25.
Luke viii. 29. ch. viii. 11.
12) ii. 4.
xv. 14. 2Tim.
Coy Fics bt
mx. oh
¢ x k , ’
UTAKONVY WIGTEWE ELC Prov. ix.3)
m ~ zGal. ii. 2.
bcw, Eph. iii. 3
t only.
¢2Tim.i.9. Tit.i.2 only. see Gen. ix. 12. dat. of duration,
d=hereonly, Ps, xxxi. 3 (Acts xii. 17 reff.) L.P. i
ech. i. 19 reff.
f Acts xvii. 2. ch. i. 2 reff. g 2 Pet. i. 19 onlyt. h 1 Cor. vii. 6, 24. 2 Cor. viii. 8. 1 Tim. i.
1. Tit. i. 3. ii. 15 onlyt. P. Wisd. xiv. 16. i hereonly. Gen. xxi. 33. k ch. i. 5 (reff.).
11 Cor. xii. 3 reff. mhereoaly. (1 Tim.i. 17. Jude 25.)
Syr copt «th Ruf Ambrst Pelag Bede they stand here and here only :
(II) they stand
aft ch wiv 23 in L rel and about 192 others syr goth(appy) arm-zoh Chr Thdrt Damasc
Th! Ge Theodul (Tert ?): (IIL) they are omd altogether in (D3 ?) F(a space is left aft
xvi. 24) G(a space is left aft xiv. 23) Marcion (penitus abstulit aceg to Ruf [and Orig ?
see Orig in Rom. lib. x. 43, vol. iv. p. 687] as also chaps xv. xvi.) some mss in Jer(appy)
Tert-mss?: (IV) they occur in both places in A 5. 17. 109-lat.
(Sz reckons 246 mss
of St. Paul. Here 16 are defective [see Sz, addg 126], 21 are unexamined [see Sz,
addg 216. 239 to 246], 7 are not distinct mss [viz. 8. 10. 56. 60-1-6. 117], and 5 are
included under “ rel.’’)
25. for to knpvypua, kuptov N!: txt N-corr!.
aft mpopyr. add kat THs emipareras (adventum) Tov kvpiov
26. om te D Chr.
Huw ino. xpioTov Orig, mss in Jer.
begun 6 5€ Suvduevos, x.7.A. and expressed
a wish that He who was able to confirm
them, might confirm them: but this is
prevented by its being evident, from the
udvey cog¢e@ beg, that the datives are still
in his mind. This latter fact will guide us
to the solution. The dative form is still in
his mind, but not the reference in which
he had used it. Hence, when the sentence
would naturally have concluded (as it ac-
tually does in B: see digest) udve copa
Geo, Sia “Inood xpictod, Sdta eis 7.
ai@vas,—a break is-made, as if the sense
were complete at xpirrov, and the relative
@ refers back to the subject of the sen-
tence preceding, thus imagined complete,—
viz. to 6 Suvduevos—pdvos copds eds.
The analogy of the similar passage Acts
xx. 32 would tempt us to supply with the
datives mapariOcua: suas, or the like, as
suggested by Olsh.;—but as De W. re-
marks, the form of a doxology is too evi-
dent to allow of this. After all, perhaps,
the datives may be understood as convey-
ing a general ascription of praise for the
mercies of Redemption detailed in the
Epistle, and then @ 7 5. as superadded,
q- d., To Him who is able &. .... be all
the praise: to whom be glory for ever.
25.| «ard, in reference to, i. e. ‘ in
subordination to,’ and according to the
requirements of. Kipvypa "Inood xp.
can hardly mean, as De W. and Meyer,
‘the preaching which Jesus Christ hath
accomplished by me’ (ch. xv. 18),—nor
again as Chrys., 6 a’tds exhputey,—but
the preaching of Christ, i.e. making
known of Christ, as the verb is used 1 Cor.
xpirrov bef incov B.
i. 23; xv. 12 al. fr. So Calv., and most
Commentators. kata amok.| This
second rkard is best taken, not as co-
ordinate to the former one, and following
oTnpitat, nor as belonging to duvapyerve,
which would be an unusual limitation of the
divine Power,—but as subordinate to xy-
puyua,—the preaching of Jesus Christ ac-
cording to, &e. The omission of 76 before
kata amor. is no objection to this.
puot.| The mystery (see ch. xi. 25, note)
of the gospel is often said to have been thus
hidden from eternity in the counsels of
God—see Eph. iii. 9; Col. i. 26; 2 Tim.
i.9; Tit. i. 2; 1 Pet.i. 20; Rev. xiii. 8.
26.] See ch. i. 2. The prophetic
writings were the storehouse out of which
the preachers of the gospel took their
demonstrations that Jesus was the Christ :
see Acts xviii. 28 ;—more especially, it is
true, to the Jews, who however are here
included among mdavra 7a %Ovn.
kat’ émitay.| may refer either to the pro-
phetic writings being drawn up by the
command of God,—or to the manifestation
of the mystery by the preachers of the
gospel thus taking place. The latter seems
best to suit the sense. atwvtov refers back
to xp. aiwviors. The first es indicates
the aim—in order to their becoming obe-
dient to the faith :—the second, the local
extent of the manifestation. 27.) Sa
"Ino. xp. must by the requirements of the
construction be applied to udvm cop. 6%,
and not (as Aug.) to déta, from which it is
separated by the relative é. The quantity
of intervening matter, especially the datives
udvm cop. Oe@, prevent it from being re-
472 IIPOS POMAIOY2. XV ies
mm S38 - - Ky € (0) , 2 ‘ jn
n see ch. ii. 16. ° dua Inoov youtov, w 1) dofa Pee Tove atwvac.
pcoh.i. 2oreff. 2. 7
apny.
TIPO POMAIOY2.
27. Oew bef codw D. xptor. bef inc. B. om @ B. aft a:wvas add
Trav awvev A (here, but not xiv. 23) DX vulg Syr copt «th Damase Ruf. om auny
49. 63 am.
SUBSCRIPTION: rec mp. p. eypapn amo KopivOov dia poiBys THs SiaKkovov THS EV
Keyxpeas exxAnotas, with rel copt (c(but a k pref 7; a bdefkmn om cys ev
KeyXp EKKA.; MOM TP. pw.): TOV ay. K. Tavevpnuov am. T., ETLT. TP. p. Eypapn amo
Kopwov dia porBns THs diakovov L: om Feg] 17: eypapn amo KopwOov 0: eyp. dia
goiBns ato kop. hh: txt AB!'CDGX (B? D-corr syrr copt goth add eypapy amo ropiyOov :
G adds ereAeo On).
ferred (as (c., Theophyl.) to ornpita. It cannot without great harshness be re-
It must then be rendered to the only ferred to Christ, seeing that the words
wise God through Jesus Christ, i.e. Him dvw oop. OeG resume the chief subject
who is revealed to us by Christ as such. of the sentence, and to them the relative
On the construction of @ see above. must apply.
ABCD
FLN ab
cdefg
hkim
nol7
ABCD
FLNab
edefg
hkim
no 17
HPOS KOPINOIOYS A.
~ > - ~
: 1 TlavAoe Is KAnroc | amootoAoe YX ptorov "Incov ° dia?
=i c , 9 erat)
OeArmatoc Geov, Kat Swabévne o adeAgoc, ~ Ty ° exkXnota , bi
tov ° Beou, 4 nytaopévore dey YotoTw "Inoou, TH ovcy EVic Antena
16, 22. xv. 9.
d Rom. xv. 16 re‘f,
2 Cor.i.1. Gal. i. 18.
1 Thess. ii. 14.
\ a Rom. i. 1, 6,
Jude | al.
2 Kings xy.
i
Rom. xy. 52
ch. x. 32. xi.
2Thess.i.4. 1 Tim. iii. 5, 15. Neh. xiii. 1.
TITLE. Steph 7 mpos Tovs KopwwO.ovs emiaoToAN TpwTn: elZ mavAov Tov amoaToAoU 7
™pos KopivO.ous ew. mp., with rel: mp. kop. apxera: @ F but G om a@: tov ayov Kat
TAaVEVUPHMLOV ATOTTOAOV TAVAOU ETLOTOAT TP. KOP. TPWTH L: T™pos Ko. a er. hn: Tp. KO.
ex. tp. k: mp. kop.m: om D: txt A(appy: the title is nearly gone) BCX 1 0 17.
Cuap. I. 1. om xAntos AD Cyr, (perhaps because it does not occur elsw in the open-
ings of epp exc Romi. 1: but it may have been insd from there, so I have left it
doubtful) : ins BCFL® rel vulg Syr Chr Cyr! Thdrt, expr Thlexpr Ecexpr Aug Ambrst
Bede.
rec ino. bef xp., with ALN rel vss Thdrt Thl Ge Aug: txt BDF am(with
demid fuld tol) Chr Hil.—av corrd to ww X}.
[C is defective in this and follg ver. |
2. rec Tn ovon ev Kop. bef nyiacu. ev x. t.. With AD?LN rel vss: txt BD!:3F,
Cuap. I. 1—3.] ADDRESS AND GREET-
ING. 1.] It is doubtful whether
kAnT4¢ is not spurious : see var. readd.
The words 81a ed. Geod point probably to
the depreciation of Paul’s apostolic au-
thority at Corinth. In Gal. i. 1 we have
this much more strongly asserted. But
they have a reference to Paul himself also:
“yatio auctoritatis ad ecclesias: humilis
et prompti animi, penes ipsum Paulum.”
Bengel. Chrysostom, referring it to KA7-
TOs, SAYS, emeld) avT@ Ookev, eKAHOnuev,
ovK ered) ior oper. Loabévys
can hardly be assumed to be identical with
the ruler of the synagogue in Acts xviii.
17: see note there. He must have been
some Christian well known to the church
at Corinth. Thus Paul associates with
himself Silvanus and Timotheus in the
Hpistles to the Thessalonians ; and Timo-
theus in 2 Cor. Chrysostom attributes it
to modesty: perpid(er, cuvtatTwy éavT@
Tov éAdtTova moAAG. Some have sup-
posed Sosthenes to be the writer of the
Tipistle, see Rom. xvi. 22. Possibly he
may have been one tav XAdéns (ver. 11)
by whom the intelligence had been re-
ceived, and the Apostle may have associated
him with himself as approving the appeal
to apostolic authority. Perhaps some slight
may have been put upon him by the par-
ties at Corinth, and for that reason Paul
puts him forward. 6 &deAdds, as 2 Cor.
i. 1, of Timothy, the brother,—one of oi
adeApol. 2.) The remarks of Calvin
on Ty éxkX. T. Geod, x.7-A. are admirable :
« Mirum forsan videri queat, cur eam ho-
minum multitudinem vocet Ecclesiam Dei,
in qua tot morbi invaluerant, ut Satan illic
potius regnum occuparet quam Deus. Cer-
tum est autem, eum noluisse blandiri Co-
rinthiis: loquitur enim ex Dei Spiritu, qui
adulari non solet. Atqui inter tot inquina-
menta qualis amplius eminet Keclesiz fa-
cies? Respondeo, ...utcunque multa vitia
obrepsissent, et variee corruptele tam doc-
trinze quam morum, extitisse tamen adhue
queedam vere Keclesiz signa. Locus dili-
genter observandus, ne requiramus in hoe
mundo Ecclesiam omni ruga et macula ca-
474
: ' a SSeS SEL [Miso ted epee t
e Acts ix. 18 , =
air » Kopiv0y, KAnrotc aylotc, OUV TaAOlY TOLC emicaAoupe- FE
IIPOS KOPINOIOY®S A.
i.
f Acts xxiii. 15. egied = ' Cir | = ee,
2 Cor. i. 1. voi¢ TO OVOLaA TOU Kuplou YUOvV 700U Ketgrou €yv WTavTt
Phil. i. J. , He pole A hoe = aii , Com he oe
= Acts ii. 2] 7 [ ] 3
F rel ee SN S — nee mre fers vuLY zak eLonvn
n sce Rom: 2¥i: aaa. Geov TaTOOg NuwY Kal KVOLOU Inoov Xolorou,
Xvi. 18. 4k > = ma ie aii , AD cen ice: }PoTay ~
i Kom.i.7. € y
phon ae Evyaguorw TW 0 @ ~ “OU TAVTOTE TEOL UMWY ETL TY
(reff.). 1 = Phil. i. 3 al.
om Ist nuwy A'77. 109 fuld Orig Tert Ambrst Pelag. om xpiorou A. om
ve (A!?)BD! FX! 17: ins CD?LN? rel.
rentem : aut protinus abdicemus hoc titulo
quemvis coetum in quo non omnia votis
nostris respondeant. Est enim hee peri-
culosa tentatio, nullam Ecclesiam putare
ubi non appareat perfecta puritas. Nam
quicunque hae occupatus fuerit, necesse
tandem erit, ut discessione ab omnibus aliis
facta, solus sibi sanctus videatur in mundo,
aut peculiarem sectam cum paucis hypo-
critis instituat. Quid ergo cause habuit
Paulus, cur Ecclesiam Corinthi agnosceret ?
nempe quia Evangelii doctrinam, Baptis-
mum, Coenam Domini, quibus symbolis
censeri debet Ecclesia, apud eos cernebat.”
On tov cot, Chrys. remarks, od todde rat
Tovde, AAAG TOU Ocov,—and similarly Theo-
phyl., taking the expression as addressed
to the Corinthians to remind them of their
position as a congregation belonging to
Gop, and not to any head of a party.
Perhaps this is too refined, the words 7
€xkA. T. Ocod being so usual with St.
Paul,—see reff. The harshness of the
position of jyiacpuéevos ev xp. “Inc. is in
favour of its being the original one :—
hallowed (i. e. dedicated) to God in (in
union with and by means of) Jesus Christ.
TH ovoy -—‘ which exists,’ ‘is found,
at Corinth’ So év ’Avtiuyx. Kata Ti
otoay éxxAnolay, Acts xiii. 1. kAy-
Tois aylots | See Rom. i. 7, note.
ovv mwacw x.7.A.] These words do not
belong to the designations just preceding,
= ‘as are all,’ &c., but form part of the
address of the Epistle, so that these mavres
oi emxad. are partakers with the Corin-
thians in it. They form a weighty and
precious addition,—made here doubtless to
shew the Corinthians, that membership of
God’s Holy Catholic Church consisted not
in being planted, or presided over by Paul,
Apollos, or Cephas (or their successors),
but in calling on the name of our Lord
Jesus Christ. The Church of England has
adopted from this verse her solemn ex-
planation of the term, in the ‘ prayer for
all sorts and conditions of men:’ “ More
especially, we pray for the good estate of
the Catholic Church: that it may be so
guided and governed by thy good Spirit,
that all who profess and call themselves
Christians may be led into the way of
truth, and hold the faith in unity of spirit,
in the bond of peace, and in righteousness
of life.” emuKad. | not ‘calling them-
selves by’ (though in sense equivalent to
this, for they who call upon Christ, call
themselves by His Name): the phrase
emikaretobat Td ovoua Tov Kuplov was
one adopted from the LXX, as in reff. ;
the adjunct judy “Incod xp. defines that
Lord (Jehovah) on whom the Christians
called, to be Jesus Christ,—and is a direct
testimony to the divine worship of Jesus
Christ, as universal in the church. The
bvoua émikAnbev ep’ duas (James ii. 7) is
not to the point, the construction being
different. ev Twavtl Té1. aur. [TE] K.
mp. | In every place, whether theirs (in
their country, wherever that may be) or
ours. This connexion is far better than
to join abt. [Te] «. nu. with cvpi@, thereby
making the first juay superfluous.
avtav refers to the mdvtes of émikan.,
npeov to Paul, and Sosthenes, and those
whom he is addressing. Eichhorn fancied
téros to mean ‘a place of assembly ?
Hug, ‘a party’ or ‘division:’ Beza, al.,
would limit the persons spoken of to
Achaia: others, to Corinth and Ephesus :—
but the simple meaning and universal re-
Jerence are far more agreeable to the spirit
of the passage. I may as well once for
all premise, that many of the German
expositors have been constantly misled in
their interpretations by what I believe to
be a mistaken view of ver. 12, and the sup-
posed Corinthian parties. See note there.
8.] See introductory note to the
Epistle to the Romans. Olsh. remarks, that
eipnvn has peculiar weight here on account
of the dissensions in the Corinthian Church.
4—9.] 'THANKSGIVING, AND EXPRES-
SION OF HOPE, ON ACCOUNT OF THE
SPIRITUAL STATE OF THE CORINTHIAN
cuurcH. There was much in the Co-
rinthian believers for which to be thank-
ful, and on account of which to hope.
These things he puts in the foreground,
not only to encourage them, but (as
Olsh.) to appeal to their better selves,
and to bring out the following contrast
ABCD
edefg
hklm
nol7
o—9,
IIPOX KOPINOIOY®S A.
475
mn , ~ 0 - ae Tr f) , ¢ - > ~ 29 ~
KXaeTe TOU €OU TM do £lo”) ULV EV KPLoTw Incov m= Acts
5a 2 \
OTL EV TAaVTL
p
5. Wah ’
BnoEve KaAOlomaTt,
xi. 23 reff.
0? , ’ ? ~ ’ \ , \ Rom. xii. 3.
érAouricOnre ev autw, ev ® wayti Aoyw Kat 6 sv. 15.
- - ‘ . ofr , = ~ ch. iil. 10.
TAGH 4 yvwot, : KkaQwe to fapTuploy TOV YXPloTOU ZC. vil 1.
ral, =
s? ? ? ic aes er Ge ‘ €. 1c td ? iii. ¢
EBeBawOn ev vmiv, Twcte vuac pH ‘vorepetcOar ev RPE S ay
* amexdey omevo ny “ avoxaduy ee eee
YU a % lv. 6.
: xX f ee hl Oe Cae, o 2 Cor. vi. 10.
ix. 11 only.
~ , ~ > ~ ~
Tou Kuptov nuwy Incoov ypiorov
a \ 1
SOc Kat * BePatwoe
Gen. xiv. 23
e ~ xv x aN y > pe > BAC 7] - , al.
unac EWC TEAOUC aveyké yTOUC EV 7) ynusoa TOU KUOLOU p = Acts xx.
ae ? ~ ~ :
M&W Incow KX OlLOTOU. 9
r=ch.ii.}. 2 Thess. i. 16.
iii. 23. Phil. iv. 12. Heb. xi. 37 al.
1Tim ii.6. 2Tim.i. 8.
Ps. xxii. 1.
19 reff.
S: bt ‘ b ’ ae , =
“mitoc o OMsoc 7 Ot ov ExkAn- 15 Roms"
14 al. fr.
s Rom. xv. 8 reff. t Luke xv. 14. Rom.
nu = Rom. xi. 29. xii. 6 (ch. sii. 4) al.
v Rom. viii. 19, 23, 25. Gal.v.5. Phil. ni. 2U. Heb. ix. 28. 1 Pet. iii. 20 onlyt. w = Kom.
viii. 19 reff. x 2Cor.i. 13 only. wéxpe T., Heb. iii. 14. axp: T, Rev. ii. 26. y Col.
1.22. 1Tim.iii.10. Tit. i. 6,7 onlyt. 3 Macc. v.31. ellips., Matt. xii. 13. z = Acts ii. 2U
(from Joel ii. 31). ch. ii. 13. iv. 3. v. 5. 2Cor.i. 14. Eph. iv. 30. Phil. i. 6, 10. ii. 16. a=ch.
x.13. 2Cor.i.18. 1 Thess. v.24. 2 Thess. iii.3. 2 Tim. ii. 13 al. b= Rom.i.5. 2 Cor.i. 11.
CO o> Cr
. om pwov BR!: ins ACDFLN-corr! rel.
ev (1st) is written twice but corrd by N'.
. for xpiorov, deov F n 46-7. 72. 109-20 lectt 8. 12 arm.
. the ver is written twice by X!: corrd by &-corr’.
om Tov Geov A! 39. 87 Cyr.
for ews, axpt DF.
for nuepa (in diem fri), mapovo1a DF Ambrst Cassiod ; die adventus vulg Pelag Bede.
om xpiotou B,
more plainly. 4, 7. 0eG pov] so in
reff. Rom. Phil. amévtote | expanded
in Phil. i. 4 into mdvrore év mdon dehoe
Mov. The 7 xdpis 7 So0cioa = Ta xa-
plopata Ta So0evra (see below on ver. 7)
—a metonymy which has passed so com-
pletely into our common parlance, as to be
almost lost sight ofas such. ‘ Grace’ is pro-
perly iz God: the gifts of grace in us, given
by that grace. év | not, as Chrys., Theo-
phlyl., Gcum., for dé, but as usually in
this connexion, in Christ,—i. e. to you as
members of Christ. So also below. 5.
év wavti| general: particularized by ev
mavtl Ady kK. Taon yoo, in all doc-
trine and all knowledge. Adyos (obj.),
the truth preached; yva@o.s (subj.), the
truth apprehended. They were rich in the
preaching of the word, had among them
able preachers, and rich in the apprehen-
sion of the word, were themselves intelli-
gent hearers. See 2 Cor. viii. 7, where to
these are added miotis, crovdn, and Gyan.
6. Td papt. T. xptatov] the wit-
ness concerning Christ delivered by me.
«aQds, as indeed, ‘siquidem.’
éBeB., was confirmed,—took deep
root, among you; i.e. ‘as was to have been
expected, from the impression made among
you by my preaching of Christ.’ This con-
firmation was internal, by faith and perma-
nence in the truth, not external, by miracles.
7.] So that ye are behind (others)
in no gift of grace ;—not, lack no gift of
grace, which would be genitive. ydptopa
here has its widest sense, of that which is
the effect of xapis,—not meaning ‘spiritual
gifts’ in the narrower sense, asin ch. xii. 4.
This is plain from the whole strain of the
passage, which dwells not on outward gifts,
but on the inward graces of the Christian
life. amexdex.| which is the greatest
proof of maturity and richness of the spi-
ritual life; implying the coexistence and
co-operation of faith, whereby they be-
lieved the promise of Christ, — hope,
whereby they looked on to its fulfilment,
—and love, whereby that anticipation was
lit up with earnest desire ;—compare 7a-
gw Tots HYaTHKOaLW Thy emipdyetay avTOU,
2 Tim. iv. 8. aaekd. K.T.A. is taken by
Chrys..—who understands xapicuata of
miraculous powers,—as implying that be-
sides them they needed patience to wait
till the coming of Christ ; and by Calv.,—
“ideo addit expectantes revelationem, quo
significat, non talem se affluentiam illis
affingere in qua nihil desideretur; sed
tantum que sufficiet usquedum ad_perfec-
tionem perventum fuerit.” But I much
prefer taking dmexdexouévouvs as parallel
with and giving the result of uy bor. «.7.A.
8. 6s] viz. Oeds, ver. 4, not "Inoovs
xpiotdés, in which case we should have ev
Th nuepz avtod. The kai besides shews
this. €ws TéA. dveyn.] i.e. els 7d
civat buas dveyk.;—SO GmekatecTaly
byins, Matt. xii. 18. To the end, see
reff.—i. e. to the acuyréAcia T. ai@vos,—
not merely ‘ to the end of your lives.’
9.] See ref. 1 Thess. ; also Phil. i.6. The
kolv. Tov vi. avt., as Meyer well remarks,
is the déta ray Téxvwy Tov Ocov, Rom. vill.
21: for they will be cuyKAnpovdpuot Tod
XpisTod, and cuvdotacbevres with Him,—
see Rom. viii. 17, 23; 2 Thess. ii. 14. The
476
’
e 2 Cor. vi. 14 g
reff ‘: Onre étc
] D. Xiie ' ed
oi“! Kolo NuwY.
ta)
reff.
couiate. *) Matt.
xiv. 36
ch. xvi. 12,
15, 16.
2 Cor. viii. 6.
TXT AU ae
IPOS KOPINOIOY®S A.
Pde [apaxcade 6 vmac, aded pot,
TOU Kupiov mov ‘Tioov rgeet
I,
, ~ c >] - > ~ ~ ~
© Kowwviay TOV ULOU QAUTOU Incov Xxelotou TOU
ALS Aya Ma tea
la TOV OvouaToc
ee ‘ ’ ‘ ,
iva ie aunt Aeynre
Col. iv. 8 al. TE Ka n ev v ) BG oc a Py Ws
f Acts iv. 30 TavTEC nu a x! a he nT 0: * Karns
era Tigmevon Ev TW aurw iyot Kat ev TH aury you.
AS ix 105
x. 19. ch. xi. mean
18. xii. 26
(Mark ii. 21 |)
only t. (uy,
Isa. ii. 21.)
h = Luke vi.
40). 2Cor.
xiii. 11. Gal. vi.1. Heb. xiii. 21.
Luke xxiv. 45, Rev. xiii. 18. xvii. 9.
exc, Rev. xvii. 13, 17 bis. 2 Macc. xiv. 20.
1l. 2Pet.i.14only. Exod. vi.3.
vi. 4. Tit. iii. 9. -«des, here only.
XXViii. 11. xl. 5,9 only.
ix.2. Rom. xiv. 8. ch. iii. 23 al.
9. om 6 C’. vp ov D'F
10. ino.
11. for pov, wor B'(RI Vere) :
mention of xowwvia may perhaps have been
intended to PEREane the way, as was before
done in ver. 2, for the reproof which is
coming. Chrys. remarks respecting vv.
1—9, od 8¢ oxdrer as adTtod’s TE dvd-
Matt Gel TOD XpLaTOU mposnAoi. Kal avOpa-
mou pev ovdevds, ovTEe amooTdAov OTE B1-
darKdAov, cuvex@s SE aTOV TOU moBoupevov
peuynrat, Kabdmep amd mens TIVOS TOUS
kapnBapodyras ameveykety mapackevd cay.
ovdamov yap ev Etépa emiaTOAT oTw TuY-
EX@s Keita Td bvoma TOU xpioTOU" EvTavOa
mevTor ev OAlyols sTixo1s TOAAdKLS, Kal 51d
TovTov axeddy To may bhalyer mpoolmuor.
Hom. ii. p. 10.
10—IV. 21.] REPROOF OF THE PARTY-
DIVISIONS AMONG THEM: BY OCCASION
OF WHICH, THE APOSTLE EXPLAINS AND
DEFENDS HIS OWN METHOD OF PREACH-
ING ONLY CHRIST TO THEM. ., 10. |
dé introduces the contrast to the thankful
assurance just expressed. S.a 7. ov.,
as 0d TOY oikTipya@y Tod Oeod, Rom. xii. 1:
“‘as the bond of union, and as the most
holy name by which they could be adjured.”
Stanley. iva (reff.) not only introduces
the result of the fulfilment of the exhorta-
tion, but includes its import. TO avTd
Aeynte— contrast to Adve: ya mev .. . eyw
be... Cy be... . eye Se of ver. 12,—but
further implying the having the same sen-
timents on the subjects which divided them:
see Phil. ii. 2 Are Sé| 5€ here im-
plies but rather, as in Thue. ii. 98, ameyly-
VETO LEV AVTG OVSEY TOU OTpaTOd, ... Tpos-
eylyvero 5é. Hartung, Partikellehre, i.
171, gives many other examples. KaTap-
vim is the exact word for the healing or
repairing of the breaches made by the
oxlouata,—perfectly united. So Herod.
vy. 28, 7 MiAnros....ém dvo0 yeveds av-
XAcdne, ore
sing.,
©
1) snAGOn yae prot TEol UULOY, Bae gal Mov, UTO m
a ~ ? 9
” EPLOEC ey Up ELOLV. 12
7 ef c ~ , Ld ‘\ ,
OTL EKAOTOC VUWwY NEEL Eyw peev ELM
1 Pet. v.10. Ezraiv. 13,
k = ch. vii. 25, 40,
e=ch.x.29. Gal. iii. 17. see ch. vii. 29. xv. 50.
° Néyw SE ToOUTO,
’
® TlavAov, eyo be
i= Rom. i. 28.
Eph. iv. 17. P. onty, exe.
2 Cor. viii. 10.
P. or of P. (Acts xx. 3) only,
Lech. iii. 13. Col. i. 8. Heb. ix. 8. xii. 27. 1 Pet. i.
m see Rom. xvi. 10, 11. n plur., 2 Cor, xii. 20. 1 Tim,
Rom. i. 29. xiii. 13. ch. iii. 3. Gal. v. 20. Phil. i. 15 onlyt. Sir.
P gen., Acts
xp. bef rov kup. nu. DE.— xp. bef ma. D.—om tov F(not G).
om C!(appy) D-lat Ambrst.
Spay voohraca es To, Madore oTace, EXPE
od muy Tidpior kari pticay. vot
(reff.), disposition,—yvéun (do.), opinion.
11.] We cannot fill up T@v XAdqns,
not knowing whether they were sons, or
servants, or other members of her family.
Nor can we say whether Chloe was (Theo-
phyl., al.) an inhabitant of Corinth, or
some Christian woman (Estius) known to
the Corinthians e/sewhere, or (Michaelis,
Meyer) an Ephesian, having friends who
had been in Corinth. .12.] A€yw Se
routTo 8ti,—not, ‘I say this because, -—
but (see reff.) I mean this, that....
éxaor. ty. Aéy.| The meaning is
clear, but the form of expression not strictly
accurate, the €xaoros being a different per-
son in each case. Accurately expressed it
would run thus, 671 mavres towovTd Te
A€vyere, eye etm T., eyd "AmodA., eym Kno.,
éyo xpiotov,—or as De W., 671 maytes X.,
6 pev, eyed ei . . 6 54, ey K.T.A.—
Respecting the matter of fact to which the
verse alludes, I have given references in the
Prolegg. § ii. 10, to the principal theories of
the German critics, and will only here re-
state the conclusions which I have there
(ib. parr. 5—9) endeavoured to substan-
tiate: (1) that these designations are not
used as pointing to actual parties formed
and subsisting among them, but (2) as
representing the SPIRIT WITH WHICH
THEY CONTENDED against one another,
being the sayings of ¢ndividuals, and not of
parties (Exactos tuay A€yer): q. d. ‘You
are all in the habit of alleging against one
another, some your special attachment to
Paul, some to Apollos, some to Cephas,
others to no mere human teacher, but barely
to Christ, to the exclusion of us his Apostles.’
(3) That these sayings, while they are not to
ABCD
FLN ab
edefg
hkim
nol7
10—18.
‘Aroddr@, ¢ eyo dé Knpa, eyw oe Xptorou.
O xptoroc; pn LavAoc eatavpw0n vip vuwy, ) * ele
13. for vrep, wept BD!:
be made the basis of any hypothesis respect -
ing definite parties at Corinth, do neverthe-
less hint at matters of fact, and are not
merely ‘exempli gratia :’ and (4) that this
view of the verse, which was taken by
Chrys., Theodoret, Theophylact, Calv., is
borne out, and indeed necessitated, by ch.
iv. 6 (see there). éyo ... lavAov |
This profession, of being guided especially
by the words and acts of Paul, would pro-
bably belong to those who were the first
fruits of, or directly converted under, his
ministry. Such persons would contend for
his apostolic authority, and maintain doc-
trinally his teaching, so far being right ;
but, as usual with partisans, would magnify
into importance practices and sayings of
his which were in themselves indifferent,
and forget that theirs was a service of per-
fect freedom under one Master, even Christ.
With these he does not deal doctrinally in
the Epistle, as there was no need for it:
but involves them in the same censure as
the rest, and shews them in ch. ii., iii., iv.
that he had no such purpose of gaining per-
sonal honour among them, but only of build-
ing them up in Christ. éy® “ATOANS |
Apollos (Acts xviii. 24 ff.) had come to
Corinth after the departure of Paul, and
being eloquent, might attract some, to
whom the bodily presence of Paul seemed
weak and his speech contemptible. It
would certainly appear that some occasion
had been taken by this difference, to set
too high a value on external and rhetorical
form of putting forth the gospel of Christ.
This the Apostle seems to be blaming (in
part) in the conclusion of this, and the next
ey And from ch. xvi. 12, it would
seem likely that Apollos himself had been
aware of the abuse of his manner of teach-
ing which had taken place, and was un-
willing, by repeating his visit just then, to
sanction or increase it. éyo Kya. |
All we can say in possible explanation of
this, is, that as Peter was the Apostle of the
circumcision,—as we know from Gal. ii
11 ff. that his course of action on one occa-
sion was reprehended by Paul, and as that
course of action no doubt had influence and
found followers, it is very conceivable that
some of those who in Corinth lightly es-
teemed Paul, might take advantage of this
honoured name, and cite against the Chris-
tian liberty taught by their own spiritual
founder, the stricter practice of Peter. If
IIPOX KOPINOIOYS= A.
477
134 Z att, xii
q = Matt. xii.
as i, 25, 26 |].
\ (ch. vii. 34.
TO Rom. xii 3
reft.) 3Kings
Xvi. 21, r = Acts viii. 16 reff.
txt ACD°F LN rel.
so, these persons would be mainly found
among the Jewish converts or Judaizers ;
and the matters treated in ch. vii.—xi. 1,
may have been subjects of doubt mainly
with these persons. éy® S€ xpioTod |
A rendering has been proposed (Hstius, al.)
which need only be mentioned to be re-
jected: viz. that Paul having mentioned
the three parties, then breaks off, and adds,
of his own, eye 8€ (MatdAos), xpiorov
(ciur). Beza represents this as Chrysos-
tom’s view, but it is not: ov TovTO évera-
ret, OTL TY xXpioTdy adTots éemephutCor,
GAN Ort wh wavTes wdvoy. omar OE adTody
Kal otkobev adtd mposteBerkevar BovAdmevoy
Bapttepovy 7d &ykAnma morjom, Kal Seika
otTw kal Toy xpioToy eis wepos S0bEvTa Ev,
ef Kal ph) oUTws emolovy ToUTO exEivoL:—
meaning by ofkufev, not, as his own senti-
ment, but of his own invention, to shew
them the inconsistency of their conduct.
The words seem to apply to those who
make a merit of not being attached to any
human teacher,—who therefore slighted
the apostleship of Paul. To them fr equent
allusion seems to be made in this and in
the second Epistle, and more especially in
2Cor.x.7—11. Fora more detailed dis-
cussion of the whole subject, see Prolege
as above, and Dr. Davidson’s Introd. to
the N. T. ii. 222 ff. 13.] Some
(Lachmann has so printed it) take mepe-
plotat 6 xp. as an assertion, —* Christ has
been divided (by you),—or, as Chrys.
mentions, dieveluato mpbs avOpémous kK.
euepioato Thy éxxAnolay. But it is far
better to take it, as commonly, interroga-
tively: Is Christ (the Person of Christ,
as the centre and bond of Christian unity
—not, the gospel of Christ (Grot., al.),—
nor the Church of Christ (Estius, Olsh.) :
nor the power of Christ (Theodoret), i. e.
his right over all) divided (not in the
primary sense [Meyer, ed. 1], against
Himself, as Mark iii. 24, 25, where we
have 颒 éauthv, but ‘into various parts,’
one under one leader, another under an-
other,— which in fact would amount, after
all, to a division against himself)? The
question applies to all addressed, not to
the ey xpicrod only, as Meyer, ed. 1.
In that case peuépiotat 6 xp. would mean
‘Has Christ become the property of one
part only ?’ as indeed Dr. Burton renders
it. Meyer urges against the interroga-
tive rendering, that “the questions begin
478
s ver. 4.
~ >
ovoeva voy ‘Barrica, €L Hn Ketorov Kal Tier
N
t ch. iv.
2 Cor. xiii. 1s
1 Thess. iv. 1.
u = Acts xix.
reff,
veonstr., Acts TIVa aXdAov ‘Parrioa.
eel Ca ia
Ww abso m.
xv. QU reff Bantizew, an a
14. om tw Oew BN! 672.
ovona TlavXou * eBarrioOnre ;
5 WTIGa be Kal TOV Zrepava olKov"
17
IIPOS KOPINGIOY® A. f:
’
148 evXaptore TW “Baw ¢ ort
pn TLC ely) ore "etc TO euov ovopa ' BarrioAyte. 16 £fa-
Sd
* Nourov ouK cioa " él
ov yap ’ amwéoteivrev GE XOlsToc
" svayyeArtCeobat’ ov« év codia oyou,
vy ( ub
add pov A d g 17 vulg-sixt(with demid fuld harl?) Syr
syr-w-ob copt arm Thdrt, Orig-int Pelag Sedul Bede.
ampioKov XN}.
15. rec (for a eBantica, with C3DFL rel fri Syr goth Thdrt Tert: txt
ABC! am 17 vulg syr-marg coptt arm Chr Damase Ambr-mss Pelag Primas Bede.
16. for Ist Aa BeBartina D'F.
fuld.
17. for ameoreiAev, amwectal ... | A:
Thdrt: om ACDLX rel Chr Thl ce.
gacba B: txt ADFLN rel. (C uncert.)
immediately after, with uj. But we may
fairly set against this argument, that the
un introduces a new form of interrogation
respecting a new individual, viz. Paul: and
that it was natural, for solemnity’s sake,
to express’ the other question differently.
In peuepista 6 xptotds, the Majesty of
Christ’s Person is set against the unworthy
insinuation conveyed by peuépiorat,—in
ny TlavAos eotavpé0n tmep su.,— the
meanness of the individual, Paul, is set
against the triumph of divine Love implied
in eot. tr. tuav. Two such contrasts
could hardly but be differently expressed.
py I. éor. «.7.A.| Surely Paul
was not crucified for you? By repudi-
ating all possibility of himself being the
Head and erdévumos of their church, he
does so a fortiori for Cephas and Apollos:
for he founded the Church at Corinth. On
els TO Ov. Barr. see Matt. xxviii. 19.
14,] Olsh. characterizes it as surprising
that Paul should not have referred to the
import of baptisin itself as a reason to
substantiate his argument. He does not
this, but tacitly assumes, between ver. 13
and 14, the probability that his having bap-
tized any considerable number among the
Corinthians would naturally have led to the
abuse against which he is arguing.
evx. tT. 6.| ‘Zam (now) thankful to God,
who so ordered it that I did not, &e.
C ‘rispus, the former ruler of the synagogue,
Acts xviii. 8. Gaius, afterwards the host of
the Apostle, and of the church, Rom. xvi.
23. 15.]| tva represents the purpose,
not of the Apostle’s conduct at the time,
but of the divine ordering of things: ‘God
so arranged it, that none might say,’ &e.
16.| He subsequently recollects
having baptized Stephanas and his family
(see ch. xvi. 15, 17),—perhaps from infor-
QaMECTAAKE C.
ins To bef Aouroy F. om aAAoy F
ins o bef xpictos BE
[aAAa, so A(appy) BDR. | evary’y€At-
mation derived from Stephanas himself,
who was with him :—and he ieaves an
opening for any others whom he may pos-
sibly have baptized and have forgotten it.
The last clause is important as against
those who maintain the absolute omni-
science of the inspired writers on every
topic which they handle. 17.| This
verse forms the transition to the descrip-
tion of his preaching among them. His
mission was not to baptize :—a trace al-
ready, of the separation of the offices of
baptizing and preaching. &v@pwmrov wey
yep KaTnxXovmevoy AaBdyTa Kat mememc-
Mevov Bomrioa, TavTOS OUTLYOSOUY eaTLY"
nN yap mpoalpeats TOU mpostdyTos Aoumdy
epyacer at To wav, Kal 7) Tov Oeod xdpis
itay 8€ amiorous det KaTnxXHoat, moAAov
Sef wévov, woAATs Tis codiass Tote BE
Kal 7) Kwduvetew mposqy. Chrys. Hom.
ili. p. 18. It is evident that this is said
in no derogation of Baptism, for he did
on occasion baptize,—and it would be im-
possible that he should speak lightly of
the ordinance to which he appeals (Rom.
vi. 3) as the seal of our union with Christ.
ovK év godiqa Adyou] It seems
evident from this apology, and other hints
in the two Epistles, e.g. 2Cor.x.10, that the
plainness and simplicity of Paul’s speech
had been ove cause among the Corinthians
of alienation from him. Perhaps, as hinted
above, the eloquence of Apollos was ex-
tolled to Paul’s disadvantage. év
aod. | in (as the element in which: better
than ‘ with’) wisdom of speech (i.e. the
speculations of philosophy: that these are
meant, and not mere eloquence or rhetorical
form, appears by what follows, which treats
of the subject, and not merely of the manner
of the preaching) in order that the Cross
of Christ (the great central point of his
ABCD
FLX a b
157 wa edefg
klm
nol7
14—21.
of Naa On € y ‘ ~ ~
tva fy KEVwW n oO oTaupoc TOU KetoTou.
y
¢ - = =
yao QO TOU oTavoou TOLC ev
TIPO KOPINOIOY®S A.
¢ ? ri
“> aroAAvupéevorc © pwwpia
479
[Ses &z: ye" F
x = Rom.iv.
o Shao ee
vi. 12, 14.
Phil. sii. 18.
» ' a N'> bd ge , - » I
EoTLV, TOIC Oe owlopévoc YAW © duvamte Qeou EOTIV. 2= Acts xiil.
19 t ‘
yéyeatTat yao
thy ® au *
k mall ,
TOU yOamparEue 5
Z te NG Se ¢ nN x ! ~ ' .
TOUS OVX EMWOaVYEY O Osoe tiv soplavy TOV KOGUOV;
9 ’ ? ~
21 P grey yao. ev ty 4
f? ~ Q , ~ ~ \
Arodw tiv codtav tev cope, Kal
es oy tae
cuveoty twv ‘ouvetwv ‘alernow.
~ ~ , Ww
copia tov '@ce0v ovK "eyvw 0
26 reff.
a= Rom. ii. 12.
2 Cor. ii. 15.
iv.3. 2 Thess.
ii. 10. (1 Pet.
i. 7.) Lev.
¥xiii 30.
0 k = Lge
20 * ov aopos 5
k > ir » Be b ,
TOU ouvdntytye TOV ALWVOE = TOU™ » gat. ch. ii.
14. viii. 6.
ix. 2.
e c vv. 2), 23.
ch. ii. 14,
iii. 19 only 7.
Sir. xx. 31. xli. 15 only. (-p6s, ver. 25.) d pres., ch. xv. 2 reff. e Acts vili. 10. Rom. i.
16. ver. 24. f Isa. xxix. 14. g Mark xii. 23. Luke ii.47. Eph. iii. 4. Col. i.
9. ji.2. 2Tim.ii.7 only. Prov. ii. 2. h Matt. xi. 25. Luke x.21. Acts xii.7 only. Prov.
xvi. 21. i= Mark vii.9. Luke x.16. John xii. 48. Gal. ii. 2i al. Isa. xlviii. 8.
k = Rom. iii. 27. Isa. xxxiii. 18. 1 = Matt. xiii. 52. Epp., here only. Ezra vii. 6. m here
onlyt. (-retv, Acts vi. 9. ix. 29. -tno«s, Acts xv. 7.) n Rom. xii. 2 reff. o = Rom.
i. 22 (reft.) only. Isa. xix. 11. p Acts xv. 24 reff. q ver. 24. Rom. xi. 33. Eph. iii. 10.
rRom.i.21. Galiv.-9. 1Johniv.6,7,8. (Jer. xxxviii. [xxxi.] 34.)
18. om yap D! b!.
om 2nd 6 B a! Cyr-jer.
owpevots(sic) &. om
nuw F am? fuld! fri D-lat G-lat Thdrt, Iren-int Tert Cypr Hil Ambrst Cassiod : id
est nobis vulg Pelag Sedul Bede.
19. om yap D! k.
20. rec aft +. koop. ins tovtov (to correspond with tov at. tovtov above), with
C*D3FLN3 rel vss Clem, Orig Chr Thdrt (ec Tert,: txt ABC!D'!&! a 17 Clem, Cyr
Did Damase Thl Orig-int Tert,.
preaching; exhibiting man’s guilt and God’s
love in their highest degrees and closest
connexion) might net be deprived of its
effect. This would come to pass rather
by philosophical speculations than by elo-
quence. 18.] For (explanation cf the
foregoing clause,—and that, assuming the
mutual exclusiveness of the preaching of
the Cross and wisdom of speech, and the
identity of of &moAAvmevor with the lovers
of copia Adyouv: q. d. ‘wisdom of speech
would nullify the Cross of Christ: for the
doctrine of the Cross is to the lovers of that
wisdom, folly.’ The reasoning is elliptical
and involved, and is further complicated
by the emphatic position of tTo?s aoAa.
and tots cw.) the doctrine (preaching :
“there is a word, an eloquence, which is
most powerful, the eloquence of the Cross :
referring to copla Adyou.”’ Stanley) of the
Cross is to the perishing (those who are
through unbelief on the way to everlasting
perdition) folly: but to us who are being
saved (Billroth {in Olsh.] remarks that 7.
ow(. qu. is a gentler expression than juiy
7. ow¢. would be: the latter would put the
ju. into strong emphasis, and exclude the
opponents in a more marked manner.
ot cwfopevor are those in the way of sal-
vation :—who by faith have laid hold on
Christ and are by Him being saved, see rett.)
it is the power (see ref. Rom. and note.
Hardly, as Meyer,—a medium of divine
Power,—etwas,wodurd Gott fraftigwiret:
rather, the perfection of God’s Power—
‘G@AAG Kal GAA...
the Power itself, in its noblest manifesta-
tion) of God. 19.] For (continuation
of reason for od év copiu Adyou: because
it was prophesied that such wisdom should
be brought to nought by God) it is written,
&c. The citation is after the LXX, with
the exception of a@etjow for kpitw. The
Heb. is ‘the wisdom of the wise shall
perish, and the prudence of the prudent
shall disappear.’ (Lowth.) But Calv. says
most truly, ‘ Perit sapientia, sed Domino
destruente: sapientia evanescit, sed inducta
a Domino et deleta.’ 20.] See ref.
The question implies disappearance and
exclusion. aodds, the wise, gene-
rally : ypapp., the Jewish scribe,—ovv-
{mr., the Greek disputer (reff.). Tod
aidv. tT. is best taken with the whole three,
—of this present (ungodly) world.
éuGpavey| uwpav eeikev ovcay mpos Thy
Tis wloTews KaTdAnWw, Chrys. 21.]
For (explanation of eudépavey) when (not
temporal, but illative = ‘since,’ ‘ seeing
that,’ —so Plat. Gorg. p. 454, eed} rol-
vuv ov mdvn amepydcetat TovTO TL epyov,
; see Hartung, Parti-
kellehre, i. 259) in the wisdom of God
(as part of the wise arrangement of God.
De W., Meyer, al., render it, ‘by the reve-
lation of the wisdom of God, which was
made to the Gentiles, as Rom. i., by crea-
tion, and to the Jews by the law,—thus
connecting év with éyyw, and making 77
cop. T. 0. the medium of knowledge :—
Chrys. takes it for the wisdom manifest in
480 ITPOX KOPINOIOY®S A. itt
, SN - ’ N , s 907 e ‘ ‘
sRom.xv.26 KQGMOC ola THe coplac Tov * Oeov, evooknosy o Qo ova
rett.
- t / - u , = ‘ , A
1 om. avi. 25 TNC “pwelag TOU “KNpVyLaTOg Gwoat TOVG TIoTEVOVTAC
tefl. 99 ’ ‘ Ve: ~ 7 ~ ’ = Nes.
v= Matt. xsi, 9° Pémedn Kat Lovdator ‘onucta “ atrovow Kat“ EAXnvec
. Sa. Vi.
- , x ~ » Ce ~ \ , a >
w Acts a 29 oplay * Cnrovouy, 3 nusic 6 % KNOVOGOMEY YOLGTOV EGTAaU-
reff. am, , ? i? \ Zz 7 4 Nyt, '
iv, 4 é au Nov, EOvecty de ‘uwotav
i ay, QUHEVOD, lovdatore piv * oxavdaXov, EGU pwolay,
43 L. Prov. 244 adage Od TOLC ” KAnToLC, Lovdatorc TE Kal “EXdAnow,
xiv. 6. : auToOlc
y Acts viii. § ‘ -cQ \ -~d , . 22 ee Se .
reff. KOloTOV Qeov ovvamey Kal Qeou ooptay 2 OTL TO pwoorv
z= Rom. xiv. ,
13 reff. a see ch. v. 13. b ver. 1 al. c ver. 18. d ver. 2). e neut.,
Rom. viii. 3. 2 Cor. iv. 17. viii. 8. f Matt. vii. 26. ch. iii. 18. iv.10 al. Deut. xxxii.6. (-péa, ver. 18.)
21. om yap F 3. 108-77 arm. for o @eos, Tw
bew F. tmuotevoayTas Li.
22. for ere:dn kat, ewer F: om rar fuld Syr eth. rec onuerov (Meyer and De
W think onueia a corrn, because only the sing could present any difficulty : but Tischdf
refers to such passages as Matt xii. 39, xvi. 4 al as having suggested the sing, which
consiag the immense weight of ISS authority, seems, I own, more likely), with L rel
Thl-txt (e-txt: txt ABCDFS 17 latt syrr copt Clem, Marc-t Cypr. emu(ntou-
ow A.
23. rec (for eOveoiv) eAAnow (to suit precedg and follg), with C3D3 rel goth Clem,
qvdox. C m Chr, Damasce.
Orig-ms: txt ABC'D!FLN m 17 latt syrr copt 2th Orig, Hus Ath Cypr.
24. om Tos F. om te DEF k.
His works only: tl éotw, év T. cop. T. 0.;
TH Sia TAY Epywy pawomuern, BC dy HbEANTE
yop Oivat. But I very much doubt the
legitimacy of this absolute objective use
of copia, as = those things by which the
codia is manifested. J cannot see with
Olsh. why the interpretation given above is
© ganz unpaulini{c):’ it is merely an expan-
sion of eudépavey,—and agrees much better
with Paul’s use of the words 7 co¢ia tT.
Oeod in reff. and in ch. ii. 7) the world
(Jew and Gentile, see next verse) by its
wisdom (as a means of attaining know-
ledge: or, but I prefer the other, “through
the wisdom [of God] which I have just
mentioned :” so Stanley) knew not (could
not find out) God, God saw fit by the
foolishness of preaching (lit., ‘of the
proclamation: gen. of apposition,—by that
preaching which is reputed folly by the
world) to save believers. Rom. i. 16
throws light on this last expression as con-
nected with Svvauis Ocod in our ver. 18,
and with what follows here. There the
two are joined: Stvauis yap Oeod éotuv (7d
evay. T. xp.) els cwTnplay mavTl TS Tmo-
TevoyTl, lovdaiw Te mp@Tov kK." EAAnUL.
22.] émevdy, not as in ver. 21, but = ‘si-
quidem,’ and explains 7. uwplas T. Knp.
kat—kat| see Mark ix. 13, unite (De W.)
things resembling each other in this par-
ticular, but else unlike. Jews and Gentiles
both made false requirements, but of dif-
ferent kinds. ° onpeta air.| see Matt.
xii. 38, xvi. 1; Luke xi. 16; John ii. 18,
vi. 30. The correction onuetoy has pro-
bably been made from remembering the
onmetov of these passages. The sign re-
quired was not, as I have observed on
Matt. xii. 38, a mere miracle, but some
token from Heaven, substantiating the
word preached. 23.| Still the ex-
pansion of 7 pwp. T. knpiy. Now, oxavs.
as regards the Jews, and pwpla as regards
the Gentiles, correspond to the general
term pwpia before. The 6é after juets is
that so often found in clauses following the
temporal conjunctions éret, Ews, dbpa, Ke.,
in Homer, and és, ws, &smep, «i, &e., in
Attie writers: e.g. Od. &. 178, rdv émet
Opéwav Oeol, épvet ioov ..., Tov S€ Tis
aOavatay BArAdbe pevas evdov eicas,—
and Xen. Cyr. viii. 5. 12, Gsmep of dmAi-
Tat, oUTw 8€ Kal of meATaGTAal kK. of TokoTAl.
See many other examples in Hartung,
Partikellehre, i. 184 f. It serves to give
a slight prominence to the consequent
clause, as compared with the antecedent
one. 24.| This verse plainly is a con-
tinuation of the opposition to ver. 22 be-
fore begun, but itself springs by way of
opposition out of *Iovd. wey ondvd., €Ov. de
swpiay,—and carries the thought back to
vv. 18 and 21. avtots Sé T. KAnTots |
Not, ‘but to the elect themselves, which
would be either avrots 6€ KAnTots, or Tots
d€ KANTOts avTots ;—but to these, viz. the
elect, —the avrois serving to identify them
with the ow(duevor of ver. 18. There it
was Hptv,—here avtots, because by the
mention of preaching joined with jes,
he has now separated off the hearers.
Svvap.y, as fulfilling the requirement of
the seekers after a sign :—oodiav,—of
those who sought wisdom. The repeti-
tion of xpiordv gives solemnity, at the same
ABCD
FLNab
edefg
hklm
nol7
22 —28.
IIPOS KOPINOIOY®S A.
48]
— Oeov sopare ov tov avPowrwy Early, Kat ° ro feonsts
P P Matt. v.20.
6
" asQevic rou eov ' ts x updrepo TWV avIparwy EaTIV. TV uhniie 2
26 k B heh. iv. 0.
y ft ieee Gils
Nérere yap ae ehiow v ULwY, avelifee OTe ov oA pin
ii. 18.
Aoi Srey Karta Flas ob woAAo ° duvarol, ov To\- Wisd. ii. 11.
et 27 p i compar.,
ol ° evyevete, adda ta "wo Tov KOG {LOU eGeX lato ea) 3
€ rf) Soke? q , \ , \ Sot = = 33% A aade
O UVEOC twa © KaTaloyuYy TOoUC aopoug, Kal Ta aobevn TOU s55- 18
7, Pp 23 12 € ‘ 7 q , Sr? Kk ch. x 8.
KOO{L0U eGercEaro 0) Heoc iva “KatTalsyuvy Ta Ls xvod, : Phil ii. 2
98 \ cae - - , \ Se te ze a fi Dee aoe si 20
Kal Ta ayev? TOU KOG{LOU Kal Ta £COv tvyneeva TES dal.
m Rom.i.3 reff.
n Acts xxv. 5. o = Luke xix. 12 (Acts xvii. at) oul. Job i.3. 2 Macc. x. 13 only. p Acts
i. 2,24 al. Deut. iv. 37. q = ch. xi. 4, 5, 22. 2 Kings xix. 5. r see above (i). Matt.
Xii. £Y bis |]. ch. iv. 10 al.
25. eotw bef twy avOp. (both times) DF latt arm.
Tert,.
26. for yap, ovy DF eth arm Pamph.
27. om from wa to wa (in next ver) AF m.
with rel: txt BCDLN k 17 latt syrr copt eth Orig,
time that it concentrates the Sdvayuis and
godia in the Person of Christ; q. d.
‘Christ even in His humiliation unto
death, the power of God and wisdom of
God, The use of ddvauis and codia
here as applied to Him who was the great-
est example of both, would not justify the
absolute use of codfa in this sense in
ver. 21. 28.| Because (reason why
Christ {crucified ] is the power and wisdom
of God) the foolishness of God (that act
of God which men think foolish) is wiser
than men (surpasses in wisdom, not only
all which they call by that name, but
men, all possible wisdom of mankind) ;
aad the weakness of God (that act of
God which men think weak) is stronger
than men (not only surpasses in might
ull which they think powerful, but men
themselves, —all human might whatsoever.
For the construction of the genitives,
see reff.). The latter clause introduces a
fresh thought, the way for which however
has been prepared by dtvauis, vv. 18, 24.
The Jews required a proof of divine Wight:
we give them Christ crucified, which is to
them a thing dodevés: but this acdeves
Tov Ocov is stronger than men. 26. ]
BAérere, imperative, as in reff. If taken
indicatively, it loses the emphasis which
its place in the sentence requires. It
would thus be tip yap KAjow tov
Bdérere. See a similar reminder on the
part of the Apostle, 1 Thess. i. 4.
yap seems best to apply to what has im-
mediately gone before. As a proof that
the foolishness of God is wiser than men
and the weakness of God stronger than
men, he calls attention to the fact that
the Christian church, so full of divine
wisdom and strength by the indwelling
Vou. il.
s here only f.
t = Rom. xiv. 3 reff.
‘om 2nd eorw BN! 0 17. 672
om ov 7oAA. dur. F copt. ovde DI.
rec tous sopous bef katraxuyn,
Eus.
Spirit of God, consisted for the most part,
not of the wise or mighty among men,
buat of those whom the world despised.
kAqovy, as in reff. the calling ev 7
€xAjOnuev—the vocation and standing of
Christian men. Sti od TodAol.. .]
that not many of you are wise according
to the flesh (‘significari vult sapientiam,
que studio humano absque doctrina Spiri-
tus Sancti potest acquiri,’ Estius), not
many mighty (no need to supply kara
o¢pra, Which is understood as a matter of
course)—not many noble. This is far
better than to supply (as E. V., and most
Commentators) eAn@ncay after ebyevets ;
and thus Vulg., Chrys., Beza, Meyer, De
Wette, al. Olsh. observes: ‘* The ancient
Christians were for the most part slaves
and men of low station ; the whole history
of the expansion of the church is in reality
a progressive victory of the ignorant over
the learned, the lowly over the lofty, until
the emperor himself laid down his crown
before the cross of Christ.” 27, 28. ]
Te Popa, neut. for more generalization,
but = tovs pwpovs. This is shewn by
Tous copous following, in that case it being
necessary to use the masculine. TOU
kéop., Of (belonging to) the world: not
in the eyes of the world, as Theodoret,
Luth., Grot., Est., al..—which would not
fit Ta ayevy Tt. KOou., nor the sense: for
they were not only seemingly but really
foolish, when God chose them. KaT-
atoyvvy, by shewing to the wise and the
strong, the foolish and the weak entering
the kingdom of heaven before them.
7% ayevy, matter of fact—the low-born:
74 eLovdevnpeva, matter of estimation, the
despised. Without the kal, which is
certainly the true reading, 74 wh dvra
ee
482 IIPOX KOPINOIOY®S A. I. 29—31.
, e , Sou , oo” ed x Vv ,
eAcEato oO Oc0c, Ta uy Ovra, tva Ta ovTa kKaTaoy1on,
29
uso Eur. Troad.
608, ‘Op@
8, ¢ es yo , x =< ‘ ped fe ~ rh) ~,
ees , OTWC LN Kavynonrat Taoa caps EVWTLOVY TOV VEOVU
Ew, @sTa - 3 = yooze: = ’ \ ’ ~ > ~ «a b? ,
nev tp 802 2E airoy be upetc EoTE * EV Yost Inoov, oc eyern On
youe av@a u
Ta pndev
(2 c\e ec? \ -~d V2 N tent ‘ ‘
> Ewa copia Hutv aTo Ocou oukatoourn TE Kal ayiaouoc Kal
Ovta, Ta d€
dokovvT amtwdecav.
v Paul (Rom. iii. 3, 31. ch. ii. 6. xiii. 8 al.) only, exc. Luke xiii. 7. Heb.
ii-14. Evzraiv. 21.
wabsol., ch.iv.7. 2 Cor, xi.l6al. J} Kingsii. 3. x Acts ii. 17 reff.
y = Acts xix.¥. 3 John 6, z = John vii. 22. Rom. xi. 26. a = Rom. viii. 1. Xvi. 7,
li, 2Cor.v.17. Gali. 22. b = 2 Cor. vii. 14, _1 Thess. i. 5 al. c = Rom. xiii. 1. ch.
iv. 5. vi. 19 al. d Rom. iii. 21, 25. e Rom. vi. 19 rett.
28. for ayevn, acbevn N!: txt N-corr!. rec ins kat bef ta wn ovta (a mistaken
supplement of the sense : see note), with BC3D3LN? rel vulg fri Syr Origaiiq Chr Thdrt :
om AC!D!FN! 17 wth-rom Orig, Iren-int Tert Ambrst Ruf Tich.
29. kavxnoera F. rec for tov Oeov, avtov (corrn to avoid repetition, not
observing the emphasis), with C! vulg syrr Orig, Dial Thdrt Gic Ambrst: txt ABC3DF
LN! rel fri spec copt eth Orig, Eus Eph, Bas Chr Damase Th] Aug Tich,.—&% began
to write avtov, but erased it.
30. ree nuw bef codia, with L rel vulg-ed(with some mss: also fri) syrr copt Orig,
Mac, Chr Thdrt Ambr, Aug: txt ABCDFX m 17 am(with demid harl*) Orig.epe Eus
Did Cyr Jer, Ambrst Ambry. for dix. Te, Kat Sux. D?E Orig, Chr Cyr.
may belong to all four, the uwpd, acbev7,
ayev7, and efov9ev.,—but more probably it
has reference only to the last two. Nothing
(as e.g. wéya tL) must be supplied after
p) bvtra: it means as good as having no
existence: «# being subjective, and imply-
ing that the non-existence is not absolute
but estimative. Were it absolute matter
of fact, it would be expressed by 7a ov«
évta, as in 1 Pet. 1. 10, of od HAENuEvot,
vov 5& éeAendeyvtes. See Hartung, Par-
tikellehre, ii. p. 181; Wimer, edn. 6, § 55.
5; and Phil. 11.3; Eph. v.4. Olshausen
refines on the expression too much, when
he explains it of those who have lost their
old carnal life and have not yet acquired
their new spiritual one: it more probably
means, things (persons) of absolutely no
account in the world, unassignable among
men, which the ayevA and efovdernuéva
are. Meyer remarks that the threefold
repetition of efeA. 6 Oeds, with the three
contrasts to codol, duvatol, and edyeveis,
announces the fact with a triumphant
emphasis. katapy. | ‘reduce to the
state of otk bvrTa” All the dvro, the
realities, of the world, are of absolutely
no account, unassignable, in God’s spiritual
kingdom. 29.| That all flesh may
have no ground of boasting before God.
The negative in these clauses goes with the
verb, not with the adjective ; so that each
word retains its proper meaning.
30.| But (contrast to the boasting just
spoken of) of Him are ye (from Him
ye, who once were as ov bvta,—éoré.—
He is the Author of your spiritual life) in
(in union with) Christ Jesus, Who was
made (not ‘is made:’ see reff. On
éyevybn sce 1 Thess. i. 5 note) to us from
God wisdom (standing us in stead of all
earthly wisdom and raising us above it
by being amd @cot;—Wisdom—in His
incarnation, in His life of obedience, in
His teaching, in His death of atonement, in
His glorification and sending of the Spirit :
and not only Wisdom, but all that we can
want to purify us from guilt, to give us
righteousness before God, to sanctify us
after His likeness), (and) both righteous-
ness (the source of our justification hefore
God), and sanctification (by His Spirit ;
observe the ve kat, implying that in these
two, Sikatoo. and ayiacu., the Christian
life is complete—that they are so joined as
to form one whole—our righteousness as
well as our sanctification. As Bisping
well remarks, “die. and ay. ure closely
joined by the ve [xai] and form but one
idea, that of Christian justification: &-
katocvvn the negative side, in Christ’s
justifying work—ayacuds the positive,
sanctification, the imparting to us of sanc-
tifying grace”’)—and redemption (by satis-
faction made for our sin, reff. :—or perhaps
deliverance, from all evil, and especially
from eternal death, as Rom. vii. 23: but I
prefer the other). The foregoing construc-
tion of the sentence is justified, (1) as
regards amd @cotd belonging to éyev7On,
and not to copia, by the position of jury,
which has been altered in rec. to connect
cogia with amd @., (2) as regards the whole
four substantives being co-ordinate, and not
the last three merely explicative of codia, by
the usage of te kal—ral, e.g. Herod. i. 23,
E.OvpapBov mp&rtov avOporwv Tay iets
tuev worhoavtTd Te Kal dvoudeayta Kab
diddtavra,—and Hom. Od. o. 78, auddre-
pov, Kvdds Te Kad ayAatn kal bverap,—so
that (see Hartung, Partikellehre, i. 103 ;
Donaldson, Gr, Gram, 551) the words
ABCD
FLRab
cedefg
hklm
nol7
II. 1—3. IIPOS KOPINOIOY®S A. 483
wv A , e b ? ae
3liva = xaboc yéyeanrar O Kavywpevoc f Rom. iti, 24
g ch. ii. 9 reff,
? U h ,
ev Kupl@ Kavyasbw. h Root 17
Kh .2 Kayo EOov Tpoc vac, adeA pol, HAVov ov ‘Kall eae
’
5 aToAvUTpwote,
2 Mace. &iii.
NES ~ , oO \ ~ ’ B > CY . =
ny Incovv ypiorov, ° Kai rovrov ésravpwpévor. Kaya ore
? 5) ’ \ ? r , \ » 3 , ~ Rom. xiii. 1.)
"ev Taobeveta kat Pv "pow Kai Pév * TOOMW TOANG 1 = deis xiii. 5
retf. part.
n = Acts xv. 19 reff. o Rom. xiii.
q = Rom. vi. 19. 2 Cor. xi. 30. xii. 5,
r2 Cor. vii. 16. Eph. vi.5, Phil. ii. l2only. Ps.
m = ch. i. 6 reff.
pres., Acts xv. 27.
p = Rom. xv. 32 al,
1). ch. vi. 6, 8 al.
&e. Heb. v. 2. vii. 28. Job xxxvii. 7
i sas above (r). Mark xvi. 8 only.
liv. 5.
Crap. II. 1. for paprupiov, wvornpioy (appy a gloss from ver 7) ACN! n fri Syr copt
Aug Ambrst Ambr: txt BDFLN® rel vulg syr sah wth Orig Chr Cyr Thl Ge Jer
Bede.
2. rec aft expiva ins Tov, with D?L rel Chr Thdrt Thl @e: om ABCD!3EN a m 17
(Orig) Ath Chr, Cyr Antch Damase. rec etdevat bef 71, with AD?2FLN latt Orig-c
Did Cyr Tert: txt BC(D':3) a m 17 Cyr Bas Isid Chr, Hil Victorin Aug,.—7: ev vu
et5. D3: tov ev yaw «15. t1 D?. (Lhe posn of 1, and harshness of Tt etdevat, seem to
have occasioned the transposns, and tov would be supplied from elsw, see Acts xxvii. 1,
1 Cor vii. 37.)
8. rec kat eyw, with DFL rel Chr Thdrt Thl Ge:
om 2nd ev F 49 latt(exe D-lat).
Antch Damase.
latt.
coupled by re wat (compare the exegesis
above) rank as but one with regard to
those coupled to them by kal, compare
G&uddtepov above. Hence these three
cannot be under one category, as explica-
tive of copia, but must be thus ranged:
gogpla Sixaocivn te Kal ayiacuds, Kad
amoAUTpwots. 31.] The construction
is an anacoluthon, the citation being re-
tained in the original. imperative, though
the ta required a subjunctive. It is
freely made from the LXX. This verse
declaring, in opposition to ver. 29, the
only true ground of boasting, viz. in God
and His mercies to us in Christ, closes the
description of God’s dealing in this matter.
He now reverts to the subject of his own
preaching. Il. 1—8.] Accordingly,
Paul did not use among them words of
worldly wisdom, but preached Christ
crucified only, in the power of the Spirit.
1.] ITalso (as one of the jets of
ch. i. 238, and also with reference to the
preceding verse, 6 kavx. €v kup. KavxdcOw)
when I came to you, brethren, came, not
with excellency of speech or wisdom
announcing (pres. part., not fut.,—as in
ref., and in Xen. Hell. ii. 1. 29, és rads
’"AOhvas &rAeucer GryyéAAovea Ta yeyovdto.
The time taken in the voyage is over-
looked, and the announcement regarded as
beginning when the voyage began) to
you the testimony of (concerning) God.
2.] For I did not resolve to know
any thing (hardly = éxpia eidéva oddér,
Jbere
xp. bef mo. F 109 am(with harl) Hil, Aug,.
txt ABCN ak m 17 Orig Bas
om 38rd ev DF 49.119
as KE. V., but meaning, “the only thing
that I made it definitely my business to
know, was”) among you, except Jesus
Christ (His Person) and Him (as) eruci-
fied (His Office). It would seem that the
historical facts of redemption, and espe-
cially the crucifixion of Christ, as a matter
of offence, had been kept in the back-
ground by these professors of human
wisdom. ‘“ We must not overlook, that
Paul does not say ‘to know any thing of
or concerning Christ,’ but to know Him
HIMsExF, to preach Him Himsetr. The
historical Christ is also the living Christ,
who is with His own till the end of time ;
He works personally in every believer,
and forms Himself in each one. There-
fore it is universally Corist HimsEzr,
the Crucified and the Risen One, who is
the subject of preaching, and is also
Wisdom itself: for His history evermore
lives and repeats itself in the whole church
and in every member of it: it never
waxes old, any more than does God Him-
self ;—it retains at this day that fulness
of power, in which it was revealed at the
first foundation of the church.’ Olshausen.
3.] Kays, and I, coupled to jAGov
in ver. 1, and éyé repeated for emphasis,
the nature of his own preaching being the
leading subject-matter here. The weak-
ness and fear and much trembling must
not be exclusively understood of his manner
of speech as contrasted with the rhetorical
preachers, for 6 Adyos pou Kk. 7d Khpuypd
484 IIPOS KOPINOIOY® A. ie.
t= cb. xvi. 10. * 2 iA t * a ies 4 4. FS Xx , \ Sein le
sini e&yévouny Weog vuac, “Kat O Aoyoc fou Kat TO Kij-
see Matt. , RE. (2 w rh) ~ ; \ , > aN ss
ait Oe 9 2 On en OU ICY IEE Seen OS copiuc Aoyotc, a ev
BS Nes 21S) Ie , aN ’ / G ! coe
j memes. y oe
Con oe amooElsee TVEVMATOC KAL OvvVapEwcC, ° lva YN TWLOTIC UUwY
reff. peetcl , ' ? , ? , eer , os
v Luke iv.32. £ 9 ” Ev copla avipwrov, aXX ? ev Suvamer Oeov.
w here only t. #6 S ’ at 2 ’ a ey , , \ >
x here only t. Sogiav d: AaXovpev Ev role “redetoic, copiay Ce ov
(-kvucdae,
Acts ii. 22.) z ch. i. 18 reff.
v. 14 al.
y = ver, 13. Gal. v. 5,16. a=ch. xiv. 20. Heb.
1 Chron. xxv. 8.
4. wei0o. b' e o 1. 181. 48. 72. 106-8-53 D-lat G-lat am(with F-lat) Syr sah arm
Orig, Eus Ath Ambrst Ambr, Sedul Leo. rec ins avOpwrwns bef codias (explana-
tory gloss), with ACLN? rel vulg-ed(with demid agst am fuld tol) syr copt Orig, Ath
Mac Cyr-jer, Thl @e Ambrst-comm Sedul Bede: av@pwmwos m 93: om BDFR! 17
latt Syr sah wth arm Orig, Nyss Cyr-jer, Chr Cyr Epiph Thdrt-ms, Jer. for
Aoyots, Aoywy Syr arm Orig, twy Aoywy Orig,, Aoyou am D-lat sah, Aoyos N': om Fa
18!. 74 G-lat Orig, Ath Ambrst-comm Sedul. for amoderket, amoKadvper D5,
5. om 7 Fem.
pov follow in the next verse,—but partly
of this, and principally of his internal deep
and humble persuasion of his own weak-
ness and the mightiness of the work which
was entrusted to him. So in Phil. ii. 12,
13, he commands the Philippians, pera
pdBov kK. Tpdmov thy éavTav cwTnplay
Katepyaterbe, Oeds yap eotiv 6 evepyav
ev buiv. The ao@évera may have refer-
ence to the mapovcia cépatos acbevis of
2 Cor. x. 10. Chrys., al., understand it
of persecutions : but in the places to which
he refers, it has a far wider meaning, —viz.
infirmities, including those resulting from
persecution. 4.| And (not adver-
sative, as Olsh., but following naturally on
the weakness, &c., just mentioned—‘ as
corresponding to it’) my discourse and my
preaching (Adyos of the course of argu-
ment and inculcation of doctrine, Kipyypa
of the announcement of facts. This (De
W.) is better than with Olsh. to under-
stand A. as his private, x. his public dis-
course: see Luke iy. 32, and 6 Adyos Tt.
o7.voov, ch. i. 18) was not in (did not
consist of, was not set forth in, see ref.)
persuasive (me0ds = midavds, mevornpios,
meotucds in Greek. The var. readings
have been endeavours to avoid the unusual
word, which however is analogically formed
from e804, as edds from etdoua, as
Mtyer) words of wisdom (avépwrivys, a
gloss, buta correct one. ‘ Corinthia verba,
pro exguisitis et magnopere elaboratis, et’
ad ostentationem nitidis,” Wetst.), but in
demonstration of the Spirit and of power:
i.e. either, taking the genitives as ob-
jective, demonstration having for its object,
demonstrating, the presence or working of
the Spirit and Power of God (so Kstius,
Billroth, al., and the gloss amoxadvper) :—
or, taking them subjectively, demonstration
(of the truth) springing from the Spirit
and Power of God (so most Commenta-
tors). I prefer the latter. It can hardly
be understood of the miracles done by the
Spirit through him, which accompanied his
preaching (Chrys., al., Olsh.), for he is
here simply speaking of the preaching
itself. 5.| q év, may be grounded
on, —owe its origin and stability to. “The
Spirit is the original Creator of Faith,
which cannot be begotten of human
caprice, though man has the capability of
hindering its production: and it depends
for its continuance on the same mighty
Spirit, who is almost without intermission
begetting it anew.” Olshausen.
6—16.] Yet the Apostles spoke wis-
dom among the perfect, but of a kind
higher than the wisdom of this world ;
a wisdom revealed from God by the
Spirit, only intelligible by the spiritual
man, and not by the unspiritual (Vuxukds).
The Apostle rejects the imputation, that
the Gospel and its preaching is ¢nconsistent
with wisdom, rightly understood: nay,
shews that the wisdom of the Gospel is of
a far higher order than that of the wise in
this world, and far above their comprehen-
sion. 6.] 8€ contrasts with the fore-
going. Aad. | viz. ‘we Apostles :* not
“IT Paul, —though he often uses the plur.
with this meaning :—for, ch. iii. 1, he re-
sumes Kayo, adeApol. év T. Tedelous |
among the perfect,—when discoursing to
those who are not babes in Christ, but
of sufficient maturity to have their senses
exercised (Heb. v. 14) so as to discern good
andevil. That this is the right interpreta-
tion the whole following context shews, and
especially ch. iii. 1, 2, where a difference is
laid down between the milk administered
to babes, and the strong meat to men. The
difference is in the matter of the teaching
itself: there is a lower, and there is a
ABCD
FLN ab
edefg
hklm
nol7
4—8,
TOU
l , ~ e /
“rovTou TwY © KaTapyousevwy,
f ' 2 i
copiay ©
, ¢ ‘ | x ~
WPLOEV oO Oedc Tpo TWV
h = Rom. xi. 25. xvi. 25, ch. iv. 1.
iii. Y. Col.i. 26 only. 4 Kings iv. 27.
1 here only.
{T[POS KOPINOIOYS A.
489 ~ bd
aOXOvTwy TOU
Tada Aadorpev
’ ‘ ? , ray k
év * puornply TYV ' ATOKEKPULLEVHY, nv 7 PO-
Iw , OA = d
» aiwvoc > rovrov oves twv ©
| »y7 ? \7 c ~
QALWVUWY ELC do&av NUWV,
Col. i. 26 al. Dan. ii. 18.
Ps. liv. 19. see Eph. Col. as above (i).
485
a~ 9
aLl@vog b Bom. xii. 2
= c= Acts xiii.
€OU 27 reff.
d here bis only.
e=ch,i. 28
reff.
QW fch,ii2) yeh
HV g =ver. 13. ch.
Xiv. 6.
i Luke x. 25. Eph.
k Actsiv. 28. Rom, viii. 29,30. Eph. i. 5, 11 on!y t.
Jude 25.
6. om from aiwy. Tout. to aiwy. Tout. F 114 lect-7 xth.
7. rec copiav bef Oeou (corrn, the emphasis not being noticed), with L rel syrr coptt
Thdrt: txt ABCDFX ak m 17 arm Clem, Orig, Eus.
higher teaching. So Erasm., Hstius, Ben-
gel, Riickert, Meyer, De Wette, al. On
the other hand, Chrys., Theodoret, Theo-
phyl., Calv., Grot., Olsh., al., understand
the difference to be merely in the estimate
Sormed of the same teaching according as
men were spiritual or unspiritual, interpret-
ing ev T. TeAclots, ‘in the estimation of the
perfect,’ which is philologically allowable,
but plainly irreconcileable with the whole
apologetic course of the chapter, and most
of all with the ov« nduvfOnv K.7.A. of ch.
iii. 1, where he asserts that he did not speak
this wisdom to the Corinthians. Weare
then brought to the enquiry,—what was
this copla? * Meyer limits it too narrowly
to consideration of the future kingdom of
Christ. Riickert adds to this, the higher
views of the divine ordering of the world
with respect to the unfolding of God’s
kingdom,—of the meaning of the prepara-
tory dispensations before Christ, e. g. the
law,—of the manner in which the death
and resurrection of Christ promoted the
salvation of mankind.’ According to ver.
12, the knowledge of the blessings of sal-
vation, of the glory which accompanies the
kingdom of God, belongs to this higher
species of teaching. Examples of it are
found in the Epistle to the Romans, in the
setting forth of the doctrine of justifica-
tion,—of the contrast between Christ and
Adam,—of predestination (compare uuarh-
pov, Rom. xi. 25), and in the Epistles to
the Eph. and Col. (where pvorhp. often
occurs) in the declarations respecting the
divine plan of Redemption and the Person
of Christ: nay, in our Epistle, ch. xv. Of
the same kind are the considerations
treated Heb. vii.—x.: ef. iv. 11 ff’ De
Wette. But a wisdom not of this
world,—not, as E. V., “ not the wisdom of
this world,” which loses the peculiar force
of the negative :—so in Rom. iii. 21, 22, we
have dicatootvn Ocod wepayépwra.....
dixatocvyy S€ Geod Sia wlat.’Inoov xp. See
instances of the usage in note there.
The a&pxovres are parallel with the cool,
duvarol, evyevets, of ch. i. 26, and are
connected with them expressly by the tév
Katapyounevwy, referring to tva ta bvTa
katapynon, ch. i. 28. 'They comprehend
all in estimation and power, Jewish or
Gentile. dpxovtas 5é aidvos évtaiOa od
daiuovas Tivas Aéyel, Kabds TIWEs bmoTTEd-
ovolv? GAA Tovs ev akiduacr, Tovs ev
duvactelais, Tos TO TMpayua mepyudynTov
eivat voulCovtas, pidoatdpous kK. phtopas kK.
Aoyoypapous’ Kal yap avtol éxpdrouy, kK.
Snuaywyol wodAdkis eylvevto. Chrys.
Hom. vii. p. 50. TOV KaTapy. |
who are [being] brought to nought, viz.
by God making choice of the weak and
despised, and passing over them, ch. i. 28:
not said of their transitoriness generally,
as Chrys., Theophyl., Riickert,—nor of
their power being annihilated at the coming
of Christ (Grot., Meyer, al.),—nor as Olsh.,
of their having indeed crucified Christ, but
of their being katapyovmevo: by His Resur-
rection and the increase of His Church.
7.] But we speak Gop’s wisdom
(emphasis on @ev0:—the wisdom which
God possesses and has revealed) in a mys-
tery (€v wvor. does not belong to thy
amorer., as Theodoret and Grot., which
must be thy év pvot. aror.,—nor to
coptay, as Beza, Bengel, which though not
absolutely, yet Certainly here, seeing thy
amorekp. immediately follows, would re-
quire the art., thy év puor.,—but to
Aadovmev,—‘ we speak God’s wisdom in @
mystery, i.e. as handling a mystery, deal-
ing with a mystery. So rhy odvecty pov
€vy TG puvoT. T. XptoTov, Kph. iii. 4.
Kstius and the Romanists, taking the con-
nexion rightly, have wrested the meaning
to support the disciplina arcani which they
imagine to be here hinted at, explaining
€v wvoT., “non propalam et passim apud
omnes, quia non omnes ea capiunt, sed...
secreto et apud pauciores, scilicet eos qui
spirituales et perfecti sunt,” Est.), which
has been (hitherto) hidden (see Rom. xvi.
25; vef. Col.) :—which God foreordained
(nothing need be supplied, as dmoxaAdr-
Trew, or the like, after mpodpicev) before
the ages (of time) to (em order to, the
4856
m James ii. 1.
see Acts Vii.
b \ ~
ovesic TWV
7 ae i 1 g woay. VK av ov
7a a VvWO OU Uy
XXviil. 3. 7 ? z s 5 p as
See ae as aXha * kaburc bial ioe
o IsA. lxiv. 4, he fa)
Ixv.17. see KQl ouc OUK ‘inkovae Kal
nee: Ge oy
p Rom. xi. 8
reff. avéBn, ooa
q por vii.23 JQ © 4
reff. ALV
r= Matt. xx. nk
23, xxv. 54. John xiv. 2, 3.
9. om adda A Pelag.
IIPO2 KOPINOIOY®= A.
d22 , =. ibd
apXovTwy TOU
ev C 80 Clem-rom Smyrn-epist.
It.
Zz wo 3 >
> rovrou EyVWKEV" EL
, ~ , >’ ,
™ KUOLOVY THC ” SoEnc EoTavow-
°“A 0pfadrpocg ov‘ eidev
, ? , >
4‘ kapola v avOowmou OUK
I~
alwvoc
ET
~ > ~ > ,
* Wrolwacev 0 Ozdc TOL ayaTwotv auTov,
Nis) 2. , £ ‘ ‘ - , > Cel
Oe amtexaduwev O Oe0c ora TOU TVEVMaATOC [avrov |
s = Matt. xi. 25.
Rom. i. 17. ch. xiv. 30. Prov. xi. 13 al.
rec (for ova) &,
with DFLN rel Smyrn-ep Orig, Const Eus, Ath, Epiph, Cyr, Chr Thdrt Thl Gc, que
latt: txt AB C(appy) Hipp Ath, Bas Mac Cyr.
10. for d<, yap B m 39. 46. 57. 71-3. 93. 116 coptt Clem.
reco @cos bef ameka-
Avpey (appy, as above, corrn from not noticing the emphasis), with L rel syr Chr
Thdrt: txt ABCDFX a m 17 latt Syr Clem Orig.
Bas Cyr (perhaps on acct of ro mv. follg) :
purpose of this preordination) our glory
(our participation in the things which He
has prepared for them that love Him,
ver. 9: dda, as contrasted with the bring-
ing to nought of the &pxovres).
8.| qv is in apposition with the former
hv, and does not refer to ddfay, as Tert.
contra Mare. v. 6, vol. ii., p. 483,—* sub-
jicit de gloria nostra, quod eam nemo ex
principibus hujus evi scierit . for
this would be departing from the whole
sense of the context, which is, that the
wisdom of God was hidden from men.
et yap €yv. «.7T.A., is a proof
Srom experience, that the rulers of this
world, of whom the Jewish rulers were a
representative sample, were ignorant of
the wisdom of God. Had they known it,
they would not have put to a disgraceful
death (6 oravpds Gdoklas elvyar Soxei,
Chrys.) Him who was the Lord of glory
(reff.),—i. e. who possesses in his own
right glory eternal, see John xvii. 5, 24.
These words are nota parenthesis, but
continue the sense of the foregoing, com-
pleting the proof of man’s ignorance of
God’s wisdom ;—even this world? s rulers
know it not, as they have shewn: how
much less then the rest. 9 f.] But
(opposition to ver. 8) as it is written, The
things which eye saw not, and ear heard
not, and which came not up (reff.) upon
heart of man, how many things God pre-
pared for them that love Him, to us God
revealed through His Spirit. There is no
anacoluthon (as De W.) nor irregularity of
construction, as some suppose, svpplying
after GAAG, AaAoduey (Kstius, &e.) or
yeyovev (Theophyl., Grot., al.) ; the sé in
the consequent clause after és in the ante-
cedent, which has occasioned these suppo-
sitions, is by no means unexampled ;—so
Herod. iii. 87, ds 5€ todTous wh Ordre,
eya 5€ 0 onuavew,—and Soph. Philoct. 86,
om avtov ABCN! copt Clem
ins DFLN? rel vss Did Epiph Mac Cyr
éym mev ovs by TOV Adywv GAYo KAvew,
Aaeptiov mat, Tos 5 Kal mpdcoev oTvya.
See Hartung, Partikellehre, i. 184 f.
Whence is the citation made? Origen
says, ‘In nullo regulari libro invenitur, nisi
in secretis Eliz prophet,’ a lost apocry-
phal book :—Chrys., Theophyl., give the
alternative, either that the words are a
paraphrase of Isa. lii. 15, ofs otk ayny-
yéeAn Teph adTod, povTat, K. of ovK aKn-
kéaot, cuyhoovat, or that they were con-
tained in some lost book, of which Chrys.
argues that there were very many,—kal
yap TOAAG SrepOdpyn BiBAla, wad dAlya Bu-
eo@0n. Jerome, Ep. lvii. [ci.], ad Pam-
machium, de optimo genere interpretandi,
9, vol. i. p. 314, says, “Solent in hoc loco
apocryphorum quidam deliramenta sectari,
et dicere quod de Apocalypsi Heliz testi-
monium sumptum sit: cum in Esaia juxta
Hebraicum ita legatur: A seculo non
audierunt, nec auribus perceperunt, oculus
non vidit, Deus, absque te, quae preeparas
tu expectantibus te. Hoc LXX multo
aliter transtulerunt: A seculo non audi-
vimus, neque oculi nostri viderunt Deum
absque te: et opera tua vera, et facies
expectantibus te misericordiam. Intelli-
gimus, unde sumptum sit testimonium :
et tamen Apostolus non verbum expressit e
verbo, sed mapappactikas eundem sensum
aliis sermonibus indicavit.” I own that
probability seems to me to incline to Je-
rome’s view, especially when we remember,
how freely St. Paul is in the habit of
citing. The words of Isa. lxiv. 4, are
quite as near to the general sense of the
citation as is the case in many other
instances, and the words ém kapdiav ov«
&véBn may well be a reminiscence from
Isa. lxv. 17, not far from the other place,
ov ph emeAOn avTay em Thy Kapdiav.
Such minglings together of clauses from
various parts are not unexampled with the
ABCD
FLRab
cdefg
hklim
nol7
9—13.
‘ N - , t? = \ \
TO yao TVEVMAa TavTa Epauva, Kal Ta
ll ’ ‘
z > , Vv \ow a) la , AN
tic yao oldcy avOowrwv “ra “ tov avOpwrou, et un TO
- -~ ~ > a A ? oJ = e \ % A =
<avevua “ tov avOowmov 70 Ev auTw 3; ovTwe Kat ‘ Ta TOU
= > \ 7 > ‘ ‘ ~ ~ ~ 12 « ~ \
Qeov ovdeic EyvwKer, Et wy TO TrEVBAa TOU Asov. music O&
y ? \ Za ~ - 2 , i 7 ? Qa ‘ ~
ov ro“ wvevma Tov * KOopov * eXaPopev, adAa TO TrvEvMA
we Cc - CaN Views Rua Ue ‘ - - b ,
To ek Tou Deov, wa Eldwuev Ta UTO TOV Deov ° yagiobivTa
IIPOS KOPINOIOY® A.
487
Vili. 27 reff.
u(plar, Rev.
11, 24.) see
Rom. x). 33
reff, Judith
vill, 14
v Matt. xvi. 23.
Luke ii. 44.
James iv. 14,
W gener. art.,
Matt. xv. il.
xX = Acts xvii.
16 reff.
> BaOn TOU Beov. t = Rom.
‘
c- 13 8 \ ~ > G2 => ee ' y see Rom. viii.
LV, a K@l AaXoupev OUK év OrdakrTolc avlowmwyc ae ani
a Acts viii. 15 reff. b pass., Actsiii. 14. Phil. i.29. Philem. 22. L.P.t (2 Mace. iii. 33.)
c = ver. 7. : d here bis. John vi. 45 only, from Isa, liv. 13. see 1 Thess. iv. ¥. e Acts
vii. 25 reff.
Thdrt Th] die Orig-int Hil.
Ambr, Vig
po} i
[epavva, so ABICR. |
11. om avOpwrwy A 17 Orig, Ath Cyr Tert, Vig.
To Tov Oeov D!: ta ev Tw Oew F lat-ff.
om 2nd rov av@pwmrov F Hil
rec (for eyvwkev) otdev
(prob a corrn to corresp with previous clause), with L rel Chr Thdrt: txt ABCDN a
dm Orig, Ath, Cyr-jer, Bas Cyr Antch Damase, eyyw F 23 Ath, Cyr-jer, Bas, Epiph,,
cognovit latt(but scit fri Aug) Ambr.
12. aft koouov ins tovtov DF vss Cyr lat-ff.
“ Aoyous a rescript NX!” Tischdf.
13. om a@ F Kus.
Apostle, especially when, as here, he is
not citing as authority, but merely illus-
trating his argument by O. T. expres-
sions. 10. To mvevpa]|- the Holy
Spirit of God—but working in us and
with our Spirits, Rom. viii. 16. “ Suffi-
eiat nobis Spiritum Dei habere testem :
nihil enim tam profundum est in Deo quo
non penetret.” Calvin. épauvg | a
word of active research, implying accurate
knowledge: so Chrys., ov« ayvoias, GAN
axpiBovs yvdoews evTavda Td epevyay
evdeikT KdV. 7a Baby] see reff.
There is a comparison here between the
Spirit of God and the spirit of a man,
which is further carried out in the next
verse. And thus as the spirit of a man
knows the Ba@os of a man, all that is in
him, so the Spirzt of God searches and
knows Ta Ba9n. the manifold and infinite
depths, of God—His Hssence, His Attri-
butes, His Counsels: and being 7d mvedua
Td év juiv, besides being 7d mv. Tod Oeod
(De Wette well observes that the Apostle
purposely avoids using the expression 7d
rvevua TO ev avT@ of the Spirit of God,
keeping the way open for the expression in
ver. 12, Td mv. Td Ex TOU Feod), teaches us,
according to our capacity, those depths of
God. 11.] For who of MEN know-
eth the things of a MAN (tov ayOpeémov,
generic, see reff. The emphasis is on
avOperwy and ayvOpdmov, as compared
with cod) except the spirit of a man
which is in him? Thus the things of
God also none knoweth, except the Spirit
of God. Wemay remark, (1) that nothing
need be supplied (as Ba0n) after ta in each
case, see reff. (2) that the comparison
vdwuev DEL Orig, (elsw «5.).
rec aft mvevyaros ins
here must not be urged beyond what is in-
tended by the Apostle. He is speaking of
the impossibility of any but the Spirit of
God conferring a knowledge of the things
of God. In order to shew this, he com-
pares human things with divine, appealing
to the fact that none but the spirit of a
man knows dis matters. But further than
this he says nothing of the similarity of
relation of God and Giod’s Spirit with
man and man’s spirit: and to deduce
more than this, will lead into error on one
side or the other. In such-comparisons as
these especially, we must bear in mind the
constant habit of our Apostle, to contem-
plate the thing adduced, for the time, only
with regard to that one point for which he
adduces it, to the disregard of all other
considerations. 12.| qpets S€ carries
on the 7juiy dé of ver. 10. TO TV. T
xoop. | Not merely, the mind and senti-
ments of unregenerate mankind, ‘ sapientia
mundana et secularis,’ as Estius, al., but
the Spirit (personally and objectively
taken) of the world, = 7d mvevua 7d viv
évepyour év Tots viots THS GmreOelas, ph. ii.
2, where it is strictly personal. 7
av. TO €« T. 6.| Not only, ‘the Spirit of
God,’ but the Spirit which is rrom God,
—to shew that we have received it only by
the will and imparting of Him whose Spirit
it is. And this expression prepares the
way for the purpose which God has in im-
parting to us His Spirit, that we may
know the things freely given to us by
God, 1. e. the treasures of wisdom and of
felicity which are the free gifts of the
gospel dispensation, =éca jroiwacey 6 beds
Tos ayan@ow avtdy, ver. 9. 13.] Kat,
488
IIPOS KOPINGIOY=. A.
II. 14—16.
d 3 OF ,
le Shale aaa soplac Ko yous, avr dwaxroig TVEUMATOC, 5 rvev-
gee i .
7. Gal. Ae \ \ om”
aig 87 OB rar KOIG Bdge ee “ouyKplvovrec. es Yyxtkog of av-
heh. x.3,4 | < ,
oth Bt fowmoc ov * bexerat rd Tou mvevpaT oc TOU Oeou" wold
i 2 Cor. x.12
s)r rm n
Geil 318 yao En auTW gory, Kal ov euieea yvovat, ort TVEVUG-
tn, xv, 34, ¢ 5) ’
iba ae. TIKWC ° avakolverat. 15g oe ® TVEVMLATLKOC * avakolvet
1S), le = 2 xg
ae iii.15. Jude 19 only t- k = Luke viii. 13. Acts viii. 14. xi. 1. xvii. 11. 1 Thess. i. 6. ii. 13. James
i,21. Prov. iv. 10,
o Acts iv. 9 reff.
1 ver. 11 refi.
m ch. i. 18 (reff.). n Rey. xi. 8 only t.
aytov, with DL rel syr Chr Thdrt: om ABCD'FX 17 latt Syr copt arm*Clem Orig,
Eus Epiph.
also; Ta xapic8. juiv, we not only knew
by the teaching of the Holy Ghost, but
also speak them, not in words (arguments,
rhetorical forms, &c.) taught by human
wisdom, but in those taught by the
Spirit. The genitives are governed by
d:daktTots in each case: see ref., and cf.
Pind. Olymp. ix. 153: 7d 5€ pvé Kpartic-
Tov Gray. moAdAol S€ Sidaktais avOpdérwy
Gpetats KA€os Spovoay éreoOar avev GE
Ocov K.T.A. TVEUp. . .. TV. TVYKP. |
interpreting spiritual things to the spi-
ritual. So Theophyl. altern., ryvevpaticocs
avOpdmois Ta wyevMaTIKa oUyKplyovTes Kal
diadvoyTes” ovToL yap wdvol SuvayT at Xwpety
tadta. And very nearly so as regards
ovykpivovtes Chrysostom and Grotius ;
only they take mvevwaricots not mase.
but neuter, ‘by spiritual things:’ éray
Tvevuaticdy Kal &mopoy 7], ard THY mVEUMa-
TIK@Y TAS papTuplas &yomev. olovy, Aeyw
bri aveorn 6 xpiotds, OTL awd mapOévov
eyevvhOn. mapayw wapTupias Kk. TUTOUS K.
amodeltets, TOU "Iwva, x.7.A. Chrys. Ex-
ponentes ea quie Prophete Spiritu Dei
acti dixere, per ea que Christus suo
Spiritu nobis aperuit. Grot. Meyer de-
nies that cuvyxpivw ever means to inter-
pret: but evidently the LXX do so use
it in Gen. xl. 8, évimvioy etdouev, kat 5
suykplywv ov €otw adtd. See alsoib. vy.
16, 22, and Dan. vy. 12, Theodotion (where
the LXX have ovykpluata dazmébeiée).
Erasmus, Beza, Calvin, De Wette, and
Meyer render it, ‘fitting, or_attaching,
spiritual words to spiritual things’? And
so I gave and defended it in all previous
editions. It seems to me now more
natural to take myvevuaricots as masculine,
and as leading to the introduction cf the
two men, the Wuxieds, and the mvevyua-
Tucés, immediately after. 14.] He
now prepares the way for shewing them
that he could not give out the depths of
this spiritual wisdom and eloquence to
them, hecause they were not fitted for it,
being carnal (ch. iii. 1—4). ux.
82 dv0.] The animal man, as distinguished
for mvevpatixols, myevmatixws B17. 213.
ovvxpivopev F.
from the spiritual man, is he, whose
governing principle and highest reference
of all things is the Wux4, the animal
soul, aitia kwhoews Cairjs Céwy, Plato,
Definit. p. 411. In him, the mvetua, or
spirit, being unvivified and uninformed
by the Spirit of God, is overborne by the
animal soul, with its desires and its judg-
ments,—and is tz abeyance, so that he
may be said to have it not;—wWvxuKol
mvevua wy €xovres, ref. Jude. The yux7
is that side of the human soul, so to
speak, which is turned towards the flesh,
the world, the devil: so that the Wuxinds
is necessarily in a measure capxucds (ch. ili.
3), also emiyeos, and dauoriodys, as in
ref. James. This general interpreta-
tion of Wuxicds must be adhered to, and
we must not make it merely intellectual,
as Theodoret, —6 pdvois Tois olkeivis apKov-
pevos Aoyiopots,—Grot. “qui humane
tantum rationis luce ducitur :”—Chrys. :
6 7) may Tots Aoyiomots THS WuxX7s 5iBovs,
kal py voulCwy aywbév Tivos Bdeicba
Bon@cias,—nor merely ethical, as Erasmn.,
Rosenmiiller (‘qui cupiditatum sub im-
perio omnem vitam transigunt’), al.,—
but embracing both these.—ovd 8éyerat,
receives not, i. e. rejects, see reff.,—not,
cannot receive, ‘non capax est, under-
stands not, which is against the context,
—for we may well wnderstand that which
seems folly to us, but we reject it, as
unworthy of our consideration :—and it
besides would involve a tautology, this
point, of ¢nadility to comprehend, follow-
ing by and by:—and he cannot know
them (7a Tod mvevuaros, the matter of our
spiritual teaching, itself furnished by the
Spirit) because they are spiritually (by
the mvetua of a man exalted by the Spirit
of Ged into its proper paramount office of
judging and ruling, and inspired and en-
abled for that office) judged of. 16. |
But (on the contrary) the spiritual man
(he, in whom the mvedua rules: and since
by man’s fall the mvedua is overridden by
the animal soul, and in abeyance, this
ABCD
FLN ab
edefy
hkim
nol7
i Oma
\ , 9 N (ee ee “Siaon2 ’
[ nev | WaVTA, AUTOC Oe UT OveEVvOE aVvaKOULETAL,
ae of p es , ray q , ? , o}
yao E yvo VOUV Kuplovu, oc ouupr Pacer auTovV ,
Ul
~ ~ >
VOUV KXeloToU EX OMEV.
II. 1 Kayo, adeA gol, ovk novenfny AadAnoat baw
15. om ver &!: ins N-corr!.
IIPOX KOPINOIOY®S A.
489
16 p —?. pRom. xi. 34,
TLC © from Isa. xl.
c - 8: 1g (compare
Cc fisd. ix. 13.
ata q Acts ix. 22. ,
Xvi. 1U. xix.
33 .v.r. Eph.
iv. 16. Col.
ii. 2, 19 only.
L.P. Ley.
x. 11.
om pwey ACD'F Jatt Syr copt Clem Orig Thdrt
lat-ff: ins BD?-3LX-corr! rel syr Mac, Chr Thdrt. (Has pev been insd on acct of the
d¢ follg, as Meyer,—or omd on acct of the 3< precedg, as De W?)
ins ta bef
mavta ACD! 17 Iren-ms Orig-e Nyss Chr: om BD?3FLN-corr! Clem Orig Mac, Thdrt,.
(ra was prob a gloss to shew that ravta was not mase sing ace.)
16. for xpicrov, kupiov BD'F Thl-txt Aug Ambrst Sedul. (Mechanical repetn of vovy
kup. above. So Meyer, rightly : addg, if any gloss had been written in marg on kuptov,
it wd not have been xpictov, but Oeov, seeing that the ref of the foregoing kup. is to
Gop.)
Cuap. IIT. 1. rec car eyw, with L rel Thdrt Thl He: txt ABCDFX a m 17 Clem
Orig Chr Damase. edurnbnv C.
always presupposes the infusion of the
Holy Spirit, to quicken and inform the
mvedua—so that there is no such thing as
an unregenerate mvevwatixds) judges of
all things (Meyer, reading 74 mayra, in-
terprets it, ‘all spiritual things ;’ but the
ordinary rendering, ‘ all things,’ is better :
the Apostle is generalizing, and shewing the
high position of the spiritual man, whoalone
can judge things by their true standard.
The acceptation of mdvra as masce. sing.,
—convincere potest quemlibet profanum,”
as Rosenm.,—is against the context, which
speaks of things, ra Tod mv.,—besides that
mayta would not be used absolutely, for
‘every man,’ but either mavta av@pwrop,
as Col. i. 28, or rby ravra), but himself is
judged of by none (who is not also mvev-
patixds, see ch. xiv. 29; 1 Johniv. 1, where
such judgment is expressly attributed to
Christian believers). kal yap 6 BAérwv,
mavTa wey aitds Kabop& Tod wy BAérov-
Tos, To 8€ éxelvou Tay ph BAemdvTeY
ovdefs. Chrys. 16.| PROOF OF a’tés
82 tw ov. avaxpiverar. In order for an
unassisted man, not gifted from Christ, to
judge the wvevyatixds, he must know the
vous Kupiov, the intent and disposition of
Christ ; yea more, must be able to teach, to
-instruct, Christ—being not, as the mvev-
paticds,—taught by Him, he must have an
independent wisdom of his own, which
Christ has not:—and who is there, of
whom this can be said? But we (rvev-
faricof, among whom he includes him-
self and the other Apostles) have (not a
wisdom independent of Christ, nor do we
know His mind, nor can we teach Him,
but) the mind of Christ: the same mind,
in our degree of apprehensiveness of it, by
the imparting of His Spirit, which is in
Him, and so can judge all things. The
vous kuptov is the spiritual intent and de-
up. bef Aad. D?L abecefghino Clem,
signs of Christ. kuptov in the prophecy
is spoken of JEHOVAH ; but in the whole of
Isa. xl., the incarnate Jehovah is the sub-
ject. The meaning of cuuBiBdw, to teach,
belongs to the LXX: in the N. T. it is
to conclude, to prove, to confirm, see reff.
II. 1—4.] He could not speak
to them in the perfect spiritual manner
above. described, secing that they were
carnal, and still remained so, as was
shewn by their divisions. 1.] Kayo,
I also; i.e. as well as the Wuxinds, was
compelled to stand on this lower ground,
—he, because he cannot understand the
things of the Spirit of God: I, because
you could not receive them. Or perhaps
better, with Stanley, ‘xal éyd, as in ii. 1,
“What I have just been saying, was ex-
emplified in our practice.” ’ capxivots
is certainly the true reading, being, be-
sides its MS. authority, required by the
sense. He was compelled to speak to
them (this affirmative clause is to be sup-
plied from the former negative one) as to
men of flesh: not &s capxikots, for that
they really were, and he asserts them yet
to be, ver. 3. I quite agree with Meyer
(against De Wette) that the distinction be-
tween odprivor and caprucot is designed by
the Apostle, and further regard it as implied
in the very form of the sentences. Here,
he says that he was compelled to speak to
them as 7f they were only of flesh,—as if.
they were babes, using in both cases the
material comparison, and the particle of
comparison #s. But in ver. 3 he drops
comparison, and asserts matter of fact—
‘Are ye not still capricol (= &s odprivor),
fleshly, carnal, living after the flesh, resist-
ing the Spirit ?’—q. d. ‘I was obliged to re-
gard you as mere men of flesh, without the
Spirit : and it is not far different even now :
ye are yet fleshly—ye retain the same cha-
490 IIPOS KOPINOIOY®S A. ITI.
= ch.ii.15. € r “ > wine s ’ € t , ’
a Boccia. @ TVEVMATLKOLC, aXX we OAOKIWOLC, WE VvNHTLOLG EV
reff. s = Du s cite v? , > w ~ 4 ”
See Th, Rom. Xoeo nw yara uuagc §=éTOTLOa, OU Boonua ouTw
ii. is E he ‘ NZ xy ? ’ BIN of -~ , A of ‘
ea aks yao eouvacbe, *YaXXA’ Y oveds Ere vuv Svvacbs* ® ert yap
Ve Hs 1? ae Ot QE eS eae \ bi
ae OaPKIKOL EOTE. OomoU yap ev UpLLY CnXoe Kat 0c,
as LS : 2 > \ , > \ f \ ” f a5 “
uchix.7. OVXL “OapKIKol gore Kal “ Kata avOpwrov TEOUTATELTE 5
Heb. v.12, 40 N , pgs? nN , , b , a7 \
Pgs oTav yao AEyy TIC Eyw [EV ELLE TlavAov, ETEPOC OE
C . .
a
Vv Bin: xii. 20 reff. w Matt. xiv.15 §. Lukeiii.11. Rom. xiv. 15 al. Ezra iii. 7. x = 2Cor.
vii. 1). y = Acts xix. 2. ch. iv.3al. zZ here bis. Rom. xv. 27. ch.ix.11. 2 Cor. i. 12. x.
4. 1 Pet.ii.1l only. 2 Chron. xxxii. 8 compl. only. a = Heb. ix. 16. x. 18.
ib ea hl G b Rom. xiii. 13. 2 Cor. xii. 20. Gai. v. 20. Sir. xl. 4.
11 reff. e Ron. iii. 5. ch. xv. 32. Gal.i. 11. iii, 15.
viii. 4. Eph. ii. 2 al. g = Luke xi. 15, 16 al.
James iii. 16. 2 Pet.
c = Acts xiii. 45 reff. dch.i.
1 Pet. iv. 6. (see Rom. vi. 19.) f = Rom.
h gen , ch, i. 12 reff.
Orig, Chr Damasc lat-ff.
17 Clem-ms, Orig, Nyss.
2. rec ins ka bef ov Bpwua, with DFL rel (Orig,) Ces Thl Ee: om ABCN m 17 vulg
fri syr copt Clem, Iren-gr Orig, Eus Did Cyr, Cypr Hil. rec nduvacée, with DL a
edkn Orig, Ces Dial Thdrt: txt A B(sic: see table) CF rel Clem Orig,. rec
ovte (see note), with L rel Orig, @e: txt ABCDFN cd fk 17 Clem Iven Orig;. (om
last clause m.) om ett B.
3. caprivor (twice) D!F Origy or. Nyss-ms-corr (error by repeatg capxw. from ver 1,
the difference not being noticed : see there): txt ABCD3LX rel Clem, Orig Nyss-ms.
Ist eore bef Ist capxixo: DF am(with demid harl tol) Clem Orig, Nyss Cypr
Thl Aug: txt ABCLN rel Orig, Chr Thdrt. rec aft epis ins Kar dixootacia (from
Gal v. 20), with DFL rel Syr Iren-gr Chr Thdrt Cypr,: om ABCR a vulg fri copt ath
arm Clem, Orig, Eus.—epers AFL d fn.
4. ris bef Aeyn DF vss lat-ff. for etep. Se eyw, eyw Se A c 23. 224 Chr.
rec ouxt (corrn from ver 3), with DFLN? rel Dial Chr Thdrt Thl Ec: txt ABCN! 17
rec gapkikots (see notes), with D3FL rel: txt ABC!'D'X
racter.” Both the capxivoi, the mere men
of the flesh, and the capx:xol, the carnally
disposed, are included under the more ge-
neral YuxiKol, which therefore, as Meyer
observes, is not here used, because this dis-
tinction was to be made. @S vyT. év
xp-]| The opposite term, TéActou ev xp., is
found Col. i. 28 and in-connexion with this,
Heb. v. 13, 14. Schéttgen (on 1 Pet. ii. 2)
and Lightfoot adduce the similar Rabbi-
nical term nipinn, segentes, used of novices
in their schools. A recent proselyte also
was regarded by them as a newborn infant.
He speaks of his first visit to Corinth,
when they were recently admitted into the
faith of Christ,—and excuses his merely
elementary teaching by the fact that they
then required it. Not this, but their s¢ill
requiring it, is adduced as matter of blame
to them. 2.| See the same figure in
Heb. v. 12. So also Philo de Agricult. § 2,
vol. i. p. 301, eel 5& vymios pév éore
yada Tpoph, TeAciois SE TA Ck TUPAY Tém-
pata, Kal Wuxis yadanTdders wey by elev
Tpopal Kata Thy madikyy HAtKlay... Té-
Acar SE Kal avopdow.... Basil, Hom. i,
p- 4038, ed. Paris, 1638, cited by Meyer,
explains, yéAu, Thy cisaywyiuchvy Kk. &rdAov-
oTEpay TOU evayyeAlou OidackaAdlav: see also
Heb. vi. l.—rdv rijs apxijs Tod xpiorod
Adyov. On énética... . Bpoua, Wetst.
quotes véxtap 7 duBpootny Te, Td ep Beor
avTol €dovo1, Hes. Theogon. 640. See
Hom. Il. @, 546. Winer, edn. 6, § 66.
2. e. ovmT. yap edvvacGe] Hither,
for ye were not yet able (scil. Bpaua éc-
Giev),—or, for ye were not yet strong,
dvvauar being used absolutely, as in De-
mosth. 1187. 8, Suvduevos TG Te mpdrTew
K. T@ cimety, and 484. 25, tay moAttevo-
pbeévev tives duvvnbévtes, and see other reff.
in Meyer. In the former case, the ellip-
sis is harsh: the latter meaning seems
preferable, though not found elsewhere in
the N. T. GAN ovde Ete viv, but
neither even now...; the oire of the
rec. is grammatically imadmissible,—see
Winer, edn. 6, § 55. 6. 3.] On
oapkukot, see above, ver. 1. Otrov,
not = eézel, but putting the assumption
in a local form, see reff. CHAos, emu-
lation, in a bad sense; or as in reff.,
‘angry jealousy.’ Kata avOp., see
reff., according to the manner of (unre-
newed and ungodly) man, = kara odpka,
Rom. viii. 4; see note on ch. xv. 32.
4.] He names but two of the foregoing
ABCD
FLNab
edefg
hkilm
nol7
designations, ch. i. 12: intending, both —
there more fully, and here briefly, rather
to give a sample of the sectarian spirit
prevalent, than to describe, as matter
of fact, any sects into which they were
+. eos
F(and
also G).
ABCD
LNabe
defgh
klmn
017
IIPOS KOPINOIOY® A. 491
5 * , ¢
ri[c] OUV éO6TLV Heroes
2—8.
= Acts xix.
soe
"Eye "’AmoXA@, ovK ‘avOowrol éore 5
>’ ~ , a ©
AmoAXwe 3 til ¢ | 8 gore [lavAoc; Staxovor Ot Ov an, Rom.
> ‘ €
k , heeds € , a] 6 2. .\— ii. 3. ch. vii.
EMIGTEVOATE, Kal EKUGTW WC O KUPLOG EdwKEV. Eyw 37.
mien ’ ‘ ns 2 ? orG SaeG ee: Matt. xv. 18.
eputevoa, AmwodAXwc “eworicev, adda o Oe0c nucaves” Mua
7 a ” © m , ’ aa ” eon , ? » Gen. ii. Sal.
wets ouTe 0 gutevwy early ® Tt, UTE O “ ToTiZwy, aXX u Romi. xi, 20
e
€
retl,
Soir , \ \ A
o " puTevwy Of Kat O Ors Nee
e ’ , , / ov
0 °avéavwrv Ocdc. 8 " roricwy “Ev
2 Cor. ix. 10
: 14 & ‘ DANY r x , N N only. Gen.
slow, Ekaotoc Ce Tov tooy “ptoPov Anuerat KaTa TOV xvi.6. mid.
or pass.,
2Cor.x.i5. Col. i.6,10.° 1 Pet. ii. 2only. intr., Acts vi. 7 reff. p = Acts v. 36. ch. x.
19. Gal. ii. 6. vi. 3,15. Demosth. 582. 27. q constr., John x. 30. xvii. 11, &c. Eph. ii. 14.
r= Rom. iv. 4 refi.
Damasce. rec for av@pwmrot, capkixor (corrn from ver 3), with LX rel syrr Dial
Chr Thdrt: txt ABCDFN! 17 latt copt eth Damase Orig-int Did Ambrst Aug.
5. tT: (twice) ABN! 17 latt «th lat-ff (prob corrn to suit the sense: the question
being rather qualis est than quis est): tis CDFLN® rel syrr copt Chr Thdrt Thl ic.
rec mavaos Tis be aroddws (alteration of order, to suit ver 4), with D?L rel syrr
Chr Thdrt Opt: txt ABC(Di3F)8 m 17 latt Damase Ambrst Aug Pelag.—rec om
Qnd eorw, with DEL latt Chr Thdrt: ins ABCN m 17. rec ins aAd’ 7 bef d:axov.
(addition to complete the sense), with D?3L rel syrr Chr Thdrt Thl Gc Opt: om
ABCD'FR vulg copt z2th arm Damase Ambrst Pelag.
om ws C tol!.
6. [addAa, so ABD!FR. (for adda o, o de f 17.) |
7. om Ist oute A.
actually divided : see note there, and on ch.
iv. 6. Meyer sees in the mention here of
Paul and Apollos only, a reference to the
two methods of teaching which have been
treated of in this section: but as I have
before said, the German Commentators
are misled by too definite a view of the
Corinthian parties. avOpwrot, i.e. walk-
ing Kata &vOpwrov,—capxixol.
5—15.| He takes occasion, by example
of himself and Apollos, to explain to
them the true place and office of Chris-
tian teachers: that they are in them-
selves nothing (vv. 5—8), but work for
God (vv. 9, 10), each in his peculiar
department (ver. 10; cf. ver. 6), each re-
quiring serious care as to the manner of
his working, seeing that a searching trial
of its worth will be made in the day of
the Lord (vv. 10—15). 5.| ovv
follows on the assumption of the truth of
the divided state of things among them :
‘Who then (What then)...., seeing
that ye exalt them into heads over you?’
The question is not asked by an objector,
but by Paul himself; when an objector is
introduced, he notifies it, as ch. xv. 35;
Rom. ix. 19. émioTevoare, as in reff.:
ye became believers. EKAOTW OS. eee
= ws wk. 6 Kip. Exdotw, see reff. It
refers, not to the teachers, but to the
hearers, see below 6 avftédvwy Geds. In
the rec. text, the question is carried on
to the end of the verse by 2AA’ #, which
is good Greek for ‘nisi,’ ‘ praeterquam,’—
so ovde xpyoducba eénynth GAN 7) TO
for 2nd ovrte, ovde CR!'.
adAAa D'.
matpow, Plat. Rep. p. 427, see Hartung,
Partikellehre, ii. 44,—but seems to have
been inserted from not observing the form
of the sentence. 6.| The similitude
is to a tilled field (yewpyiov, ver. 9): the
plants are the Corinthians, as members
of Christ, vines bearing fruit: these do
not yet appear in the construction: so
that I prefer, with De Wette, supplying
nothing after épvtevoa and érdricey, re-
garding merely the acts themselves, as in
E. V. If any thing be supplied, it must
be duas, which would but ill fit ver. 7.
Apollos was sent over to Corinth
after Paul had left it (Acts xviii. 27), at
his own request, and remained there
preaching during Paul’s journey through
Upper Asia (ib. xix. 1). 7.| éotiv
vu, either, ‘is any thing to the purpose,’
as in Aéyew t1, &e., or absol. is any
thing: which latter is best: compare «f
kal ovdév eiut, 2 Cor. xii. 11.
GAN 6 avé. Beds, scil. Ta mavta eoti,—
to be supplied from the negative clauses
preceding. Theophylact remarks: épa
Tas aveTaxOy moled THY eLovdéevwoLY TOY
mpocaTmtwv ev Kopiv0e copay k. mAov-
clwy, éavToy K. °ATOAAM® Kata Td pawwd-
plevoy eEovdevdoas, K. dtdatas, OTe Veg det
pdvw mposéxew, «x. eis avtoy avariPévat
mayTa TH oupBalvoyta ayabd. 8. ]
év, in the nature of their ministry,—
generically, Kata Thy tmoupylar’ dudd-
Tepar yap T@ Oelw Siakovovc1 Bovdzj-
batt. 'Theodoret. éxaotos Sé.. . |
Here he introduces a new element—the
492
re
tronics eae ou
“only. tov, Vou otKooopy EOTE.
ie ee KVi. 5 3 0 eee
3 refi.
v here only. TYV OovVElGavy [LOL WC
Prov. xxiv.
IIPOX KOPINOIOYS A.
Let.
. s t - t Re - ,
dents ea iocov “xotov. °' Oeov yap EG{LEV r OuvEepyot fleou * yewp-
10 cara thy * Xap rou Osov
Yoopoc ‘apyitéxtrwv “” Peuédrov
Q\
30. e. eOnKa; aAXoe Ok * eTOtKOOOReEl. gkaotoc 6s °° Brewéetw
(-yos, John q
xv. 1. -yeuv,
Heb. vi. 7.)
w ~ Matt.
xxiv. 1 | Mk.
2 Cor. v. 1.
*xxxv_ 10.
1.19. Rev. xxi. 19,
times. Eph. ii. 20.
viii. 18. Eph.v. 15.
mwe © éToLKooouEt.
id b =
Ovuvarau Oetvat
Eph. ii. 2l only. (Rom. xiv. 19 reff.)
z here only.
= Rom. xv 20.
Col. ii. 7.
Heb. vi. 1.
v.14,
8. om 2nd de C 31 Syr Aug.
cb t N
l OeneAvov yap
f ‘ ‘
waoa TOV
Ezek. xvii. 17.
Isa. iii. 3. Sir. xxxviij. 27. 2 Mace. ii. 29 only.
Jude 20 only. Nam, xxxii. 38 Ald. ouly.
e = Mark xiii. 5 al. fr. i
aXXa Tay’ & évoucCev, Piat. Minos, 320. €xopeév ts mapa Tavta GAAO A€yev, id. Pheedo, 80.
” > \
arXov_ oveeie
/ or ’ ’ ~-
Keimevov, oc eatiw Inoove
x ch. i. 4 reff.
g
y = Exod.
a masce., 2 Tim.
e here Ge , 4
d Luke
Toles
g Matt.
b Luke vi. 48. xiv. 29.
see Rom. xy. 20.
f = Lukeiii. 13. Heb. xi, 4. i. 4 al.
for komov, Tomoyv C.
9. aft yewpyov ins eore D? vulg(not harl') syr arm Chr.
10. rece reGerca, with C*DN! Orig, (Chr-mss) Thdrt Thl Ce, re@qyxa L fn: txt
ABC!R! m 17 (Chr).
separate responsibility of each minister
for the results of his own labour, so
that, though kata tiv brovpylay they
are one,—kaTa Tb epyoy (ib.) they are
diverse. The stress is twice on %d.oy.
9.] Proof of the last assertion, and
introduction of Him, from Whom each
Anuverar. The stress thrice on @eov :—
shall receive, &c.,—for it is of Gop that
we are the fellow-workers (in subordi-
nation to Him, as is of course implied:
but to render it ‘fellow-workers with
one another, under God,’ as Estius pre-
fers, and Olsh., al., maintain, is contrary
to usage: see reff.;—and not at all re-
quired, see 2 Cor. v. 20; vi. 1), of Gop
that ye are the field, of Gop that ye are
the building. This last new similitude is
introduced on account of what he has pre-
sently to say of the different kinds of teach-
ing, which will be more clearly set forth
by this, than by the other figure.
10.] kata tT. ydp. &e., as an expression
of humility (reff), fitly introduces the
gopés which follows. So Chrys.: épa
youv m@s mertpider. cindy yap copdy
éauT ov, ovK apikey avTov TovTO Elval, GAN
bAov Eavtdy mpoTepoy dvalels TH OG TéTE
éautdv oftws éexddcce. The yapts is not
the peculiar grace of his apostleship—
for an apostle was not always required
to lay the foundation, e.g. in Rome :—
but that given to him in common with
all Christians (ver. 5), only in a degree
proportioned to the work which God
had for him to do. codos, skilful,
see reff., and many examples in Wetstein.
The proof of this skill is given, in his
laying a foundation : the unskilful master-
builder days none, see Luke vi. 49. The
foundation (ver. 11) was and must be,
JEsus Curist: the facts of redemption
om 2nd de D Orig, Chr Gild.
by Him (obj.), and the reception of Him
and His work by faith (subj.). The
mascul. forin 6 @euéAuos. (se. Atos) is said
by Thomas Mag. (in Wetst.) to belong to
the kowh diddextros—the Attic form is
Jeuedroy, or, if in the plur., of GenéAror:
—vl yap OeuéAtor mavtoiwy Aldwy s&7éd-
cewTat, Thucyd. i. 93. G@AXos, ‘ who-
ever comes after me, —another: not only
Apollos. émrovkoSopet, pres., as the
necessary state and condition of the sub-
sequent teacher, be he who he may. The
building on, over the foundation, imports
the carrying them onward in knowledge
and intelligent faith. 7s, emphatic,
= here, with what material. De Wette
imagines that it also conveys a caution not
to alter the foundations, and that the yép
in ver. 11 refers to this. But the identity
of the foundation is surely implied in
éwroikodouet. On the yap, see below.
ll. 0. yap] q.d. ‘I speak of superimposing
merely, for it is unnecessary to caution
them respecting the foundation itself: there
can be but one, and that one HAS ALREADY
BEEN (objectively, for all, see below) LAID
By Gop.’ At the same time, in taking this
for granted, he implies the strongest pos-
sible caution against attempting to lay any
other. Svvatat, strictly can,—not ‘ne-
mini licet,’ as Grot., al., nor as Theophyl.,
od Stvatar Ocivat, ews bv evn copds
epxitextwr, emel Stay mh 7 Tis cod. apx.,
Svvarat Oetvat, Kk. ex To’TOU ai alpéwers :—
for it is asswmed, that @eod oiodou7h is to
be raised—and it can only be raised on
this one foundation. All who build on
other foundations are not cuvepyol Oeod,
nor is their building @c0d olkodoun at all.
GAAov ... . twapd, see reff. and ef.
Thueyd. i. 23, wunvdétepar mapa Ta ex Tod
amply xpévov mynuovevdpeva. Ketwevoy |
9—15. TIPO KOPINOIOYS A. 493
? oa te AN ‘ J atk
xowroc. Met oe sats “eqotkooouer EwL TOV * BepeNton hatte 2
~ i i ' Ja iv. 3.
Tovrov | Xpvadr, "ap yupov, : AiBoug ; ioc * 56Xa, ae
'ydorov, ™kadapny, exastov ro Epyov " pavepov ° yevn- ene
XViii. 12,
1=here only. (Matt.
16. xxi. 11, 19. Ps. xviii. 10.
un Mark vi.
vi. 30 al. fr. Gen. ii. 5.)
14. Acts vii.13. Phil. i. 13.
=hereonly. Ezrav. 8.
m here only. Exod. v.12. xv. 7.
Gen. xlii. 16.
Isa. v. 24.
11. rec ins o bef ypioros (with none of our mss): om ABCDLN rel.—xpior. no. C3D
vulg syr Orig, Ath, Chr, Max Damase Hil Jer Augsepe Ambrst Sedul: txt ABLN rel
Orig, Marcell-in-Eus Ath, Arnob: om mjc. C!. (The rec ino.o xp. appears to have
been a corrn to give a doctr inal meaning—‘ Jesus (is) the Christ.” xp. ino. may have
had the same intention, cf ch xii. 3.)
12. om TovToy ABCIN' sah Ambr (perhaps from similarity of endgs ; or as unneces-
sary): ins C3DLN? rel latt syrr copt Orig Ath Cyr-jer Chr Thdrt Thl (ic Aug Jer.
Xpuvotoy k. apyuptov B73 Clem: xpucvoy apyupioy N: apyvproy C.
13. for exacrov to yevnoeTat, 0 Tongas TovTO TO Epyoyv pavepos yevntat D' Ambrst,
not, ‘by me,’ but ‘by God,’ for universal
Christendom; but actually laid in each
place, as regards that church, by the
minister who founds it. De Wette denies
this universal reference, as introducing a
new element into the context. But surely
the reference in 6 OeuéAtos 6 Kelwevos is
too direct to the well-known prophecy of
the divinely-placed foundation or corner-
stone, to surprise any reader or divert
his mind from the train of thought by a
new element. *Iqocots xpiotds, THE
PERSONAL, HISTORICAL CHRIST, as the
object of all Christian faith. Ifit be read
as in rec., "Incovs 6 xpiorés, it need not
necessarily be, that Jesus is the Christ,
but may be in this case also, JESUS THE
Cunrist ;/ not any doctrine, even that of
the Messiahship of Jesus, is the foundation,
but Jesus HiMSELF (see var. readd.).
12.] The 8€ implies that though
there can be but one foundation, there are
many ways of building upon it. To the
right understanding of this verse it may be
necessary to remark, (1) that the similitude
is, not of many buildings, as Wetst. and
Billroth,—but of one, see ver. 16,—and
that raised on Christ as its foundation ;
—different parts of which are built by the
ministers who work under Him,—some
well and substantially built, some ill and
- unsubstantially. (2) That gold, silver, &e.,
refer to the matter of the ministers’ teach-
ing, primarily ; and by inference to those
whom that teaching penetrates and builds
up in Christ, who should be the living
stones of the temple : not, as Orig., Chrys., ie
Theodoret, Theophyl., Phot., Augustin, Je-
rome, &e., to the moral fruits produced by
the preaching in the individual members of
the church,—e?% tis kakdy Bioy Eyer pera
mictews Ops, ov mpooThoeTar avTov 7
nloris eis TO uh KoAdCeoOat, Chrys. (3)
That the builder of the worthless and un-
substantial és iz the end SAVED (see below):
so that even ds preaching was preaching
of Christ, and he himself was in earnest.
(4) That what is said does not refer, except
by accommodation, to the religious life of
believers in general—as Olsh., Schrader,
see also the ancient Commentators above ;
—but to the DUTY AND REWARD OF
TeacuEers. At the same time, such accom-
modation is legitimate, 7x so far as each
man is w teacher and builder of himself.
(5) That the various materials specified
must not be fancifully pressed to indicate
particular doctrines or graces, a e. g.
Schrader has done, “ Some build with the
gold of faith, with the silver of hope, with
the imperishable costly stones of love,—
others again with the dead wood of unfruit-
fulness in good works, with the empty straw
of a spiritless, ostentatious knowledge, and
with the bending reed of a continually-
doubting spirit.” Der Apostel Paulus, iv.
p- 66. This, however ingenious, is beside
the mark, not being justified by any indica-
tions furnished in our Epistle itself. An
elaborate résumé of the very various minor
differences of interpretation may be seen in
Meyer’s Comm. ed. 2, in loe. Cf. also
Kstius’s note; and Stanley’s. AOaus
vTurtous | Not ‘gems,’ but ‘costly stones,’
as marbles, porphyry, jasper, &e., compare
1 Kings vii. 9 ff. By the gvAa, xépror,
kaAdunv, he indicates the various per- °
versions of true doctrine, and admixtures of
false philosophy which were current: so
Kstius, “ doctrina non quidem heretica et
perniciosa, talis enim fundamentum de-
struereé: sed minus sincera, minusque
solida; veluti si sit humanis ac philoso-
phicis, aut etiam Judaicis opinionibus ad-
mixta plus satis: si curiosa magis quam
utilis ; si vana quadam oblectatione mentes
occupans Christianas.””? Comm. i. p. 268 B.
18.] Each man’s work (i. e. that
which he has built: Ais part in erecting the
oixodouy Geov) shall (at some time) he
494
o=ch. i. 8 reff.
1 Thess. v.4. O&TQAL’
Heb. x. 25.
p ch. i. li reff.
y = Rom. 1. 18
reff. see
2 Thess. i.7,
id A
n Dodi
Avmrerat, Kat
14 ey
Ss } iA
OK(IMaOEL.
8.
ry Acts xxVi. 29 HOEY,
relt. M pe
s = Luke xiv. 19. ch. xi. 28. 2 Cor. xiii.
u vv. 105 12, v ver. 8.
(See ch v. 2.)
ITPOX KOPINOIOYS A.
¢ ’
"nepal pukwoet, ort E&Y Tupi
TLWVOC TO
‘ woov Anuerar.
5. 1 Pet.i.7. Zech. xiii. 9.
w Matt. iii. 12] L. xiii. 30. Acts xix. 19 al.
LUE.
q?
avToKa-
if -s ,
ékaorou TO Epyov peaete EOTLY TO Tup auto
a
* mevet O ” erotkooo-
éo-yov
15 oy yf w
él TLUOCc TO epyov KkaTjTa-
t = Rom. ix. 11 reff.
Gen. XxxvViii. 24.
rec om avo (as unnecessary: but see note), with DLN rel Clem
Orig, Chr-mss, Thdrt; Thl (ie: ins ABC m sah Orig, Eus Bas Chr Thdrt, Procop.
14. rec erwxodounoer, with B2C rel: txt AB!DLN 0 17.
made evident (shall not always remain in
the present uncertainty, but be tested, and
shewn of what sort itis): for the day shall
make it manifest (the day of the Lord, as
Vulg., ‘dies domini:’ see reff.,—and so
most Commentators, ancient and modern.
The other interpretations are (1) ‘the day
of the destruction of Jerusalem, which
shall shew the vanity of Judaizing doc-
trines: so Hammond (but not clearly nor
exclusively), Lightf., Schéttg., al..— against
both the context, and our Apostle’s habit
of speaking, and under the assumption, that
nothing but Jewish errors are spoken of :—
(2) < the lapse of time,’ as in the proverb,
‘dies docebit ;;—so Grot., Wolf, Mosheim,
Rosenm., al., which is still more incon-
sistent with the context, which necessitates
a definite day, and a definite jive :—(3)
‘the light of day,’ i.e. of clear knowledge,
as opposed to the present time of obscurity
and night: so Calv., Beza, Erasm. :—but
the fire here is not a life-giving, but a
consuming flame; and, as Meyer remarks,
even in that case the 7uépa would be that
of the mapovaia, see Rom. xiii. 12 :—(4)
‘the day of tribulation ’—so Augustin,
Calov.: but this again is not definite
enough: picddv Afjerar can hardly be
said of mere abiding the test of tribula-
tion) ;—because it (the day—not, the work,
as Theophyl., Cicum., al., which would
introduce a mere tautology with the next
clause) is (to be) revealed (the present
awoxadvmrerat expresses the definite cer-
tainty of prophecy: or perhaps rather the
attribute of that day, which is, to be re-
vealed, &e., as in the expressions 6 meipa (wy,
6 omelpwy, &e.) in fire (‘ accompanied,’
‘ clothed,’ ‘ girt,’ ‘ with fire;’ i. e. fire will be
the element inwhich the day will berevealed.
Cf. 2 Thess. i. 8, and Mal. iii. 2, 3, iv. 1,
to which latter place the reference is,—see
LXX. But notice, that this is not the fire
of hell, into which the gold, silver, and
costly stones w ill never enter, but the fie
of judgment, in which Christ will appear,
and by which al/ works will be tried. This
universality of trial by fire is equally against
the idea of a purgatorial fir e, which Tucr ra-
tive fiction has been mainly based by the
Romanists on a perversion of this passage.
See Aug. de Civ. Dei xxi. 26. 4,-vol. vii.
p- 745, who mentions the idea with ‘non
redarguo, quia forsitan verum est.’ See
Estius, who does not maintain the allusion
to Purgatory here ; and Bisping, who does),
and each man’s work, of what kind it is,
the fire itself shall try (this clause does
not depend upon 671, but ranges with the
following futures. It is a question whether
épyov is nom. or acc.,—of what kind each
man’s work is | Meyer |,—or as above. In
the only other places where Paul uses
émotos, Gal. ii. 6, 1 Thess. i. 9 [see also
Acts xxvi. 29], it commences a clause, as
here if pyov be accus. ;—we have a very
similar expression, Gal. vi. 4, 7d &pyov
éavTov Soxiualérw exaoros :—and it seems
more natural that the action of the fire
should be described as directly passing
upon the work. For these reasons, I pre-
fer the accus. To mip avo, the fire
itself, of its own power, being a mvp Kkat-
avadlokov. 14.) If any man’s work
shall remain (i.e. stand the fire,—being
of inconsumable materials. jevet fut. (so
latt syrr coptt), is better than the pres.
of rec., as answering to ef. . KaTa-
kahoetat below), which he built on the
foundation,—he shall receive wages (as
a builder ;—i. e. ‘shall be rewarded for his
faithful and effectual work as a teacher’):
15.] if any man’s work shall be
burnt up (i.e. consist of such materials
as the fire will destroy: Stanley adds,
«It is possible that this whole image, as
addressed to the Corinthians, may have
been suggested, or at least illustrated, by
the conflagration of Corinth under Mum-
mius: the stately temples [one of them
remaining to this day | left standing amidst
the universal crash and destruction of the
meaner buildings”), he shall be muleted
(Gynuiwd., scil. rv pucbdy, see ref. Matt.,
and Herod. vii. 89, rod 5& évds, Tod mepi-
éxeat mdAdiota, Thy Wuxhy Cnudceat, and
Plat. Lege. vi. p. 774, eis wey ody xpnh-
bata 6 uy OéAwy youeivy Tocadta Cnut-
ovc6w): but he himself shall be saved
ABCD
Leabe
defgh
kilmn
017
F(and
also G)
OLKEloee
ABCDF
LNabe
defgh
kimn
017
14—17.
IPOS KOPINOIOYS. A.
495
, x , acy com ON \ f Via Sx Matt. xvi.
Kanoerat, *CnutwOnosrat’ avtoc S& owlnoerat, * ovrwc Se = Matt oor
c Q , > of ” b ‘ =e vii. 9. Phil.
Yac *dta muooc. °* ove * oleate Ort nang Oeov eore jilsonty..
CA
‘ i ~ ~
Kat TO mvevma TOU Ozov *
~ ~ d
tov Osov
zsee Isa. xliii.2. Zech. xiii. 9.
16. (2 Thess, ii. 4 al.) Jer. vii. 4.
33. 2 Cor. vii.2. xi.3. Eph. iv. 22.
word, ch. vi. 12.
16. ev vu bef oes Bm 17.
17. for p@cper, pOeper DF am:
OLKEL Ev vuty 5
pleioe, ° p0coet tovToy 0 Oe6c" 0 yap > yaoe TOU
a Rom. vi. 16.
2 Pet. ii. 12.
pOepet L.
Prov. xix. 19.
b \
- et mus cn VaOov _ xi. 3.
y ch. iv. 1. ix.
26. Eph. v.
33. James
ii. 12
ch. v. 6 al. b=ch. vi.19. 2 : Cor. vi.
c Rom. vii. 17 reff. d= here bis. ch. xv.
JndelvU. Rey. xix.2only. Isa. liv. 16. play on
for Tovtov, avtov (corn as more
usual) ADF Syr syr-marg Chr,, ¢ddwm latt Iren-int Cypr: txt BCL rel syr coptt Mac
Did Amphil Chr, Thdrt Th] He.
(having held, and built on, the true foun-
dation Jesus Christ, he shall not be ex-
cluded from that salvation which is the
Sree gift of God to all who believe on
Christ, but shall get no especial reward
as a faithful and effectual teacher. Cf. 2
John 8, BAémete Eavtot’s, va mh atro-
Aéeonre & eipyardpeba, GAAG pro Odv wAH-
py aroAdBnte. Meyer remarks, that our
Lord hints at such persons under the name
of ێrxato1, Matt. xx. 16; Mark x. 31), but
so, as through fire:—i. e. as a builder
whose building was consumed would escape
with personal safety, but with the loss of his
work. Chrys., Theophyl., ic., strangely
understand it, that he shall be burnt for
ever in the fire of Hell, unconsumed: ovx?
kal avrTds oUT ws aToAECITAL WS TH epya, eis
Td pndev Xwpav' GAAA pevel ev TH mupl,
Chrys. od Cerau, TOUTETTH, o@os TnpEtrat.
dixas aiwviovs tréxwyv, Theophyl. But
(1) the fire of Hell is quite alien from the
context (see above),—and (2) the meaning
given to o@(ec@a: is unexampled,—and
least of all could be intended where the
coming of the Lord is spoken of: ef. infer
alia, ch. v. 5, mapadotvatk.T.A.... « até
Tvevpa cwOn ev TH HwEpa T. KUpiov.
Grot., Elsn., al., explain @s 61a mupds asa
proverb, ‘tanquam ex incendio,’ for ‘ with
difficulty.’ But this is needless here, as
the figure itself is that of an ‘incendium :
and ws is not ‘tanquam,’ but belongs to
oUTws, see reff. The whole imagery of
the passage will be best understood by
carefully keeping in mind the key, which
is to be found in the @eod oikodoun, and
the vads Geov, as connected with the pro-
phecy of Malachi iii. and iv. There, eé-
alpyns hte: eis Toy vady éavTod KUpios...
avTos cismopeveTat ws mUP XwvevTHplou...
KaMetrar xwvevov Kal KabapiCwy as Td ap-
yupiov Kal @s To xpuotov..... didtt idov
juépa epxeTar katomevy ws KAlBavos, kK.
prcter avtovs, kal €oovTar... KaAgy, K
dvdwer avtods ) hucpa 7 epxouevn. The
Lord thus coming to His temple in flaming
fire, all the parts of the building which will
not stand that fire will be consumed: the
builders of them will escape with personal
salvation, but with the loss of their work,
through the midst of the conflagration.
16—23.] The figure is taken up
afresh and carried further: and made
the occasion of solemn exhortation, since
they were the temple of God, not to mar
that temple, the habitation of His Spirit,
by unholiness, or by exaltation of human
wisdom : which last again was irrelevant,
as well.as sinful; for all their teachers
were but their servants in building them
up to be God’s temple,—yea all things
were for this end, to subserve them, as
being Christ's, by the ordinance, and to
the glory of God the Father. 16. |
The foregoing figures, with the occasion
to which» they referred, are now dropped,
and the oikodouy Oeod recalled, to do fur-
ther service. This building is now, as in
Mal. i. 1, and as indeed by implication in
the foregoing verses, the temple of God
(vads Gov, with emphasis on vads, not bcov
vads), the habitation of His Spirit.
ovK oldate Gtt—Are ye ignorant that...
an expression of surprise arising out of their
conduct. Kal... €vuptivev @, TouT-
éotiv, ev buy. Meyer rightly remarks,
that “‘vads @eod is the temple of God, not a
temple of God: for Paul does not conceive
(as Theodoret, al.) of the various churches
as various temples of God, which would
be inconsistent with a Jew’s conception of
God’s temple, but of each Christian church
as, sensu mystico, the temple of Jehovah.
So there would be, not many temples, but
many churches, each of which is, ideally,
the same temple of God.” And, we may
add, if the figure is to be strictly justified in
its widest acceptation, that all the churches
are built together into one vast temple: cf.
év & Kal vets cuvorkodopetoGe, Eph. ii.
22. 17.| @etper, mars, whether
as regards its unity and beauty, or its
purity and sanctity : here, the meaning is
left indefinite, but the latter particulars are
certainly hinted at,—by @yos below.
Gepet, either by temparal death (Mey.),
as in ch. xi. 30; or by spiritual death,
496
e = Rom. vi. 2
f Rom, vii. 1h
reff.
g =ch. viii. 2.
xiv. 37.
Gal. vi. 3.
Phil. iii. 4.
James i, 26,
h Kom. xii.
2 reff.
ich, i, 25 reff.
K ch. i. 18 reff.
1 Rom. ii. 12.
Gal. ili. L! al, TH)
m Jog v. 13(but g
KaTuNap.-
Bavev and
ppovice).
® here enly.
Levit. i. 2. y. 12.
- cov aytoc eoruy,
EOTLY. yéyparat yap"
ie)
Tavovoyia autor.
Num. v. 26. (Ps. ii. 12, w. gen.)
IIPOS KOPINOIOY®S A.
“ olriwic EoTE DILELC.
" atove " TOUTW), ‘ pwpde yevtaie, i wa yévnrat sopoe.
yap copia TOU koopou Trourau
20
dtadoytcnove THY copay
III. 18—23.
© pndete EaUTOV
“eGarrarare” el oe 5 Soxet sopoc elvat év vay éy Tw
19 5
* pwota Tapa [7 | be
Oe? Spaccomevoc rouc sopoue ev
\ a 4 uA A
kat wad Kvoue yuwwoke TOUC
21s
q o Je) r +,
OTL ELOLV LaTatol. WCTE
5 Avent t 6 t? b) @ , 7 ’ Warn thie to
fAyOELC KaU\ ao ®@ EV av OWT OIC TavTa yap ULV EoTW,
Herod. iii. 13.
Jos. B. J. iii. 8. 6. Dion. Hal. ix. 21.
9° (=) Luke xx. 23, 2 Cor. iv. 2. xi. 3. Eph.iv.14 only. Josh. ix.4(10), (-yos, 2 Cor. xfi. eh p = Rom.
1.21, Jamesii.4. Psa, xciii. 11. q constr., ch. xvi, 15 al. fr. Winer, edn. 6, § 66. 5. a. r Acts
xiv. 15. ch. xv.17. Tit. iii. ¥. Jamesi 26. 1 Pet.i. 18 only. Exod. xx, 7. 8 = ch. iv. 5, tch.
4.31, Rom. ii, 17 reff. u gen, ch. i. 12,
Rom, xiv, &
2 Tim, ii. 19,
18. aft ctamatarw ins Kevors Agvyors (see Eph v. 6) D 23-marg 73. 118.
19. rec ins tw bef ew (corrn:
ai. avOpwrw F lat-ff(not Pelag Bede).
which is more probable, seeing that the
figurative temple is spoken of, not (as
Mey.) the material temple :—and as ¢em-
poral death was the punishment for de-
filing the material temple (Hxod. xxviii. 43.
Levit. xvi. 2 al. fr.), so spiritual death for
marring or defiling of God’s spiritual tem-
ple. Gytos, the constant epithet of
vads in the O. T., see Ps. v.75 x. 5 (LXX).
Hab. ii. 20, and passim. olTLves, i.e.
&yto1, not, ‘which temple are ye, which
would be tautological after ver. 16, and
would hardly be expressed by ofrives, ‘ut
qui, or ‘ quales.” Meyer well remarks, that
oltiwés éore juwets is the minor proposition
of a syllogism :—‘ Whoever mars the tem-
ple of God, him will God destroy, because
His temple is holy: but ye also, as His
ideal temple, are holy :—therefore, whoever
mars you, shall be destroyed by God.
18—20.] A warning to those who
would be leaders among them, against self-
conceit. 18.] é§arardtw, not, as
Theophyl., vout(wy ore &AAws Exer 7d
Tpayua kad odx w&s eitoy:—it is far more
naturally referred to what follows, viz.
thinking himself wise, when he must be-
come a fool in order to be wise. If any
man thinks that he is wise among you in’
this world (cv 76 ai. tovt@ belongs to
done? cop. ely. ev bu.,—to the whole as-
sumption of wisdom made by the man,
which as made in this present world, must
he false : not (1) merely to copés, Grot.,
Rickert, al..—as the arrangement of the
words shetvs,—nor (2) to uwpds yeverdw,
Orig., Chrys., Luther, Rosenm., al., in
which case, the stress being on swpés, it
must have been pwpds yeverdw ev TE
aidvi tovT@), let him become a fool (by
receiving the gospel in its simplicity, and
but art is unnecessary aft prepn), with ABLX rel
Orig, Chr Thdrt: om CDF b! o Clem Orig,.
om yep D!. om 6 and tous F.
so becoming foolish in the world’s sight),
that he may become (truly) wise.
19.] Reason why this must be :—shewn
from Scripture. mapa @., in the
judgment of God, reff. & Spacc. |
The sense of the Heb. is equally expressed
by the Apostle and the LXX. The words
are taken out of the context as they stand,
which accounts for the participle, see Heb.
i. 7. The sense is, ‘If God uses the craft
of the wise as a net to catch them in, such
wisdom is in His sight folly, since He
turns it to their confusion.” “8pagra0pe-
vos [ possibly a provincialism | is substituted
for KaTakaupdver, as a stronger and live-
lier expression for ‘grasping,’ or ‘ catching.
with the hand”” Stanley. Cf. Judith
Saiille Yf- 20.| The LXX have dvépd-
mwyv (Heb. 03s); the Psalmist however is
speaking of the proud, ver. 2 f., and such,
when S:aAoyiomof are in question, would
be the worldly wise. 21—23. |
warning to them in general, not to boast
themselves in human teachers. 21.]
sre, viz. seeing that this world’s wisdom
is folly with God: or perhaps as a more
general inference from what has gone be-
fore since ch. i., that as the conclusion
there was, 6 Kavyémevos, ey Kupiw Kav-
xdéo0w,—so now, having gone into the
matter more at length, he concludes, undets
Kavxdc0w ev dvOpdmos. This boasting in
men is explained in ch. iv. 6 to mean 7
cis bmép Tod Evds pvowdcba Kara Tod Eré-
pou. kavyao9w after dsre isa change of
construction. A somewhat similar change
oceurred in the parallel ch. i. 31, wva....
kavxdo0w: but there, by the citation being
adduced in its existing ‘form. TwavTa,
yap tp. éor. | «For such boasting is a
degradation to those who are heirs of all
ABCDF
~ LNabe
defga
klmn
017
ENS 5 2:
ILPO KOPINOIOY®S A.
497
299, Y - of - \ / - f ’ =
aoe ELE [avAog ELTE ae LTE Knpac, ELTE KognGe ysaRon =i
. 0
, uu
Lire "Gem eire “ Pavaroc, etre “* eveotora eirE ee be
36 - 8s 2 & = a zat? Thess,
mavra " WMov UMEL loTOU o é "Oso ti.
Ga ? li ¢ Xx? Y xP Tog ia pace XIV.
Eva ‘Obroe i neac " Aoyiléaben ° avOpwroc, * 6
* otkovomouc *pvotnolwy Qzov.
Xeusrou Kal
b = ch. xi. 28. Gal. vi. 1.
«x11. 42. xvi. 1, &c.) ech. ii. 7 reff.
22. atoAAw F.
ec = Acts xiii. 5 reff.
ins 80 bef vuwy F.
af £33. E Now ri viii. 34
reff. ix. 8.
d= Tit.i.7. 1 Pet.iv.10. (Luke
f = Col. iv. 9. Heb. xiii. 14. g ch. i. 16 ret.
newy, and in ver. 23 ques B17. 48.
rec at end ins eotiv, with D?3L rel vulg Chr Thdrt: om ABCD'FN 17 Dial
Aug Ambrst.
CuHap. IV. 1. ins tov bef @eou F.
things, and for whom all, whether minis-
ters, or events, or the world itself, ave
working together :’? see Rom. viii. 28: and
iv. 13. 22, 23.| Specification of some
of the things included under mavta: and
Jirst of those teachers in whom they were
disposed to boast,—in direct reference to
ch. i. 12. But having enumerated Paul,
Apollos, Cephas, he does not say «fre xpt-
otés, but adding the world itself and its
events and circumstances, he reiterates the
mavTa vuay as if to mark the termination
of this category, and changing the form,
concludes with duets 5€ (not only one part
of you) xpiorov" xpiords 5E Oeod (see
below). The expressions (#7, @dvaros,
eveoT@ta, wéeAAovTa, have nothing to do
with the teachers, as Chrys., Theophyl.,
Grot..—7 (wh, ono, Tay SidackdrAwy 50
buas e€orw iva wpedAno9e Sidackduevor’ k.
6 Odvatos aTav BC tuas* bmep buadv yap
Kiwduvevovor Kal THs bueTépas ocwrnpias,
Theophyl.,—and “presentia, .. . lingua-
rum et sanationum dona.... futura,....
rerum futurarum revelationes,’ Grot.,—
but are perfectly general. éveoTaTa
is things actually present,—see note on
2 Thess. ii. 2. 23.] Onthe change of
the possessives, see above :—Christ¢ is not
yours, in the sense in which rdévra are, —
not made for and subserving you—but (5)
you are His,—and even that does not reach
the Highest possession: He possesses not
you for Himself; but (S€ again) Kepadr
Xpiorov 6 Oeds, ch. xi. 3. Curist Him-
SELF, the Incarnate God the Mediator,
belongs to God, is subordinate to the
Father, see John xiv. 28; and xvii. pas-
sim. But this mediatorial subordination
is in no way inconsistent with His eternal
and co-equal Godhead : see notes on Phil.
li. 6—9; and on ch. xv. 28, where the sub-
jection of all things to Christ, and His
subjection to the Father, are similarly set
forth. There is a striking similarity
in the argument in this last verse to that
Vot. II.
in our Lord’s prohibition, Matt. xxiii.
8—10. See Stanley’s beautiful note.
IV. 1—5.] He shews them the
right view to take of Christian ministers
(vv. 1, 2); but, for his part, regards not
man’s judgment of him, nor even judges
himself, but the Lord is his Judge (vv. 8,
4). Therefore let them also suspend
their judgments till the Lord’s coming,
when all shall be made plain.
1.] ovTws, emphatic, preparatory to ds,
as in ref. avOpwrros, as E. V., a man,
in the most general and indefinite sense,
as ‘man’ in German: not a Hebraism,
nor = €xagtos. The whole is opposed to
Kavxno.s éy avOpdmos: the ministers of
Christ are but subordinates to Him, and
accountable to God. Hpas, here,
not, ‘ws ministers generally, see below,
er. 6, but ‘myself and Apollos, as a
sample of such. tmnp. xptarod, see
ch, ii. 5, 22, 23. But in otkov. pot.
Oeov we have a new figure introduced.
The Church, 1 Tim. iii. 15, is the ol«os
6cov—and those appointed to minister in
it are olxovduo., stewards and dispensers
of the property and stores of the vixodec-
métns. ‘These last are the wvorhpia, hid-
den treasures, of God,—i. e. the riches of
his grace, now manifested in Christ, ch.
ii. 7; Rom. xvi. 25, 26, which they an-
nounce and distribute to all, having re-
ceived them from the Spirit for that | pur-
pose. ‘‘ Ka mysteria sunt incarnationis,
passionis et resurrectionis Christi, redemp-
tionis nostre, vocationis gentium, et cetera
que complectitur evangelica doctrina.”
Kstius, who also, as a Romanist, attempts
to include the sacraments among the pua-
Thpia in this sense. The best refutation
of this is given by himself: ‘sed cum ipse
Paulus dixerit primo capite, Non misit me
Christus baptizare, sed evangelizare, rec-
tius est ut mysteria Dei intelligantur fidei
nostre dogmata.” It may be doubted,
whether, in the NV. T. sense of pvotnpia,
Kee
498
a
h = 2 Cor. xiii
3. (ch.i22,) VOV
i= Matt.i. 18. 3k 2
IIPOS KOPINOIOY= A.
EWS
h vs, ’ (tile 2 , ef , Bie C-)
Cnretrae évy TOLG OLKOVOMOLC LYVAa TLOTOE TIC evoe0y.
\ Nae) Whe , > me Ci Sane ~ n? ~
Rats v.80, Emo Of ELC eXaytotov Early wa up vw avaxcoo
Rom. vii. 10. y e¢ «4
2 Cor, v. 3.
Phil. ii. 8. ee
Neh. ix. 8.
k dat , Rom.
xiv. 14.
1= Acts xix.
as
27.
va constr., Matt. *
x. 25. xviii. Ly
6.
n Acts iv. 9 reff. o Acts xvii. 25 reff.
r Acts v. 2. xil. 12. xiv. 6 only. Lev. v. 1.
v.9. ch. vi. ll. Gal. ii. 17. iii. 11. v. 4.
Job xxvii. 6 only.
t =ch. iii. 21.
> ' € FY >) , ,’ \ > ‘ >
°avfowmtvnc ? nuzoac’ 4 adX Toude E“avTov " ava-
' % 4 > \ ‘ ’ =~ 7 , > ’ > s? ,
Kole ovoEev yap suautTy cuvotoa, aAX ouK * Ev TOUTH
s 8 5 ' ae 8s n? t , , ? Rt
edikaiwnal’ oO O& "avaKolywY fe KUPLOG EOTLV.
e
(WCTE
u Sed ES: / oe n t ¢€ , a \
TpPo Kalpou me KOULVETE, EWC aV EAOy oO Kuoloc, oc Kal
p —ch. i. 8 reff.
gq = Acts six. 2. ch. iii. 2.
1 Mace. iv. 2h al.
s Acts xili. 39. Rom.
u Matt. viii. 29 only. Sir. xxx. 24.
2. rec 8 de Aoiwov, with D3L rel Orig Chr Thdrt Thl Ee: txt ABCD'FR 17 latt syrr
copt eth arm latt-ff.
mirtos Tis D'3: ris bef moros D?F goth.
3. quo A. akAa D'.
4. for de, yap NI.
the sacraments can be in any way reckoned
as such: for wvor. is a (usually divine)
proceeding, once hidden, but now revealed,
or now hidden, and to be revealed ; under
neither of which categories can the sacra-
ments be classed. 2.| Moreover, here
[on earth] (see var. readd. and reff. ae
is emphatic, and points to what follows,
that though in the case of stewards
enquiry was necessarily made here below,
yet he, God’s steward, awaited no such
enquiry i7d avOpwrlyns juepas, but one at
the coming of the Lord. Lachmann, I
eannot but think somewhat. strangely,
places @S¢e at the end of ver.1: oixovdmous
pvoTnptwy Ocov wde. Stanley takes ode
for ‘in this matter,’ and supports the
meaning by Rev. xiii. 10, 18; xiv. 12;
xvii. 9) enquiry is made in the case of
stewards (or, it is required in the case of
stewards), in order that (or that, the
purport of the requirement expressed as
its purpose) a man may be found (proved
to be) faithful (emph.). 3.] But
to me (contrast to the case of the
stewards into whose faithfulness enquiry
is made @dc, here on earth) it is (amounts
to) very little (Meyer compares és xdpw
tédAeTat, Pind. Ol. i. 122, and Theognis,
162, ois 7d Kakdv Soxéov vyiyveTat ets
aya0dv) that I be (the fa, here and
always, is more or less the conj. of pur-
pose. The construction is a mixed one in
such clauses as this, compounded of éAd-
xioT Ov eotTw avaKpiOjvat, and éAaxlorou
ty mpialuny, iva avaxpi0@) judged (en-
quired into, as to my faithfulness) by you,
or by the day of man (in reference to ad«
above, and contrast to the 7juépa Kuplov, to
which his appeal is presently made, ver. 5,
and of which, as testing the worth of the
labour of teachers, he spoke so fully ch. iii.
13—15. Jerome, Questiones ad Algasiam,
Ep. xxxi. [cli.] 10, vol. i. p. 879, num-
aft Aowoy ins Tt N': om N-corr?! ?
ACDER f gn 17 (and mss mentd by Gc): txt BL rel latt syrr &e.
(nreite (itacism ?)
evpeOn bef
at end ins @eos D.
bers the expression among the cilicisms of
the Apostle. Estius, al., suppose it to be
a Hebraism, referring to Jer. xvii. 16,
which is irrelevant. All these are pro-
bably wrong, and the expression chosen
purposely by the Apostle. Grot. com-
pares ‘diem dicere,’ ‘to cite to trial ;’
to which Stanley adds the English ‘ days-
man’ for arbiter [see Job ix. 33], and the
Dutch ‘dagh vaerden’ and ‘daghen,’ to
‘summon’),—nay, I do net judge even
(hold not an enquiry on: lit. ‘but nerther
do I, &c.) myself: 4.] for I am
conscious -to myself of no (official) de-
linquency (so Plato, Apol. p. 21, ote
peéya otte cuicpdy Evvoida euavte copds
év,—ib., Rep. i. Wetst., 7@ 5& pndev
éavt@ adlikwv tvveddre Hdecta eAmis ael
adpeott, and Hor., Epist. i. 1. 61, ‘Nil
conscire sibi, nulla pallescere culpa.’
The E. V., ‘I know nothing by myself,’
was a phrase commonly used in this ac-
ceptation at the time; cf. Ps. xv. 4, Com.
Prayer Book version, ‘He that setteth
not by himself, i.e. is not wise in his
own conceit. ‘I know no harm by him’
is still a current expression in the midland
counties. See Deut. xxvii. 16; Ezek.
xxii. 7, in E. V. So Donne, Serm. lvii.,
“If thine own spirit, thine own con-
science, accuse thee of nothing, is all well ?
why, I know nothing by myself, yet am I
not thereby justified.” This meaning of
‘by’ does not appear in our ordinary dic-
tionaries), but 1 am not hereby justified
(i.e. it is not this cireumstance which
clears me of blame—this does not decide
the matter. There can be no reference [as
Meyer] to forensic justification here, by
the very conditions of the context: for he
is speaking of that sods of the teacher,
which may be lost, and yet personal salva-
tion be attained, see ch. ili. 15); but he
that judges (holds an enquiry on) me is
ABCDF
LN abe
defgh
kimn
017
3—6.
Vv / ‘
pwrlios Ta
yz Bs \ ~ Zz 8 - \ , e
Bou ac TWV kao (WV, Kal TOTE O
Exaotw "amo tov Oeov.
6 Tavra é, adeApol, ©
"AmoX\XAW Oc Uma,
z Sir. xxxvii. 13.
15. Phil. iii. 21 only t.
xlii. 33. e = Rom. viii. 26 reff.
oe
wa
5. kpiwetat (ttacism ?) AN 3. 39. 48. 72.
Trov D1.
6. om de N!: ins &-corr!.
txt CDFLN-corr'(?) rel.
om to F 2.
copt Ath Chr-ms Cyr.
preceding. But I canhardly think this probable :
the Lord (Christ, the judge). 5. |
So then (because the Lord is the sole
infallible dijudicator) decide nothing (con-
cerning us, of merit or demerit) before the
time, until the Lord shall have come
(explains mpd kaip.), who shall also (iat,
inter alia: as part of the proceedings of
that Day: or both) bring to light (throw
light on) the hidden things of darkness
(general—all things which are hidden in
darkness), and shall make manifest the
counsels of the hearts (then first shewing,
what your teachers really are, in heart),
and then shall the (fitting) praise accrue
to each from God. €matvos is not a vor
media, praise or blame, as the case may be,
but strictly praise. Theophyl., Grot.,
Billr., Riick., Olsh., suppose the word to
be used euphemistically, ‘unde et con-
trarium datur intelligi, sed mavult «d-
onueiv,” Grot.: Calv., Meyer, al., think
that he speaks without reference to those
who will obtain no praise: “hee vox ex
bone conscientiz fiduecia nascitur.” Calv.
But I agree with De Wette, in thinking
that he refers to kavxacda ev av@padrors :
—they, their various parties, gave exag-
gerated praise to certain teachers: let
them wait till the day when the fitting
praise (be it what it may) will be ad-
judged to each from God; Christ as the
Judge being the épiouévos bd Tod Meo
kpitns, Acts x. 42, and so His sentences
being amb @eov. See also Acts xvii. 31,
and Rom. ii. 16, kpive? 6 Oedbs Ta KpuTTa,
Tav avOpdrwy,... 61% “Incov xpioTov.
6—18.] He explains to them
(ver. 6) that the mention hitherto of him-
self and Apollos (and by parity of reason-
ing, of Cephas and of Christ, in ch. i. 12)
has a more general design, viz. to ab-
stract them from all party spirit and
pride: which pride he then blames, and
puts to shame by depicting, as acontrast,
K
IIPOX KOPINOIOYS A.
w . ‘ = ? \
KovmTa TOU oKOTOUC Kal
HeTeoXnparioa ELC ee an
d?
ev nut waQnre ©
a Rom. ii. 29 (reff.).
1 Kings xxviii. 8 Symm. Jos. Antt. vil. lv. 5.
om es F,
ev vutv D! 117. 23. 115 syr copt Chr, Antch Bede.
rec (for &) 6, with DFL rel syr goth Chr Thdrt: txt ABCN 17 Syr
(Meyer and De W. think that &
499
x , ‘
, v = 2 Tim. i.
par egamee GS 10 only. Bos.
av b , Antt. viii. 5.
ETAaLVOC YEvyoETat 3. (Johni.
9 al.)
w Bd ii. 16
iy x Rom, i.19
AY bie here
only. ”2 Chron.
xxii. 5 al.
c 2 Cor. xi. 13, 14,
d = John xiii. 35. Gen.
TO un " Umeo a
b ch. i. 30 reff.
f =ch. x. 13. 2 Cor. xii. 6.
om os D!F Augsepe(ins,). om last
amto\Awv AB!N! (amo moAAwy B2) :
has been a corrn to suit tavta,
is it not more likely that in a pro-
the low and afflicted state of the Apostles
themselves. 6.| But (transeuntis :
he comes to the conclusion of what he has
to say on their party divisions) these things
(De Wette, Meyer, al., limit tatra to what
has been said since ch. iii. 5.. But there
surely isno reason forthis. The Apostle’s
meaning here must onall hands be acknow-
ledged to be, ‘I have taken our two names
as samples, that you may not attach your-
selves to and be proud of any party leaders,
one against another.’ And if these two
names which had been last mentioned, why
not analogously, those four which he had
also alleged in ch.i.12? There can be no
reason against this, except the determina-
ticn of the Germans to regard their Paulus-
parthei, and Apollos-parthei, and Petrus-
parthei, and Christus-parthei, as historical
facts, and consequent unwillingness to part
with them here, where the Apostle himself
by implication repudiates them as such) I
transferred (the epistolary aorist) to myself
and Apollos (i.e. when I might have set
them before you generally and in the ab-
stract as applying to all teachers, I have
preferred doing so by taking two samples,
and transferring to them what was true of
the whole. ‘This is far more probable than
the explanation of Chrys., al., that he put
in his own name and that of Apollos instead
of those of the real leaders of sects, conceal-
ing them on purpose. On petacyx., see
reff. and cf. Plato, Lege. XX P- 903,
petacxnmatiCav Ta mayo, olov ek mupos
bdwp,—and p. 906, tovTo 7d pijua mer-
ecxnuaticuéevoy, Meyer) on your account,
that ye by us (as your example: by
having our true office and standing set
before you) might learn this, ‘‘ Not
above those things which are written ”’
(i.e. not to exceed in your estimate of
yourselves and us, the standard of Scrip-
ture,—which had been already in part
K 2
500
v. indic. gd
2 toa Gal awa yeyoumrat, tva py"
fe Tit. ii. k ih
4. 1Jobn vy. TOU eTEpOV.
20.
h 1 Thess. v. 11.
pee EXadec3 et 8& Kat EAapec, TL
ch. v. 2. viii. 8 BN D > , 2 / no
1. xiii. 4, non KEKODEGLEVOL EOTE, NON
Col. ii. 18
onlyt. (-wors, 2 Cor. xii. 20.) k Rom. ii. 1 reff.
ch. i. 29 reff.
n Acts xxvii. 38 only.
18. Luke xii. 21.
Hos. xii. 8.
verbial exprn the sing seemed most appropriate, and thus &
TIPO KOPINOIOY®S A.
e «oN ~
Deut, xx xi. 20 only.
AVS:
e 4a 5 ~ ‘
‘evoc | guovovale Kata
ric yao GE _Staxpives 5 5 Tl o2 z ee Oo ouK
™ KavYacat we pn AaPov 3
° exAouTHoare, Ywole Huw
1=hereonly. see Acts xv. 9 reff. m absol.,
o 2 Cor. viii. 9. Rev. iii. 17,
has been corrd to 6 ?)
rec aft yeypamra: ins pyovery, with C(appy) Ca rel syrr goth Chr Cyr Thdrt: om
ABD'F®! latt Orig-lat-ff.
shewn to them in the citations ch. i. 19, 31;
ili. 19. To refer yéyparta to what has
been written in this Epistle, as Luth.,
Calov., Calv.(altern.),is quite inadmissible,
for, as Grot. remarks, “yéypamra: in his
libris semper ad libros Veteris Testamenti
refertur.” But he (and Olsh.) refer the
words to Deut. xvii. 20,—whereas it is far
better to give them a perfectly general re-
ference. Chrys., Theodoret,and Theophyl.
refer it to words of our Lord inthe N. T.,
such as Matt. vil. 1,3; xxiii. 12; Markx.
43, 44, but these could not be indicated by
yéypamrat,—cf. ch. vii. 10 and note.
The ellipsis, as here, of the verb in prohibi-
tory clauses with uj, is common enough :
thus, Aristoph. Vesp. 1179, un pol ays
nvbous. Soph. Antig. 577, wh tpiBas &r:,
a&AAG. vy wequl Cer” efaw. Demosth. Phil. i.
p- 46, uf mot wuplous bende Sisuuptous tevous.
Hartung, Partikellehre ii. 153, where see
more examples), that ye may not one on
behalf of another be puffed up against a
third (i.e. ‘that you may not adhere to-
gether in parties to the detriment or dis-
paragement of a neighbour who is attached
to a different party , There is a gram-
matical difficulty here, the occurrence of
tve with an indie. pres. This is variously
explained. See Winer, edn. 6, § 41. b. 1.
c. Some suppose that here, and in ref.
Gal. St. Paul has committed a philological
error in the formation of the subjunctive,
and written the indic. for it. It is at
least remarkable, that that other instance,
iva avrovs (ndotte, is also in the case of
a contracted syllable in ov,—so that we
might almost suppose that there was some
provincial usage of forming the subj. of
contracted verbs in ow, which our Apostle
followed. At all events (especially con-
sidering that we have two other cases of
iva with an indic., see reff.) it is better to
suppose a solecism or peculiar usage, than
with Meyer to give ta a local sense,—
‘where, i.e. ‘in which case ye are nol
(pres. for the future) puffed up,’—i.e. if
you keep to the Seripture measure: the
double iva of the purpose being, as he
himself observes, according to Paul’s
om 2nd un D
for u7ep, kata F.
usage, Rom. vii. 13; Gal. iii. 14; iv. 5,
al., and here being absolutely demanded
by the sense. 7.) For (reason why
this puffing up should be avoided) who
separates thee (distinguishes thee from
others? meaning, that all such conceits
of pre-eminence are unfounded. That
pre-eminence, and not merely distinction
[| Meyer], is meant, is evident from what
follows)? And (5¢ connects interr ogative
clauses, as Od. a. 225, tls dats, ris 5€
butdos 08 &mAero; and Il. ec. 704, ev0a
tlva mpatov, tiva 8 botaroy etevdpiter ;
See Hartung, Partikellehre, i. 169) what
hast thou which thoureceivedst not (from
God ’—not, ‘from me as thy father in
the faith’ )P but if (which i concede ;—
oreyat dé ei kal juiy avtots clo, GANG
pa AC ovx trmos; Xen. Cyr. vi. 1. 14.
Hartung, i. 140) thou receivedst it, &c.
He speaks not only to the leaders, but to
the members of parties,—who imagined
themselves superior to those of other par-
ties,—as if all, for every good thing, were
not dependent on God, the Giver.
8.]| The admonition becomes ironical:
“You behave asif the trial were past, and
the goal gained; as if hunger and thirst
after righteousness were already filled, and
the kingdom already brought in’ Keye-
dav avtovs eAeyev Oita TAXEWS mpos
To TEAOS epedoare, drep advvatov iv
yeverOat 51a Tov Kaipdv. Chrys. ‘The em-
phases are on #67 in the two first clauses,
and xwpls juev in the third. The three
verbs form a climax. Any interpretation
which stops short of the full meaning of
the words as applied to the triumphant
final state (so Grot., Est., Calvin, Wetst.,
al., interpreting them of Anowledge, of
security, of the lordship of one sect over
another), misses the force of the irony,
and the meaning: of the latter part of the
verse. xwpis Hpav | ‘because we, as
your fathers in Christ, have ever looked
forward to present you, as our glory and
joy, in that day, There is an exquisite
delicacy of irony, which Chrys. has well
caught : TOAAN Euacis évravda kal mpos
Tovs didacKdAous K. mpdos Tovs padnTas.
ABCDF
LNabec
defgh
klmn
017
7—11. IIPOS KOPINOIOY®S A. 501
= Rom. v.17.
ch. xv. 25.
A ” , 4
Kat TopeAov ye ? eBactAevoate, iva Kai”
Rev. v. 10.
P eBactAevoare.
c == (3 r , ~ , e ‘
MEIC UpPlyY oupPactArcvowper. 358 Soka ye; oO bevc ects
X11. 0.
c ~ ‘ > s ’ , 2 , c J 2 i
nuac Tove amooroXouc EO aTOUC amidetey oe” exBava- 9 ee"
' Rev. ili. 15
Aaidde OTt * Gear pov eyevn Onucv Tp KOom Kal ayyédoue only, anes
10 « rice
Kal avPowrorc. mpLetc ™ pwpot Sed yore) vgetc Oe oxviii. 5 only.
rz im. W. 1%
ov OL ew loTO)" TALEL © aobevet v at = io U ou only t.
Secs ts xP =. mete Nay ie 5 xt ai SUC Ue
UMELC EVvOOSOL, 1) MECC be aTtuol. ayol ene * aore woac Peer re 22
aN nc - \ 8 ~ \ e reff. (-&s,
Kat TEVWUEV Kal bomen Kal * yuuverebopev Kal KO™~ ch. ii. 4)
u here
only t. see note. v = here (Acts xix. 2%, 31) only ft. w ch. i. 25 reff. (see
ch. ii. 3, 14.) x Rom. xi. 25al. Prov, xi. 12. iron., 2 Cor. xi. 19. y Luke
vii. 25. xiii. 17. Eph. v. 27 only. 1 Kings ix. 6 al. z Matt. xiii. 57. Mark vi. 4. ch.
xii. 23 only. Isa. lili. 3. a Rom. viii. 22 reff. b here only. ce Rom.
xii. 20 refi. d here only t. e Matt. xxvi. 67 || Mk. 2 Cor. xii. 7. 1 Pet. ii. 20 only +.
8. wpedov D3L 1. om ye D'!F. ins ouy bef vu D!.
9. rec aft Soxw yap ins or, with D3LN? rel Chr Thdrt Ambr : om ABCD!FN! am(with
demid fuld tol) Clem Orig Cyr Damase Tert Thl Ambrst.
rec yupryntevomer (see note), with B?(sic:
11. for axp. ths, ews F.
see table) L
rel: txt A2CDFN ag h m, yuuvertevouey B!.—om your. ka Al.
Kal Td dovveldnt ov de avtTay SetkvuTa kK.
7d opdipa avdnTov. & yap Aéyet, ToITd
eoTW. ev Bey Tots mévots pnoly elvan
TdvTa Kowa Kal Nui K. duty, ev 5€ Tots
érddAos Kk. Tos oTEpavors bets TpOTo.
The latter part of the verse is said
bond fide and with solemnity: And I would
indeed (ye strengthens the wish; so 7 &
elAc? .. . Ss ye unwoT wperev AaBeiv...
Mevédaov, Eur. Iph. Aul. 70. Hartung,
i. 373. Odedov is used in LXX and
N. T. asa particle, with the indie. : also
with optative. See, for both, reff.) that
ye did reign (that the kingdom of the
Lord was actually come, and ye reigning
with Him), that we also might reign
together with you (that we, though
deposed from our proper place, might at
least be vouchsafed a humble share in
your kingly glory). 9.] For (and
there is abundant reason for this wish in
our present afflicted state) I think,—God
set forth (before the eyes of the world,—
the similitude is in @¢atpov following) us
the Apostles (meaning all the Apostles,
principally himself and Apollos) last (the
rendering of Erasm., Calv., Beza, al., us
who were last called to be Apostles, q. d.
Tovs am. TOUS €TX., OY TOUS eax. arocT.,—
is ungrammatical. éoxdrous, last and
vilest : not, ‘respectu priorum,’ last, as
the prophets were before us, as Corn.-
a-lap., and in part, Bengel) as persons
condemned to death (és Karadiicous,
Chrys. Tertullian seems to define the
ee too closely when, De Pudic. 14,
vol. p- 1006, he interprets it ‘veluti
Festiontos? Dion. Hal. vii. 35, says of
the Tarpeian rock, dev abrots 00s Baa-
Aew Tovs emiPavariovs)—for we are be-
come a spectacle (@éatpov = Ogawa: so
Achilles Tatius, i. p. 55 [Kypke], and
@gatpa mointav, Aschines, Dial. Socr. iii.
20 :—see eatpi(éuevor, Heb. x. 33) to the
world, as well to angels (good angels:
&yyero. absol., never either includes, or
signifies, bad angels) as to men (kéouw,
being afterwards specialized into angels
and yen). 10. | Again, the bitterest
irony: ‘how different our lot from yours !
How are you to be envied—we, to be
pitied !’ There is a distinction in da
xpictov and év xpictg—q.d. We are
foolish for Christ’s sake (on account of
Christ,—our connexion with Him does
nothing but reduce us to be fools),
whereas you are dpovipor év xpiora,
have entered into full participation of
Him, and grown up to be wise, subtle
Christians. aodevets —ioxvpot are
both to be understood generally: the
aoOévera is not here that of persecution,
but that of ch. ii. 3: the strength is the
high bearing of the Corinthians. Ye
are glorious (in high repute, party leaders
and party men, highly honoured and
looked up to), whereas we are un-
honoured. Then &@r:mo: leads him to en-
large on the disgrace and contempt
which the Apostles met with at the
hands of the world. 11—13.] He
enters into the particulars of this state
of affliction, which was not a thing past,
but enduring to the present moment.
11.] adxpu T. dpte pas is evidently not to
be taken strictly as indicative of the situa-
tion of Paul at the time of writing the
Epistle, but as generally describing the
kind of life to which, then and always, ie
and the other Apostles were exposed :
502
f here only t.
g Rom. xvi. 6,
12 reff.
h = Acts xviii.
3 reff.
i Eph. iv. 28.
1 ‘Thess. iv.
11. Wisd.
(ii. 14) xv. {US
17
AapiZoucOa Kat ‘aorarovper,
atc wiae ‘yepatv' * XoWooovpev
pevot Taig diac * yep odopovpevor
f1PO% KOPINOIOYS A. a be
\ ~ me ,
2 kat ® komumpev © éoyalo-
' evroyouney,
, > U , =
" Suwkopevot ” aveyoucOa, 19° Sucpnuovmevor ? maoakaAov-
c , ~ , 2 id 7
we Imeotkafaonata tov Koomov eyevnInusv, Tav-
% gee r / sv s ¥ ») t.2 , (ae ,
kacszxil 4 ray ‘ reopnua © ewe * apt. M4 obK EVT DET WY UAC ypapw
1 = Rom. xii ~ AON G t u? Ree 0 - 15 28
14 reff. TauTa, a WC TEKVA [LOU ayaTnra VOUUEeTW. éav
= Matt. v.
03 er ch. xv. 9. 2 Kings xxi. 5. n absol., 2 Cor. xi.4. (Acts xviii. 14 reff.) o here
only t+. 1 Mace. vii. dl only. (-ula, 2 Cor. vi. 8.) p absol., Lukeiii. 18. Rom xii. 8. 2 Cor. v.
20. 2 Tim. iv. 2 al.
xxii. 28 Schol. ap. Tromm.
only.
2 al.)
q here only.
u Rom. 1. 7 reif
12. Aoidop. kar evdA. and Siwk. kat avex. F.
Prov. xxi. 18 only.
s Matt. si. 12.
t act., here only. = pass., 2 Thess. iii. 14. Tit.ii. 8only. Ps. xxxiv. 26. (mid., Luke xviii.
v Acts xx. 31 reff. P.
rhere only t. Tobit v. ]8oniy, Jer.
John ii. 10. v.17. xvi. 24. ch. viii. 7. xv. 6. 1 John ii. 9
18. rec BAaopnpuoumeva: (substitution of more usual word), with BDFLN3 rel Orig,
Chr Thdrt: txt ACN! 17 Clem Orig, Eus Cyr Damase.
14. ravta bef ypapw DF k latt Pelag Ambrst.
17 Thi-txt: txt BDFL rel latt.
mara Sinyodmat mpdyuata, GAA’ Gaarep
kal 6 mapév jot Karpds pmaptupet. Chrys.
See, on the subject-matter, 2 Cor. xi.
23—27. yupvir.| are in want of
suificient clothing: cf. év Wye Kk. yuu-
vétntt, 2 Cor. xi. 27. Meyer (after
Fritzsche) believes yuuritebouey to be a
mistake in writing the word, of very
ancient date: but surely we are not justi-
fied, in such a conventional matter as the
form of writing a word, to desert the
unanimous testimony of the oldest MSS.
And we have the forms yuuvitns, and
yupviris: why not then yuurvitede ?
kodad.| are buffeted—see reff., there is
no need to press the strict meaning.
a@otat.| TovTeotiy, chavyducba, pevyouer.
Theophyl. 12.| As testimonies to
Paul's working with his own hands, see
Acts xviii. 3; xx. 34; ch. ix. 6; 1 Thess.
n. 9; 2 Thess. iii. 8. That the other
Apostles did the same, need not necessarily
be inferred from this passage, for he may
be describing the state of all by himself’ as
asample ; but it is conceivable, and indeed
probable, that they did. Aovd.i541c
k.7.A.| ‘So far are we from vindicating to
ourselves places of earthly honour and
distinction, that we tamely submit to re-
proach, persecution, and evil repute ;—nay,
we return blessing, and patience, and soft
words.’ 13.] wapax., av7) Tov, mpao-
T€pois Adyots K. MadraKTiKOTS GpmerBdueba.
Theophyl. Os Tepicaddppata| A
climax of disgrace and contempt, summing
up the foregoing particulars. We are be-
come as it were the refuse of the world.
mepik. from mepixabaipw, that which is
removed by a thorough purification, the
offal or refuse. So Ammonius (in Wetst.):
Kabdpyara, Ta mera TH KadapPjvar amrop-
pirtdéueva:—Theophylact, étay pumapdy
TL amogmoyylon Tis, TEepiKdBapua A€yeTat
mepucabapua D}.
adAa B. vovderwvy ACN
7) dmoordyyicua exeivoy: and similarly
(Ecum. Wetst. gives many examples of
the metaphorical usage of the term Ka9apua
as a reproach, from Demosth., Aristoph.,
Lucian, al., and of purgamentum in Latin.
mepixaddpuata is found in Arrian, Epict.
iii. 22, MIplapos, 6 viv yevynoas mept-
Kaddpuara. But Luther and very many
Commentators suppose the word to imply
piacula, as Schol., Aristoph. Plut. 454
(Wetst.), KaOdpuara €déyovto of emt
Kabdpoet Aoiuod Tivos 7H Tivos ETrepas vdcou
Ouduevor Tots Oeois, ToUTO bE TY Bos Kar
mapa “Pwuators erexpatnoe. Meyer well
remarks that mepixa@dpuara will hardly
bear this meaning, and that mepi¥nua
in the sing. would not suit it. Still we
may remark, with Stanley, that 7epe-
Kd8appa is so used in ref. Prov., and wepi-
wWypa in ref. Tobit : and that Suidas says,
mepivnua...., oUTMS ewEAEYOY TE KAT
eviauToy ouvéxovTt THY Kakov Mepibnua
Nu@Y yevou’ rol, cwrnpla Kab amodAdTpw-
ats’ Kal otws evéBadov TH Oaddoon ws-
avel TO TMocedavi OCvoiay amotivvuvtes.
mepiwp. | much the same as repikabdp-
pxara,—but the expression is more con-
temptuous :—the individual repiraddpuata
are generalized into one mepiyua, the Tod
xécuou is even further extended to rdvtwr,
—see ch. iii. 22. 14—21.] Conelu-
sion of this part of the Epistle :—in what
spirit he has written these words of blame:
viz. in a spirit of admonition, as their
Sather in the faith, whom they ought to
imitate. To this end he sent Timothy to
remind them of his ways of teaching,—
would soon, however, come himself,—in
mildness, or to punish, as the case might
require. 14. odK évtpemav]| not
as one who shames you, see reff., and
ch. vi. 5; xv. 34,—and for the force of
the participle, ch. ii. 1. vovdeT@
ABCDF
LNabe
defgh
kimu
o17
12—18.
yao " pupious “madaywyove E exnre év XotoTw,
ToAove matéoac” ev yap moiety *Incov Sta TOU evay-
yeAtou eyo Vac * eyévunaa.
* ayenyrat (lou yivente. W7 ova TOUTO Exempa upiv Tipdbcov,
oc corty ktOU réKvoY
IJPO= KOPINOIOYS A.
" ayamntoy Kal
508
w ch. xiv. 19.
Yarn’ ov Peat. XViil.
1 only.
Esther} iii. 9.
NG ms x Gal. iii. a
25 oni
Rap aKe @ ouy vuac, y=R fal SG |
ch. ix. 2.
2 Cor. xi. 6.
xiii. 4.
1 Mace. ii.
ToT Ov ev 19, 20.
Kupty, Oc
f = Phi .10.
vuac “avanynoe tac ‘ odvuc flov tac év XpLoTy, KaDwe pepe ees
£ ~ » , > 18 5 bch. xi. 1.
T ) , = Eph. y.1.
TAVTAXOU EV TASH exKAnola O1ouckw. wc My £00 Eph. v1.
8. ji.14. Heb. vi.12 onlyt. (-weto@uc, 2 Thess. iii. 7, 9.) edat., Acts xi. 29. Phil. ii. 19.
dsee Eph.i.l. Acts xvi. 15. e Mark xi. 21, xiv.72. 2 Cor. vii.15. 2 Tim.i.6. Heb. x. 32
only. Gen. viii. l vat. (-~ynors, ch. xi. 24.) f =ch, xii. 31. see Acts xiii. 10 reff. g Acts
XVil. 30 reff. h w. gen. abs., 2 Cor. v.20. 2 Pet.i 3. Soph. Gad. Tyr. li. Winer, edn. 6,
§ 65. 9.
15. om iycov B Clem Pac:
16. for ovy, 5¢ D'F.
17. aft tovto ins avto AN' 17.
ins ACDF'LN rel vulg Syr.
rec texvov bef «ou (corrn to more usual order),
with DFL latt Thdrt Thl (c lat-if: txt ABCN m 17 arm Chr Damase. for
TtisTov, TMiaTOS FE.
for xupiw, xpioTtw A.
xXpiatw, xp. incov CD?X bm o 17 vulg-ed syr copt Chr Damase lat-ff:
avapruvnoe(sic) A al. for
Kupiw ino.
DIF: txt ABD°L rel am(with demid al) Syr Orig Thdrt Th] Cc.
contrasts with évtpémwv ypdde, the con-
struction being purposely adopted, to set
in a more vivid light the paternal inten-
tion:—I am not writing these things
(vv. 8—13) as shaming you,—but I am
admonishing you as my beloved children.
15. ] Justification of the expression
TEKVa LOU. pvuptous, the greatest
possible number—see reff. Ta.day. |
He was their spiritual father: those who
followed, Apollos included, were but
tutors, having the care and education of
the children, “but not the rights, as they
could not have the peculiar affection of
the father. He evidently shews by
supious, that these maidaywyol were more
in number than he could wish,—including
among them doubtless the false and party
teachers: but to refer the word only
to them and their despotic leading (as
Beza, Calvin, al., and De Wette), or to
confine its meaning to the stricter sense of
madsaywyds, the slave who led the child to
school, is not here borne out by the facts.
See ref. and note: and for the wider sense
of watday., examples in Wetst. GAN’ ov
brings out the contrast strongly, giving
almost the sense of ‘at non ideo:’ so
sch. in Ctes. § 155, kal yap éav adra
diekin Ta ex TOU Whhicuatos mposTayuata,
GAN ov TOY ek THs adAnNOElas aicxpdy oiw-
mnOnjoetat. See Hartung, Partikellehre,
ii. 40. év yap xp.| For in Christ
Jesus (as the spiritual element in which
the begetting took place: so commonly év
xptoT@, applied to relations of life, see ver.
17, bis,—not to be joined as De W. with
eyo, gq. d. eyw yap ev x. “Inaou 5. T. ev.
bu. eyevvnoa) by means of the gospel (the
preached word being the instrument) I
(emphatic) begat you (there is also an
emphasis on buds, as coming before the
verb, q.d. in your case, I it was who
begat you). 16.] ovv, because I am
your father. ptpytat, not only, nor
perhaps chiefly, in the things just men-
tioned, vv. 9—13,—but as ver. 17, in
ai 6501 wou ai ev xp., my manner of life
and teaching. Sce reff. 17.] 8a
Tovto,—in order that you may the better
imitate me by being put in mind of my
ways and teaching : not, as Chrys., Theo-
phyl., al., ere:d) @s maidwy Khdouat, kal ws
yeyevynkas,—which would make ver. 16
a very harsh parenthesis, and destroy the
force of what follows. On the fact, see
Prolegg. to 2 Cope § | i. 4. TéKvov |
see 1 Tim. i. 2,18; 2 Tim. i. 2. Meyer
remarks, that by the ies use of the
word téxvoy in this passage (vv. 14, 15)
we have a certain proof that Timothy
was converted by Paul: see Acts xiv. 6,
7 and note. “The phrase seems to be
used here in reference to tTéxva dyamnra,
ver. 14: ‘I sent Timotheus, who stands
to me in the same relation that you stand
(in).’” Stanley. év kuptw | points
out the spiritual nature of the relation-
ship. avapyvyget] Timothy, by
being himself a close imitator of the Chris-
tian virtues and teaching of his and their
spiritual father, would bring to their minds
his well-known character, and way of teach-
ing, which they seemed to have well-nich
forgotten. See 2 Tim. iii. 10. Kalas
specities what before was expressed gene-
rally : so Luke xxiv. 19, 20, T& wep) “Incov
; . Stws Te Tapedwkay ad’Tdy of apx-
tepets x.T.A.; and Thucyd. i. 1, tov zo-
Aenov Tay TleA. k. °AO., OS émuAcunoar
504
i ver. 6 reff.
k= 2iCor iii.
Sir. Xx xix. 6. ‘
m1 Thess. i. 5. T1)
see Rom. xv.
18 reff.
n = Rom. xiv.
m , a 5) ‘
Ovvapuv 0
IIPOS KOPINOIOYS A.
t / ‘ jy ta bt , , k ‘
fMEVOU O€ fou TOOC vpac epvowlnoav TLVEC
9
ard’ ° ev duvaue. 7! ri OéderE;
ae
IV. 19—21.
19 edeb-
ov yao ev ™ Aoyw n " BactAsia tov ° Oeov,
Pa ey * paBdw EA\0w TOOC
J.
Wid x , > , s , , t DA .
oRom.i.4 ret, uuac, n ? ev ayamTy, Mvevpatl TE TOavTHTOS 5
8.
p=ch.v. 8
2 Cor. ii. 1. Eph. i. 8. iii. 12. iv.15, 17 al.
i. 8 al. s Rom. xi. 8 reff.
21. iii. 13. 1 Pet. iii. 15. Ps. xliv. 4.
18. om de F latt copt lat-ff.
19. om ov D!,
q Rev. ii. 27.
t Paul (2 Cor. x. 1.
aft Aoyov ins avtwy F.
Isa. x, 24. r Matt, x.10 ]. Heb.
Gal. v. 23. vi. 1 al4.) only, exc. James i.
Tov wepvoiwuevoy Lh m 8. 461-9.
57. 109-16 lectt 7. 12 Orig (not Clem Chr Thdrt &c).
21. rec mpaorntos, with DFLN rel(many greek fathers): txt ABC! or? 17 Damase.
mpos aAANAovs. WavTaxov €v 1.
exkX. | To shew the importance of this his
manner of teaching, he reminds them of his
unvarying practice of it: and as he was
guided by the Spirit, by inference, of its
universal necessity in the churches.
18—20.] To guard against misrepresenta-
tion of the coming of Timothy just an-
nounced, by those who had said and would
now the more say, ‘ Paul dare not come to
Corinth,’ he announces the certainty of his
coming, if the Lord will. 18.| os py
€pxopévov forms one idea, and the 6¢ is in
consequence placed after it all: so Thucyd.
i. 6, €v tots mpStor St "AOnvaia: Isocr.
mepl eip., p. 160, bt ay téxn BE yernad-
Hevoy. Hartung, Partikellehre, i. 190.
@s expresses the assumption in their minds:
the present part. épxouévou refers to their
saying—ov« &pxerat, as Meyer. 19. |]
€XeVoopar is prefixed, for emphasis, being
the matter in doubt: as we say, ‘Come I
will.’ taxéws | How soon, see ch.
xvi. 8. yooonar| I will inform
myself of—not the words of those who
are puffed up (those I care not for), but
their power: whether they are really
mighty in the Spirit, or not. This general
reference of ddv. must be kept, and not
narrowed, as Chrys., Theophyl., to power
of working miracles : or “ quantum apud
vos sua scientia et doctrina quam jactant
profecerint,” Est. ; or virtuous lives (Theo-
doret, al.), or energy in the work of the
gospel (Meyer): he leaves it general and
indefinite. 20.| Justification of this
his intention by the very nature of that
kingdom of which he was the ambassador.
9 Bac. +. Beod, the Kingdom (r. obp.
Matt. iii. 2; iv.17 and passim ; 7. 6. Mark
i, 15, al.) announced by the prophets,
preached by the Lord and the Apostles,
being now prepared on earth and received
by those who believe on Christ, and to be
consummated when He returns with His
saints: see Phil. iii. 20, 21; Eph. v. 5.
éy Aéyw.... ev Buvaper.... is
not (i. e. does not consist in, has not its
conditions and element of existence) in
(mere) word, but in might —is a kingdom
of power. 21.] He offers them, with
a view to their amendment, the alterna-
tive: ‘shall his coming be in a judicial or
in a friendly spirit ?? as depending on
themselves. tt not for rérepov (as Meyer,
De W.), but general, and afterwards con-
fined to the two alternatives: What will
ye (respecting my coming) ? Ew,
must I come ? év paBS, with a
rod; but not only ‘ with,’ as accompanied
with: the prep. gives the idea of the
element in which, much as év 36: not
only with a rod, but in such purpose as to
use it, There is no Hebraism: see Pas-
sow under ev, No. 3 and 4. Hespeaks as
a father: ri éotiy, ev paBdm; ev koAdcei,
é€v Tiuwpta, Chrys. TVEUM. T. TPa-
tTyTos | generally, and by De Wette, ex-
plained, a gentle spirit, meaning by mvetp.
his own spirit: but Meyer has remarked,
that in every place in the N.T. where
mvevua is joined with an abstract genitive,
it imports the Holy Spirit, and the abstract
genitive refers to the specific working of
the Spirit in the case in hand. So mp.
THS GAn9elas (John xv. 26; xvi. 18;
1 John iv. 6), vio@ecias (Rom. viii. 15),
Tis mlatews (2 Cor. iv. 18), coplas (Eph.
i. 17), Gyiwotvns (Rom. i. 4). [This does
not however appear to be without ex-
ceptions: ef. mvetua aoGevetas, Luke xiii.
11; dovactas, Rom. viii. 15; ratavdéews,
Rom. xi. 8; SeiAfas, 2 Tim. i. 7; Tis
mAdyns, 1 John iv. 6. We may indeed
say, that in none of these ‘cases is the
mvedua subjective, or the phrase a mere
periphrasis: but the mvedua is objective,
a possessing, indwelling spirit, whether of
God or otherwise.] And so Chrys., Theo-
phyl.,—é yap kal mvedua adotrnpdrytos
K. Tiuwplas, a\A” ard TaY xXpnToTepwy
avTd Kadei ws Kal Tov Oedv oikTlppova kK.
eAehuovad pauev, GAN ov KoAaoThHy, Kal-
Toye kal TovTO byta. Theophyl.
+ eTAXEWS
e.
ABCDF
LN ab
edfgh
klmn
017
#
V4, 2:
IIPOS KOPINOIOY®S A.
505
ch. vi. 7. xv.
/ ’ - ? c - , \ , .
V. !""Odwe " axoverat iv uu ~ qopvEla, Kal TOLAUTH 8 Matt. v.34.
29) only t.
w y xe y ay > - ) ~ +
TOOVELA TIC © OVOE EV TOIC EOveoty, WCTE yuvatka TLV v=here only.
-~ 4 zw By, 9 a Ae, ~
Tov marpog * eye Kat vec
3 aNe ee > , de ’ aie Dee lag ee yes
ovyt wadrAov © exevOnoare, “iva “ap0n “ex ‘pécov vue o
2 Mace. x. 13.
b , x \ : : 36
TEPUVTIWMEVOL EGTE Kal W Matt. v 32.
Ls
ch. vi. 13, 18
al. Gen.
EXXViii. 24,
x = Heb. ii. 3.
y = Matt. vi. 29. ch. xiv. 21. Gal. ii. 5 al. Z = Matt. xiv. 4, xxii. 28. ch. vii. 2, 29. Dent.
EXviii. 3. a interrog., Luke x. 29. xviii. 26. John ix. 36. 2 Cor. ii. 2. ch. iv.
6 reff. c Matt. v. 4. ix.15. Mark xvi 10. Duke vi. 25. 2 Cor. xii. 21. Jamesiy.9. Rev.
Xviil. 11,175, 19 only. Isa. Lxi. 2.
xi.22. John ii. 16 al. Isa. lvii. 1, 2.
d = John xi. 15.
e = Matt. xiii. 12. Luke
f Acts xvii. 23 reff.
Cuap. V.1. rec aft <Oveow ins ovouaCerat (see note), with LN3 rel syrr Chr Thdrt
Cassiod: om ABCDEN! 17 latt copt «eth arm Orig Manes(in Epiph) Tert Lucif.
Tov watpos exe bet tia DFE.
2. for ovxi, ov F.
V. 1—13.] ConcERNING A GROSS CASE
OF INCEST WHICH HAD ARISEN, AND WAS
HARBOURED, AMONG THEM (vv. 1—8):
AND QUALIFICATION OF A FORMER COM-
MAND WHICH HE HAD GIVEN THEM RE-
SPECTING ASSOCIATION WITH GROSS SIN-
NERS (J—13). The subject of this chapter
is bound on to the foregoing by the ques-
tion of ch. iv. 21: and it furnishes an
instance of those things which required
his apostolic discipline. 1.] Sdws,
actually, ‘omnino,’ see reff. : in negative
sentences, ‘at all.’ akoveTar ev Up.
mopveta | another way of saying d&xovoucl
TwWes ev bu. mépyvor,—the character of
tépves is borne (by some) among you,—
fornication is borne as a character among
you. From missing this sense of dxotvouat,
Commentators have gone wrong (1) as to
dAws, rendering it ‘commonly,’ to suit
aKoverat, ‘is reported, —(2) as to év tiv,
joining it with wopveia, whereas it belongs
to akoverat,—(3) as to fris ovde ey rT.
€0v., see below. kat ToLavT. 7.]
And fornication of such a sort (the kal
rises in a climax, there being an ellipsis of
ov wdvov ..., GAAX’.... before it; so
Aristoph. Ran. 116, é cxérate, TOALHO ELS
yap tévat rat ob ye; see Hartung, Parti-
kellehre, i. 134), as (is) not (borne as a
character) even among the heathen. The
ovoudgerat of the rec. is a clumsy gloss,
probably from Eph. v. 3: the meaning
being, that not even among the heathen
does any one dove mépvos in this sense,
that it was a crime that they would not
tolerate as a matter of public notoriety.
So that one among you has (as wife most
probably, not merely as concubine: the
word €xw in such cases universally in the
N. T. signifying to possess in marriage:
and Meyer remarks that 6 7d &pyov tovro
moimoas (ver. 2), and ty odtws todTO
kaTepyaoduevov (ver. 3) seem to point to
a consummation of marriage, not to mere
concubinage) his father’s wife (i.e. his
step-mother, see Ley. xviii. 8; od« etre
rec e€ap0y (corrn from ver 13), with L rel Chr Thdrt : txt
MNTpuiay GAG yuvaika matpds, Sste TOAAG
Xaremwrepov mAA~au, Chrys.). The
Commentators generally refer to Cicero,
Pro Cluentio, 5, 6, “ Nubit genero socrus,
nullis auspicibus, nullis auctoribus, funestis
ominibus omnium omnibus. O mulieris
scelus incredibile, et preeter hane unam, in
omni vita inauditum,” &e. It may seem
astonishing that the authorities in the
Corinthian church should have allowed
such a case to escape them, or if known,
should have tolerated it. Perhaps the uni-
versal laxity of morals at Corinth may have
weakened the severity even of the Chris-
tian elders: perhaps, as has often been
suggested, the offender, if a Jewish eon-
vert, might defend his conduct by the
Rabbinical maxim that in the case of a
proselyte, the forbidden degrees were an-
nulled, a new birth having been undergone
by him (see Maimon. in Wetst.). This
latter however is rendered improbable by
the fact that the Apostle says nothing of
the woman, which he would have done had
she been a Christian:—and that Jewish
maxim was taxed with the condition, that
a proselyte might marry any of his or her
former relatives, ‘modo ad Judaicamn re-
ligionem transierint’ The father was
living, and is described in 2 Cor. vii. 12, as
6 ddixnOels ;—and from the Apostle saying
there that he did not write on his account,
he was probably a Christian. 2.] Kat
often introduces a question, especially one
by which something inconsistent or pre-
posterous is brought out,—see reff.: and
note on 2 Cor. ii. 2. Teduc. éore |
Not, which would be absurd,—at the oc-
currence of this crime, ovx ém) rg amapTn-
Mart’ TovTo yap dAoyias. Chrys.: neither,
as he proceeds,—daAn’ én) 7 diarKaArla
TH} €keivou, imagining the offender to have
been some party teacher: so also Theo-
phyl. :—but, as before, with a notion of
your wisdom and spiritual perfection : the
being puffed up is only ewm hoc, not
propter hoc. éwevOyoate] And did
506
IIPOX KOPINOIOYS A.
Ni.
g = ch. xi. 18. Bye eave peptone y We wa ley td A ee
fo) Cor, x.2, TO eo-yov TOUTO rorheas ; Eyw jas pia aTWVY TW CW~
IL. xiii. 2, hj
a. atlas “rapay Ce TW * mvebwart, non | Kekpika ws mapwy
x1. . . 2
i aeaboveth); TOV obrwe TOUTO " KaTEoyaoauevor, 4 ey TH ovopare TOU
Phil. i. 27. n s
Cal. a Kuptov MoV "Inoov ouvay févtwy ULGY Kat TOU £0U
only. . | , Q = , - ! € ~ ’
Job vi. 13.
Wisd. ix. 6 TVEVMATOC GUY TH) Ouvauet TOU KUOLOU MWY Inoou
onl
j aera ait’ 20. 2 Cor. xi. 8 al. “k Acts xvii. 16 reff. Col. ii. 5. see ch. vii. 34. 1= Acts
xv. 1 reff. m Rom. ii. 9 reff.
ABCDER am 17 Epiph.
BDFL rel Chr Thdrt.
n epp., here only.
for moino., mpatas ACR m 17 Orig Epiph Bas:
= Acts xiv. 27. xx. 7,8 al.
txt
8. rec ins ws bef amwy (to corresp with ws mapwy below, it being imagined that
aATQV
coerce
mveup. was to be taken together:
so Mey), with D?FL rel syr Dial Chr
Thdrt Thl Ge Lucif Aug, Pelag Bede: om ABCD!8 m 17 vulg copt Manes(in Epiph)
Epiph Orig-int Thl.
om Touro F latt arm Lucif Aug.
4. om Ist nuwy AX demid Bas Lucif Pac.
rec aft Ist imo. ins xpiotov, with
D?F LN rel Syr syr-w-ast Dial Chr Thdrt lat-ff: om ABD! am eth-rom Lucif.
rec aft 2nd ino. ins xpiotov, with D3FL rel vss Orig, Chr Thdrt Lucif, Aug, Pac :
ABD!& vulg syr eth-rom Orig, Dial lat-ff.
ye not rather mourn (viz. when the crime
became first known to you), in order that
(your mourning would be because of the
existence of the evil, i. e. with a view to
its removal) he who did this deed (the
past part. rorqoas is itself used from the
past point of time indicated by émrev6n-
care, and must therefore be expressed by
the past) might (may) be removed from
among you (viz. by your casting him out
from your society) ? 3—5. ‘| justifies
the expression fva dp07 just used, by
declaring the judgment which the Apostle,
although absent, had already passed onthe
offender. 3.] eye pev yep, I for my
part...., ‘egocerte:’ so Aristoph. Plut.
355, ma ALP, eyo méev ov: see Hartung,
Partikellehre, ii. 413. @s Tapeyv, as
if really present, not, as being present in
spirit. TOV OUTS TOUT. KaT.| The
object is put foremost for emphasis’ sake,
and after several intervening clauses, taken
up again with tdyv rowodror, ver. 5.
ovtws, Meyer thinks, alludes to some pe-
culiarly offensive method in which he had
brought about the marriage, which was
known to the Corinthians, but unknown
to us. Olsh. understands it, ‘under such
circumstances, ‘being such as he is, a
member of Christ’s body.’ But this, being
before patent, would hardly be thus em-
phatically denoted. Perhaps after all,
TOUTO KaT epyardevov refers to mopvela
generally, o}tws to Tovavty moprveia, ver. 1.
4.| We may arrange this sentence
in four different ways : (1) ev T@ ov. May
belong to cuvaxfévtwy, and oby tH Suv.
to napadoivat,—so Beza, Calov., Billroth,
Olsh., al.: (2) both év r@ ov. and ody
TH Suv. may belong to cvvaxdévtTwy,—so
Chrys., Theophyl.(altern.), Calvin(quoting
om
for ovy 7H Suv. Matt. xviii. 20), Grot.,
Riickert : (8) both may belong to wapa-
dovvat,—so Mosheim, Schrader, al.: or (4)
ev TH ov. belongs to mapadovva:, and oby
Th Suv. to cvvaxbéevtwy,—so Luther, Cas-
tal., Estius, Bengel, De Wette, Meyer, al.
And this, I am persuaded, is the right ar-
rangement. For according to (2) and (3),
the balance of the sentence would be de-
stroyed, no adjunct of authority being
given to one member of it, and doth to the
other: and (1) is hardly consistent with
the arrangement of the clauses, the paren-
thetical portion beginning far more natu-
rally with the participle than with ev 7@
ov..—not to mention that the common
formula of the Apostle’s speaking authori-
tatively, is ev T@ dvduars’Inood xp. or the
like: see Acts ili. 16; xvi. 18; 2 Thess.
iii. 6. The sentence then will stand: —(I
have decreed),—in the name of our Lord
Jesus (when ye have been assembled to-
gether and my spirit with the power of
our Lord Jesus), (i. e. ‘ I myself, in spirit,
endowed by our Lord Jesus with apostolic
power :’ obv 7H Suv. belongs to Tad euod
mvevu., and is not, as in Chrys.,—see above
—merely an element in the assembly) to
deliver such an one (reff.) to Satan for
the destruction of his flesh, that his
spirit may be saved in the day of the
Lord. What does this sentence import?
Not, mere excommunication, though it is
doubtless included. It was a delegation to
the Corinthian church of a special power,
reserved to the Apostles themselves, of in-
Jlicting corporeal death or disease as a
punishment for sin. Of this we have no-
table examples in the case of Ananias and
Sapphira, and Elymas, and another hinted
at 1 Tim. i. 20, The congregation itself
ABCDF
LN ab
edfgh
klmn
o 17
vv.4and
5 are cut
away in
C.
o—7. IIPOX KOPINOIOY®S A. 507
r) ~ Sy - = - ry =1Tim.i.
5 P rapadouvat tov Tro.ovtoy tw catava ? ec OABoov Tae esi
— s 7 dé SS o8 ~ On > a tae / ~ 25. ke aa
xi. .
TNC ~ GapKOc, wa TO TvEVLAa GwUy Ev TY NMEOG TOU zi. |S
i Gp 22 No Sei “ La t 1s o Eph. iv. 19.
KUOLOU. ov KaAoy 70 © Kavynia vawY, OVK OLdaTE OTL J hii Ly:
vw \ vx vs ¢ Say Vz ae Cay? , q Acts xxii. 22
licoa vun OAov TO voaua vol exkaQa- ° ref.
ig es b C b " « oe Kg p a c a is z 5 rl Thess. v. 3.
oate Thy maXaav “ Cumny, iva re véov * puvpana, KaQwe 2 item 1-6
tote “aduuow’ Kat yao ro“ wacya nuwy © ervd iorde. an
é vuoL’ Kal ya a a) . XXxi.7
: ae m 0 xX "e 7 X? ¢ s Matt. xxvi.
41|)Mk. Rom. ii. 28, 29. viii. 4 al. t ch. i. 8 reff. u Rom. iy. 2 reff. v Gal.
v. 9. w = John vii. 33 al. x Matt. xiii. 33. xvi. 6. Exod. sii. J5 al, y Rom.
ix. 21 reff. = Exod. viii. 3. z (in N.T. alw. w. OX.) as above (w). Matt. xiii. 33 | L. only. Hos.
vii. 4. a2Tim. ii. 2lonly. Deut. xxvi. 13. Judg. vii. 4 vat only. b Rom. vi. 6
reff. 2 Cor. iii. 14. 1 Jonnii. 7. c here bis. Matt. xxvi.17. Mark xiv.1,12. Luke xxii.
1,7. Acts xii. 3. xx Gonly. Levit. ii. 4, &c. d Matt. xxvi. 2, &e. |. 4 Kings xxiii, 22.
e Mark xiv.12. Luke xxii.7. Exod. xii. 21. f of Christ, here only. = Acts xiv. 13 reti.
5. for tov To.ovt., avtov F. rec aft xupiov ins enoov, with LX rel am(with tol al)
Chr Thl Ge Orig-int, Aug,: ao. xpictov D demid: nuwy imo. xp. AF m 17 vss(nuov
and xp. syr-w-ast) Orig, Thdrt lat-ff: txt B Orig, Orig-int, Tert, Hil, Aug, Pac,. (Jt
seems evident that kupiov alone was the origl, and the other varr are additions.)
6. for uso, 500: D! Bas-ed Hesych(appy): corrumpit valg D-lat Iven Lucif
Orig-int : txt ABC?DF LN rel.
7. rec aft exxaapare ins ovy, with CLX% rel syr Thdrt Thl Orig-int: om ABDFX 1
vulg Syr Mcion-t Clem Bas Chr Ge Tert Cypr Lucif Ambrst. rec aft macy. nuwy
add umep nuwy (a doctrinal gloss), with LX? rel syrr goth Orig, Method Thdrt Pseud-
Ath Thl Ge: om ABCDFN! 17 latt copt eth Clem Origsepe(mss vary,) Ath Mcion-e
Chr, Cyr Cypr Tert Archel Ambrst Jer Augszpe- elz <@v0y: txt ABDF LN rel.
(C is here illegible.) ins o bef xpioros F.
could atpew ex wéocov,—but it could not
Tapadouval TH caTavG cis bAcOpoyv Tis
capkés, without the authorized concur-
rence of the Apostle’s mveduatos, obv TH
Suv. T. Kup. Nu. Ingo. What the dAe-
Opos T. capkds was to be, does not appear :
certainly more than the mere destruction
of his pride and lust by repentance, as
some (Estius, Beza, Grot., al.) suppose :
rather, as Chrys., va mactlin abroy €AKet
Tovnpe 7) viow étépa. Estius’s objection
to this, that im 2 Cor. ii. and vii. we find
no trace of such bodily chastisement, is
not to the point,—because we have no
proof that this mapadocis was ever in-
Jlicted,—nor does the Apostle command
it, but only describes it as his own deter-
mination, held as it were iz terrorem over
the offender. See note on ver. 13.
Obs., gapkds, the offending element, not
céuatos. Paul could not say dAcOpoy rod
oéuatos, seeing that the body is to partake
of the salvation of the spirit ;—but not the
adpé, see ch. xv. 50. 5. tva 76 Tv. TWF |
The aim of the dAcOp. T. wap.,—which he
said 43 Té SiaBbAw vduous TLOEts, Kat
ov agiels avTdy Wepaitépw mpoBijvat, as
Chrys. Thus the proposed punishment,
severe as it might seem, would be in reality
a merciful one, tending to the eternal hap-
piness of the offender. A greater contrast
to this can hardly be conceived, than the
terrible forms of excommunication subse-
quently devised, and even now in use in the
Romish church, under the fiction of dele-
gated apostolic power. The delivering to
Satan for the destruction of the spirit, can
belong only to those who do the work of
Satan. Stanley remarks, “ For the popu-
lar constitution of the early Corinthian.
church, see Clem. Rom. i. 44 [p. 297]:
where the rulers of that society are de-
scribed as having been appointed ouvev-
doxnodons THs exkKAnolas waons.”
6.] ‘ How inconsistent with your harbour-
ing such an one, appear your high-flown
conceits of yourselves !” Kavxnpa,
your matter of glorying. Are you
not aware that a little leaven imparts a
character to the whole lump? That this
is the meaning, and not, ‘that a little
leaven will, if not purged out, leaven the
whole lump,’ is manifest from the point
in hand, viz. the inconsistency of their
boasting : which would not appear by their
danger of corruption hereafter, but by
their character being actually lost. One
of them was a fornicator of a fearfully de-
praved kind, tolerated and harboured: by
this fact, the character of the whole was
tainted. 7.| The madara Copn is not
the man, but the erime attaching to their
character as a church, which was a remnant
of their unconverted state, their maAaids
avOpwros. ‘This they are to purge out from
among them. The éxxa@dp. alludes to the
careful ‘purging out’ from the houses of
every thing leavened before the commence-
508
IIPOX KOPINOIOY®S A.
Ws,
=ch 33. hes , Nee p b ~ \ ip
Saige, et ek copracwper un tev “ Zouy ? madara pnde * ev
ivi ZG * eaxta kat “'aovnpiac, add’ ‘év © aZbmote ™ td
h perc a, my ¢ npl Cs v OLC U= :
Dau weirs, KOLWELAC kat " aAdnoetac. ;
i = ch. iv. 21
reff. jch. xiv. 20 reff. k Rom. i. 29. 1 Acts iii. 26. m 2 Cor. i.
12. ij. 17 onlyt. (-»7s, Phil. i. 10.)
8. copraCouey AD d: txt BCFLN rel.
mopvetas F. (G-lat has both.)
ment of the feast of unleavened bread.
Schéttgen, Hor. Hebr., in loc., gives a full
account of the extreme care with which
this was done. See also Stanley’s note.
That ye may be a new lump (opposed to
the wadads &vOpwros of old and dissolute
days), aS ye are (normally and by your
Christian profession) unleavened (i. e. dead
to sin and free from it). This indicating
the state by profession, the normal state,
as a fact, and the grounding of exhorta-
tions on it, is common enough with our
Apostle,—see Rom. vi. 3, 4: ch. iii. 16, al.
freq., and involves no tautology here, any
more than elsewhere. An unfortunate
interpretation has been given to these words,
—‘as ye are now celebrating the feast of
unleavened bread ;’ and has met with some
recent defenders, e. g. Wieseler,—and Co-
nybeare, Life and Epistles of St. Paul, edn.
2, vol. ii. p. 40, note. But first, the words
will not admit it; for & vor cannot
(as joined immediately with ev adipors,
ver. 8) without much harshness be ap-
plied in its literal sense to the celebrators
of the feast, but must indicate the material
which was unleavened, see reff.,—aptoy
Cuuithy, &uuov, Athenzus iii. 109, and
Gen. xix. 3; Exod. xxix. 2. Secondly, the
celebration of a Jewish feast would cer-
tainly not be predicated without remark
of a whole mixed congregation of Gentiles
and Jews, even supposing that the Gentile
converts did celebrate it with the Jews.
It is no answer to this, to cite passages
(see Conyb. and Howson, ubi supra), where
he seems to treat mixed churches, e. g.
Gal. iv. 8; Rom. vii. 1; xi. 18, as if they
belonged wholly to one or other of their
component elements. For this is not a
parallel case. He would here, as above,
be distinctly predicating, as a fact, of the
whole church, a practice which he himself
would have been the first to deprecate.
See Gal. iv. 10. Thirdly, it is not at all
probable that the Apostle would either ad-
dress the Corinthians as engaged in a feast
which he, at Ephesus, was then celebrat-
ing, seeing that it would probably be over
before his letter could be delivered,—or
would anticipate their being engaged in it
when they received his letter, if it were
yet to come. For be it remembered, that
n = John iii. 21.
for unde, wn B. for movnpias,
in the sense required, they would only be
&(vuor during seven days. Here again, I
do not see how the example of “a birth-day
letter to a friend in India,” adduced by
Mr. Conybeare as an answer to my objec-
tion, will apply. It seems to me that if
strictly considered, in detail, it tells my
way, not his. But, fourthly,—and even
could all the other objections be answered,
this would remain in its full force,—the
reference is one wholly alien from the
habit and spirit of our Apostle. The or-
dinances of the old law are to him zof
points on whose actual observanceto ground
spiritual lessons, but things passed away in
their literal acceptance, and become spiri-
tual verities in Christ. He thus regards
the Corinthian church as (normally) the
unleavened lump at the Passover; he be-
seeches them to put away the old leaven
from among them, to correspond with this
their normal state: for, he adds, it is high
time for us to be eGiaers in very deed (kad
ydp—so Xen. Anab. v. 8. 7, dkovoare,
€pn, kal yap &kiov. It introduces a power-
ful reason, for [on other accounts and |
also. See Hartung, Partikellehre, i. 137.
8), seeing that our Passover was sacri-
ficed (see reff.: and cf. Heb. ix. 26,
28), even Christ (the days of unteavened
bread began with the Passover-sacrifice) :
therefore (reff.) let us keep the feast (not
the actual Passover, but the continued
Passover-feast of Christians on whose be-
half Christ has died. There is no change
of metaphor: the Corinthians are the liv-
ing &pro., as believers are the living stones
of the spiritual temple) not in (as our ele-
ment) the old leaven (general—our old
unconverted state), nor (particular) in the
leaven of vice and wickedness (the geni-
tives are of apposition, —‘the leaven
which is vice and wickedness ;? see Winer,
edn. 6, § 59. 8. a), but in the unleavened-
ness (ra &vua, unleavened things, see
Exod. xii. 15, 18) of sincerity and truth.
The view here maintained is that of Chry 85
Kal autos de emmever Th MeTapopa, civapitpe~
VhoKwy Tadaas avTovs ioroptas, kal maa xXa
kal d@uuwv, kal TGY evepyeri@y Tay TéTE
kal Tov vov, Kal TOV KoAdoEwY Kal Te@Y TI-
Mwpiav" éopris wpa 6 mwapov Kkapds. Kal
yap eimay éopralwev, ode ereidh) marxa
8—11.
TIPO KOPINOIOYS A.
509
a ~ , os, OS. — U 5
2 Eypala vu ev ° ry extoroAy wy ° ovvavapmlyrvvabar ° ce note)
Qi eaeZ :
TOOVOLE
wn (a \ \
Tov 7 Tole *“ wAsovéxtate Kat * domaguw me eowoAaroate,
i ~ ~
“emel ) wpetrete * apa &K Tov Koomow é&edOew* | yoy
14 only. Hos. vii. 8 F. (cuupilyv., vat.) only.
16. xii. 4 onlyt. Sir. xxiii. 16, 17 only.
tas above (s). Rev. xxi. 8. xxii. 15.
bis. ch. x. 7 only+t. (-7peia, ch. x. 14.)
SE ey oe Tqst, = 2 a ,
OU TAaAVTWC TOIC Toovotc TOU KOOMOU TOU
u as above (s)
bis. Matt. vii. 15. Luke xviii. 11. ch. vi. 10 only. Gen. xlix. 27 on
Rom. xvi. 22,
2 Cor. vii. 8.
Col, iv. 16.
1 Thess. y. 27.
2 Thess. iii.
= oe 14.
€ p here bis.
2 Thess. iii.
q as below (s, t). 1 Tim. i.10. Heb. xii.
r see Rom. iii. 9 reff. sch. vi. 9. Eph. v. 5.
here bis only t. Sir. xiv. 9 only. v here
i w as above (s, t). here
x ch, vii. 14 only. y Rom. xv. 1 reff.
10. rec ins ca: bef ov mavtws, with D3LN® rel syr Orig-ec Chr Thdrt Thl Ce: txt
ABCD'FR! 17 latt Syr copt Orig Tert Lucif Ambrst Pelag.
rec (for kar) 7
(alteration to conform to the general context), with D?-3LX* rel vss Orig Chr Thdrt
Lucif: txt ABCD!FX m 17.
rec opeiAete (corrn from misunderstanding : see
note), with B? rel Chr Thdrt al: txt A B!(Vere) CDFLN ¢ n 17 latt syrr copt Damase
Orig-int Tert Lucif.
mapiv, ovde ered) 7] wevtnkooth, edeyev,
GAAG Seixvds Orr was 5 Xpdvos Eopris eort
kaipos Tots Xpioriavots Sia thy brepBorhv
Tav bobévTwy ayabav. With regard
to the chronological superstructure which
has been built (by Wieseler and others)
on this passage, that the Epistle was writ-
ten shortly before Easter, we cannot of
course say that the approach of the Pass-
over may not have suggested to the Apostle
this similitude: and we know from ch.
xvi. 8 that he was looking forward to Pen-
tecost. But further than this it would not
be safe to assume : see Prolegg. to this Epis-
tle, § vi.3, 4. 9—13.] Correction of their
misunderstanding of a former command of
his respecting keeping company with forni-
eators. 9.| I wrote to you in the
epistle (not this present epistle, which 77
emtoToAH might mean, see reff.,—for there
is nothing in the preceding part of this Epis-
tle which can by any possibility be so inter-
preted,—certainly not either ver. 2 or ver.
6, which are commonly alleged by those
who thus explain it—and ev tH émirtoAq
would be a superfluous and irrelevant addi-
tion, if he meant the letter on which he
was now engaged :—but, a former epistle,
which has not come down to us:—cef. the
similar expression, ref. 2 Cor. used with
reference to this Epistle,—and see note on
2 Cor.i. 15, 16. So Ambrose, Calvin, Beza,
Kstius, Grot., Calov., Bengel, Wetst., Mosh.,
De Wette, Meyer : so also Lightfoot, under-
standing however an Epistle committed to
Timothy, see ch. iv. 17: which could not
be, as Timothy was not coming to them till
after they had received this Epistle, ch. xvi.
10, and thus the words would be unintel-
ligible to them:—on the other side are
Chrys., Theodoret, .Theophyl., Erasm.,
Corn.-a-lapide, Wolf, al. It has been sug-
gested [see Stanley, in loc. ] that the whole
passage, ch. v.9—vi.8, may have beena post-
script or note inserted subsequently to the
rest of the Epistle, and referring especially
to ch. vi. 9—20) not to keep company
with fornicators. 10.| ov wavtTws
limits the prohibition, which perhaps had
been complained of owing to its strictness,
and the impossibility of complying with it
in so dissolute a place as Corinth, and ex-
cepts the fornicators of this world, i.e. who
are not professing Christians : not under
all circumstances with the fornicators
of this world: so Theophr. C. P. vi. 25,
cited by Wetst. on Rom. iii. 9, wove? yap
ob mdvTws, GAN eav ovAN Tis H baéKavOTOS.
ov, not un, because not the whole
context of the prohibition is negatived, but
only one portion of it, and thus od rdvrws
1% 1.7. Koo. T. Stands together as one idea.
So Thucyd. i. 51, troromhoaytes dw >AQn-
vav elvat ovy Ooas éESpwy GAAX TAclous.
See more examples in Hartung, Partikel-
lehre, ii. p. 125, 6. TOU Kdop.
tovtov, belonging to the number of un-
believers,— Christians who were mépvor
being expressly excluded. So Paul ever
uses this expression, ch. iii. 19; (2 Cor. iv. 4;)
Eph. ii. 2. tKeovextars and apragiv
are joined by kai, as belonging to the same
class—that of covetous persons ;—mAcovéx-
Tys being an avaricious person, not a la-
scivious one, as sometimes rendered (e. 2.
Conybeare, vol. ii. p. 41, edn. 2), nor does it
seem to have any where merely this mean-
ing; see Eph. iv. 19 and note. Compare
on the other side Stanley’s note here, which
however has not convinced me. The root
of the two sins being the same, viz. lust or
greed, they come often to be mentioned
together and as if running into one an-
other. See Trench, N. T. Syn. pp. 91, 2.
On Graf, Stanley remarks, “It is
difficult to see why it should be expressly
introduced here, especially if mAcovéxtns
has the meaning of sensuality.” Cer-
tainly: but not, if +A. retains its proper
meaning, as containing the key to mopvela
on the one hand, and aprayf on the other.
éret @b.| For in that case ye
510
IIPO2 KOPIN@OIOY= A.
V. 12, 13.
pce ane eypaia Duly ao, P Sania yoaiit cay TLC adeApocg
shai ovopaZousvoc nee _wopvoc n N wAsoventne a tY OwAoAa-
Sl yy TONED * Aoidopoe 7 * évo0e 7H * dpmak, ry ” rov0bry wndE
only, Prov. © cupecMiew. 124 ri d woe °rouc ° tw * Kole }
an ovxt ® rove Seow vuetc | Kpivere 5 pik ToUC cas ae o Oc0¢
ee nas. MOLUEE: E&aoare TOV 7ToVNoOY cE UUGY ‘avrov.
Acts x. 41.
xi. 3. Gal. ii.12 only. Gen. xliii. 32. Ps.c. 5 only.
Vili. 24) see Matt. xxvii. 4. Johu xxi. 22, 23.
iv.5, 1 Thess.iv. 12. Mark iv. 11 only.
g = here only. see Rom. vii. 22. 2 Cor. iv. 16.
Lj REV ci? isee ch. i. 24.
11. ree yum, with CDN! rel Chr, Thl Ee:
Steph for 7, 7, with (B? D-gr, perhaps) F-lat G-lat Augyepe: txt (not
defined in the other uncials) vulg syrr copt Iren-int Tert Augatic-
e1dwA. bef mAcov. m.
Damase.
10. 7 Aold. n TA. n apt. C.
FE. (non aut nec G-lat.)
12. for v1, ec F.
ABCER® 17 latt Syr copt Chr-mss,.
(ef. Tots €xrds, Sir. prol.)
Eph. iii. 16. 3 Kings vi. 15.
rec aft wot ins xa, with DL rel syr Chr Thdrt Th! Ge:
kpiveite N!:
dhere only. (Mark v.7. 2 Kings xvi.10. Matt.
¢ (Acts xxvi. ]1. 2 Cor. iv. 16.) = here bis. Col,
f = John viii. 15. Rom. iii. 7.
h here only. Deu‘. xvii.
txt ABFLN? dk n 17 Bas Chr, Thdrt
Topv. n web. 0
for unde, wn A119: wnte
om
txt N-corr!.
13. cpvetabdfghk1lo copt «eth arm lat-ff and Chr Thdrt Thl in their comm:
txt B'(perhaps)L D-lat syrr.
eapate) kat ckaperte (Kar insd as above more than once,
-pete from ~txx-a), with D'L rel (¢ollite autem Syr, et
tollite syr &c) Chr(om kat? and -pare ms, in Matthai) Thdrt Thl Ge:
abruptness is characteristic :
txt ABCD! FX d m latt copt goth Orig.
must go out of the world,—as Chrys. and
Theophyl., érépay oikouméevny (ntijoa.
The past apeia., as Expyy, al.,*because the
necessity would long ago have occurred and
the act have passed. 11. viv dé €yparpa |
But my meaning was... . ;—‘but, the
case being so, that ye must needs consort
withfornicators among the heathen, I wrote
to you, not to consort, &e.’ That this
is the meaning and not ‘ But xow I write
(the epistolary aorist) &c.,’ seems plain,
from the use of @ypaya twice so close to-
gether, and therefore probably in the same
reference,—from the fact noticed by Meyer,
thatifa contrast had been intended between
ev TH emioToAH and viv, év TH ea. must
have preceded éypaya:—and from the
usage of viv 6¢, of which Hartung, Par-
tikellehre, ii. 25, gives examples, e. g. Plut.
Protag. p. 347, viv 5¢ opddpa yap Kad rept
TeV pmeyloTwy wWevdduevos SoKxets GAnOA
Aéye, Sid TadTda oe eya Wéeyw,—and Ly-
curg. Leocr. p. 1388, €BovAdunv & ay, &
avdpes . . vov 6€... See also Heb.
xi. 16. Thus by the right rendering, we
escape the awkward inference. deducible
from the ordinary interpretation,—that
the Apostle had previously given a com-
mand, and now retracted it. édv tts |
If one who is called a brother be, &c.
(Ecumenius, Augustine, Ambrose, Estius,
al., join évouaCéuevos with mdédpvos, and
understand it either as = évouacrtds, ‘be a
notorious mépvos, ¥e., or ‘be named a
awédpvos, Se. But édvowadu. or even dvo-
pwaordés, in the bad sense, is hardly ad-
(xpiver B sed antea et mox xpeiv, Vere.)
rec (for
for connexion: but the
kat ekapare 17:
ymissible,—and in either case Paul would
have written ddeApds tis, the stress on
d5eApés in that case requiring it to precede
Tis, as it now precedes ovoua(duevos.
eiSwAodatpys | One who from any motive
makes a compromise with the habits of the
heathen, and partakes in their sacrifices :
Chrys. well remarks, rpoxataRdAdetar Toy
mep) TOY ELOwA0PUTw@Y Adyov dy wETa TADTA
méeAAEL yumvaleo Oa. pébvcos was,
in pure Greek, not used of a man, but of
a woman only. So Phrynichus, p. 151
(but see Lobeck’s note), péOvoos avap
ovK epeis, GAAM pebvaTiKds’ yuvatka dé
€peis wedvooyv kK. weOdony: and Pollux, vi.
25 (Wetst.), uedvoos eri dvipav Mevavipw
deddcbw. Seeing that unde cuvecblew
must imply a more complete separation
than gy) cvvavautyvvo@m, it cannot be
applied to the dydmat (as Mosheim, al.),
but must keep its general meaning,—not
even to sit at table with such an one.
This rule, as that in 2 Thess. ili. 14, re-
gards only their private intercourse with
the offending person : nothing is here said
of public excommunication, though for some
of these crimes it would be implied.
12. | Ground of the above limitation.
ti yap por... .| for what con-
cern of mineisit... 9 So Aflian, Var.
H. vi. 11, rods dé #AAous €@. Th yap mot
kwoots Kk. avonTois guuBovrAevely TH AvOL-
TeA€oTaTa; see other examples in Wetst.
Tous egw] reff. It was among the
Jews the usual term for the Gentiles. Cf.
Schéttgen in loc. Hemeans, ‘thismight
ABCDF
Lab
edfgh
klmn
ol7
VI. 1.
TIPO KOPINOIOY®S A.
511
1k = CH ae ] = Lie m A OS) k= Actsv. 13.
Roe VOI. ToApa tic vor moaypa | Eywv ™ rpog ™ rov *z Ace
nv oO ' Q pee ~ D ASL \ > Ape \ ~ 2 Cor. x. 12.
LNabe “erspov KolveaUVat © emt Twv “adikwy Kal ovyt Ext TWH Bsth.vii.5.
defgh 1 here only.
kimn Xen. Mem. ii. 9. 1. m = Acts xxiv. 19 reff. n Rom. ii. J reff. o = Matt. v.40. Gen.
017 xxvii. 21. Job ix. 3. p = Acts xxiii. 30 reff. q = here only. see Gal. ii. 15 reff.
Cuap. VI. 1. ins ef bef uuwy A al dm 17 syrr Chr, Thdrt.
mpayua exov DEF Thdrt Cypr.—om tov B.
have been easily understood to be my
meaning: for what concern have I with
pronouncing sentence on the world with-
out, or with giving rules of discipline
‘for them? I could only have referred
to persons among yourselves,’
ovxl Tovs €ow] “Ex eo, quod in ecclesia
fieri solet, interpretari debuistis monitum
meum, ver. 9. Cives judicatis, non alienos :
quanto magis ego.” Bengel. But lam not
quite certain of this interpretation, which is
also that of De Wette and Meyer, because
it would more naturally correspond to odx?
Tovs €ow Kal wwets kpivere; A preferable
way seems to be this ; ‘ My judgment was
meant to lead your judgment. This being
the case, what concern had I with those
without 2 Is it not on those within, that
your judgments are passed ?? The arrange-
ment mentioned by Theophylact, and
adopted by Knatchbull, Hammond, Mi-
chaelis, Rosenm., al., ovxf Tovs fow duets
xptvete, ‘No: those within do ye (imper.)
judge, —is clearly wrong, for odxi is no
answer to ti, and would require dAAd after
it,—even supposing wo: robs ew xpivew
and to’s gow tyueis kpivere formed any
intelligible logical contrast, which they do
not. 13.] But those who are with-
out Gop judgeth. The pres. xpive: both
expresses better the attribute and office of
God, and answers better to the other pre-
sents than the future kpive?. I have there-
fore retained it. The future perhaps came
from Heb. xiii. 4. ‘ To judge those without,
is God’s matter’ These remarks about
judging form a transition point to the sub-
ject of the next chapter. But having now
finished his explanation of the prohibition
formerly given, and with it the subject of
the fornicator among them, he gives, before
passing on, a plain command in terms for
the excommunication (but no more: noé
the punishment mentioned in vv. 3—5) of
the offender. And this he does in the very
words of Deut. xxiv. 7 (from which the
reading «al efapetre has come). Upev
av7ev is in Deut., but need not therefore
lose its emphatic force: from among your
own selves.
Cuap. VI. 1—11.] Prouisition To
SETTLE THEIR DIFFERENCES IN THE LE-
GAL COURTS OF THE HEATHEN: RATHER
mpos T. eTep. bef
SHOULD THESE BE ADJUDGED AMONG
THEMSELVES (1—6): BUT FAR BETTER
NOT TO QUARREL-~—-RATHER TO SUFFER
WRONG, WAITING FOR JUSTICE TO BE
DONE AT THE COMING OF THE LORD,
WHEN ALL WHO DO WRONG SHALL BE
EXCLUDED FROM HIS KINGDOM (6—11).
1.] On roAud, Dares ..., Bengel
remarks, “ Grandi verbo notatur lesa ma-
jestas Christianorum.” Tis, no par-
ticular individual, but any one: for he
proceeds in the plur., vy. 4, 7.
mpaypa| So ref. and Demosth. rar. Step.
a. p. 1120, Td ev viel TO ToUTOV TOAAGY
Tpayuatwy oyTwY ov Tapert THTOTE OVD
€Bonencer ; kptveo@at, reff., to go to
law. So Eur. Med. 609, as od kpivoduae
TwvdE ool Ta mAelova,g—and Anthol. ii.
30, Susndgpy SUskwpos expivero, Kal Todd
MaGAAov Hv 6 KpiThns TobTwY TaY Sbo Kwpd-
tepos. Wetst. on Matt. v. 40. emt
(reft.), before, as judges. TOV Gdi-
Kov | ovK eimev, én) Tay dmiotwy, GAN emt
TOV GDdikwv, Ack Oels, Is udAiwoTa xpelay
eixey eis THy mpoxemevny brd0cow, dste
drootpeyat kK. dmayayeiv. emerd) yap mept
dticns avT@ 6 AOyos Fv, of SikaCdwevor HE
ovdey otws émi(nrovow, ws To ToAANV
elvat mpdvotay Tov Sikatov mapa Tots diKd-
(ovow, evTev0ey aito’s dmoTpémel, movov-
ovxt Aéywy Tlo? pepy Kal Tl motets, dvOpwre,
Tovvayvtloy maoxwy av émiOumets, kal dmEp
Tov Tav Sikalwy TuxXEl adikols emiTpéTwY
avOpémos ; Chrys. Hom. xvi. The
Rabbinical prohibitions against going
to law before Gentiles may be seen in
Wetst.: e. g. “Statutum est, ad quod
omnes Israelite obligantur, eum qui litem
cum alio habet, non debere eam tractare
coram gentilibus.” Tanchuma, xcii. 2.
kai ovxl ért T. dyiwy | The Apostle
does not mean that the Christians had
their courts of law, but that they should
submit their differences to courts of arbi-
tration among themselves. Such courts
of arbitration were common among the
Jews. In Jos. Antt. xiv. 10. 17, there
is a decree by which the Jews of Sardis
are allowed the use of a advodos idia
-.... kal témos Bios, ev 6 TA TE TPdy-
fara K. Tas mpos GAAHAOUS ayTiAoyias
Kplvovot. Theodoret shews, @s ovK
évaytla TadTa Tois mpos ‘Pwuatous ypapet-
512
r = Acts ix. 13
refi.
S vv.9, 15, 16,
14,
tJohniii.17 ,
al. ir. EOTE
a = Matt. xix.
28. Luke xxii. 30. see Dan. vii. 22.
only. Jer, xv.19 vat. F(not A). Sir. xxv. 8 only.
only. Judg. v.10 vat.
. TIPGS KOPINGIOYS A:
x / ? / +
Kpitnpiwy eAaxXiorwr 5
v Luke xi. 15.
(-éws, ch. xi. 27.)
41 &
per we Fe eg | ’ 18 e ered ‘ t , tu
aytwy 5 “1 *ouk oldare ort ot ‘aytot TOV KOoMOV “ Kpt~
~ \ , > e # ! e , Decow?/ !
vovaw ; Kal a “év Uply “Kpiverar 0 KOopoc, “ avaktol
> 7 a > 4,
35 ovK oldaTEe OTL ayyéXoug
w here
James ii. 6
Acts xvii. 31. see note.
x here bis.
2. rec om #, with DL rel: ins ABCD!'FN a m 17 latt Syr syr-w-ast arm Clem Chr
Damasce Thl lat-ff.
for «1, eavy F: om D! k! Hil,.
8, 4, 5, 6. om A (homeotel, -tctwy ending ver 2, and also ver 6).
ow (Rom. xiii. 1 ff.):—obd yap dvytiretvew
KeAevet Tols &pxXovow, GAAG Tots 7diKn-
péevois vouobere? wh Kexphcba Tots ap-
xovot. See Stanley in loc., who thinks
the existence of such courts is here im-
plied. But his support of his view from
the Ap. Constt. and the Clementines, cir.
A.D. 150, would only go to shew that
the Apostle’s injunction here had been
obeyed, and that those courts were the
result. 2.] ov« otSare (reff.) ap-
peals to an axiomatic truth. ot
Gyo. T. «. Kptv.] that the saints shall
judge the world ?—i. e. as assessors of
Christ, at His coming: so Daniel vii. 22
(Theod.), 7AGev 6 madaids jucpOv, Kal TO
Kpipa eSwxev Gyiors tipictov; see also
Matt. xix. 28. So Calv., Beza, Grot., Est.,
Wolf, Olsh., Billroth, Riickert, Meyer,
De Wette. Allattempts to elude this plain
meaning of the words are futile: whether of
Chrys., Theophyl., Theodor.-Mops., Theo-
dovet, Erasm.,—xpivotdor 5€ ovxt avrtol
KkaOhmevot Kk. Adyov amaitovyTEs, GAAG
katakpivovo. (Matt. xii. 41, 42), Chrys.—
for this would be no parallel to the case
in hand ;—or of Lightf., Vitringa, Bengel
(but only as a preludium futurorum), al.,
—‘ quod Christiani futuri sint magistratus
et judices in mundo, —Lightf., which does
not satisfy ver. 3, nor agree with the Apos-
tle’s earnest persuasion (see 2 Cor. v. al.,
and note on 2 Thess. ii. 2) that the coming
of Christ was near at hand: or of Mosheim,
Ernesti, Rosenm., ‘ quod Christiani pro-
Janos judicare possint, Rosenm., in the
sense of ch. ii. 15, 16,—for no such mean-
ing can be conveyed by the future, which is
fixed here by the following kpivotmer.
kat brings out an inconsequence or a con-
tradiction between the members of the sen-
tence, which it is the object of the question
to remove: so Xen. Cyr. iv. 3. 11, daa’
elo. Gv Tis, OTL watdes byTeEs eudvOavor.
kal métepa maidés cio ppovimmrepor Sst
padety Ta bpaCdueva Kk. Setxviseva 7) dy-
dpes; see Hartung, Partikellehre, i. 147.
év tptv] Chrys. attempts by this
prepos. to defend his view (see above),—
ov yap elmev, bp’ tudv, GAA’ ev Div
(‘exemplo vestro’). But in vain: nor as
Grot., al., is év, by :—for kpiverOa éy is
the expression for to be judged before, as
judges: the judges being the vehicle of
judgment, its conditioning element, as in
ref. Acts. So Aristides, Platon. ii. p. 214
(Wetst.), tTivés 750 A€yovTa: THY Tpdwy
ev @eois Sikacrats KpiOjva, and Polyb.
v. 29. 6, TitoAcuatoy .... Kplvas ev
Tots Makedédow améxtewe. See other
examples in Wetst. Hence (Meyer) by
this ‘coram vobis’ it appears plainly,
though it might be otherwise inferred from
the context, that the Saints ae to be the
judges, sitting in judgment. avatvot
€ot. Kpit. eAax.| are ye unworthy of
(i. e. to hold or pronounce) the smallest
judgments? kpitjpia cannot be, as usually
rendered, ‘matters to be judged ? it signi-
fies either (1) ertteria, lit. or metaphor.,
which sense is irrelevant here: (2) ¢ri-
bunals, courts of justice:—so Glossar.
Kpithpiov, Sixaorhpiov, and Polyb. ix. 33.
12, kowdy é« mavtTwy TOv “EXAHYwv Kabloas
Kpitnptov,—or (3) judgments held in such
courts, judicia,—as Lucian. bis accus. (§
25, p. 253, ed. Hagan. 1526); Hermes
describes Pyrrhon as being not in court,
Sti ovdey Fryetrar Kpirhpiov aAnbes elvar:
to which Alky replies, toryapotv éphuny
avTov Katadinatwoav. The last meaning
suits both this place and ver. 4. So
Cicero speaks of ‘in privatis minimarum
rerum judiciis.’ Here, they are éAdxioTa
in comparison with the weighty judgments
which shall be held hereafter ; = Biwrixd,
ver. 4. 8.]| The same glorious office
of Christians is again referred to, and even
a more striking point of contrast brought
out. ayyéAous | always, where not
otherwise specified, good angels : and there-
fore here; the Ae:touvpyikea mvevpara of
Heb. i. 14: but exactly ow we shall judge
them, is not revealed to us. Chrys., Theo-
doret, Gicum., Theophyl., and most Com-
mentators interpret it of bad angels, or
of bad and good together: and Chrys. as
before, understands that the bad angels will
be condemned by comparison with us, étav
yap ai dowuato: dSuvdmers adtal EAaTToy
nuay cipeOGow exovoat Trav odpka Tepi-
BeBAnuevav, Xademadtepoy Sdaover diknv.
ABCF
LNabec
defgh
klmn
ol7
2—5.
u e A ee
KOQWOUHEDV, pynte
IIPOS KOPINOIOY® A.
513
y here only ft.
, ‘ \ s
Yye * Buwrica ; 47 Bewrika “ev ou Zpereonl
x a as of ‘ b? rf) , , a X Luke xxi.
KOUTIpla éav EX NTE, TOUC e&ov Evnuevouc eV TH EKKANH™= : Son
’ , , ‘ ? ‘ cc - , fi ese i |
aia, Tovrouve *KabiZere. 5° gpoc °evropomny vuly Atyay Fat
b Rom. xiv.
3 reff. ctrans., Actsii. 30. Eph. i. 20 only. 1 Kings xxx. 21. mid., Matt, xix. 28. d=ch.
vii. 35 reff. ech, xv. 34 only. Ps. xxxiv. 26. .
3. for unti ye, Torw wadrdAoy F: quanto magis vulg F-lat G-lat Pelag Bede.
4. for wev ovy, your F.
But see above on ver. 2. pyTe ye,
to say nothing of, ‘ut omittam:’ so
Demosth. p. 24. 23, ob« € & avtdy ap-
youvta ovde Tots lAos emitdttew strep
avTov TL Toleiv, uh TL ye 6) Tots Oeois.
See Hartung, Partikellehre, ii. 155.
Biwtixd, matters relating to 6 Blos, a
man’s livelihood: see ref. and Clem. Alex.
Strom. vii. 12, p. 873 P., @A:Bdéuevoy em-
KouplCer mapamvblas ... , Tats BiwtiKkats
xpelais emixoupay. It is a word of later
Greek usage, see Lexx. In classic Greek it
would be 7a Tod Biov. The meaning here
then will be civil causes, matters of mewm
and tuum, as De Wette. The sense is best
with only a comma at xpivotper.
4.] Biwtika is emphatically repeated, as
being the only sort of kpithpia which were
in question here. Meyer compares Herod.
vil. 104, Ta by exeivos aveyn avdyer
d¢ tTwvTd act, and Aristoph. Ran. 287 f.
pev ov, ‘immo vero,’ reff. (see below).
It corrects a foregoing misapprehension :
so Soph. Cid. Col. 31, “7 Setpo mpos-
otelxovta Katopudmevoy ;” “Kal 5) bev
ovv wapévta.” Hartung, Partikell. ii. 400.
KpiTypta, again, not matters to be
judged, but judgments: the matters about
which, are expressed in Biwtikd. The
following words may be rendered in two
ways: either, (a) ‘ Yea, rather (so far from
remembering your high prospect, of judg-
ing angels, your practice is), if ye have in
hand judgments concerning civil matters,
—those men who are of no account in the
church (viz. the heathen), those you set
up (place on the bench) as judges’ (i. e.
by bringing your causes before them, you
set them up as judges over you). KabiCw
occurs in this sense in Plato, Legg. ix. p.
873, éav d¢ aWuxdy Tt Wux7s avOpwmov
oTephon,... dixacthy wey advte KadiCerw
TaY yeitévey Toy eyyiTaTov 6 mposhKwy
yévet,—and Polyb. ix. 33. 12, cited above
on kpithpiov. Thus, making Kaéi¢. in-
dicative, Valla, Castal., Luther, Calov.,
Wolf, al., Schrader, Riickert, Olsh., De
Wette, Meyer. But (8) Syr., Vulg., Chrys.,
Theodoret, Theophyl., Erasm., Beza, Calvin,
Grot., Estius, Bengel, Wetst., al., take
Kabicere as imperative, and tovs éefovdev.
ev T. ekKA. as ‘minimos de piorum plebe.’
Vou. II.
So E. V.: set them to judge who are
least esteemed in the church. And to
this last interpretation I am inclined to ac-
cede, both from the, context and from the
arrangement of the words. The context is
this : ‘ Your office is to judge angels ? mere
business causes of this world are almost
beneath your notice. If such causes arise
among you (he continues in a lofty irony)
set those to judge them who are of no ac-
count among you :—do not go out of your
own number to others to have them judged:
the meanest among you is capable of doing
it. Let it be noticed that he is passing to
ver. 7, where he insists on the impropriety
of Biwrinad kpit. between Christians at all,
and is here depreciating them ironically.
But the arrangement and construction of
the words are even more strongly in favour
of the imperative rendering. For (1) on the
other, no account is given of the emphatic
position of Biwtixd. (2) the péy ovdv is
not so naturally rendered (see above) ‘ yea
rather your course is,’ as ‘yea rather let
your practice be :’ it expresses more natu-
rally a subjective correction, in the mind
of the speaker, than an objective one: see
below, ver. 7. (3) if the sentence had re-
ferred to their existing practice of going
before heathen tribunals, it would have
been expressed not Biwrika mev ody KpiT.
eav €xnte, but B. uw. odv Kp. ExovTes, as in
ver. 1. (4) of eEovPevnuevor ev TH eKK.
are much more naturally the despised in
(within) the church, than those who in
(the estimation of) the church are held of
no account. Meyer argues against this
that it would be in this case rods éefou.
Tous ev TH exkA., but surely he can hardly
be serious, or I do not understand him
rightly. (5) «a@i¢ere applies much better
to the appointing judges over a matter
among themselves, than to going before
judges already appointed. (6) as to the
objection that on this rendering the word
‘rather’ must be inserted, rodtovs waAAov
xa0iCere, it has no force, for no such sup-
plement is required. The command is ab-
solute, but given to shew them the absur-
dity of their going to law about Bioricd at
all, rather than bona fide. 5.] mpos
évtp. dp. A€yw refers to the ie com-
Li
514
f= Matt. xxvi.f ¢ ?
40 Mark vi, ourwce ouvK &
18. John
Evili, 22.
Gal. iit. 3.
g Gal. 1il. 28
(3ce). Col.
iii. I 1.
James i.7
only. see , ‘ -
Luke xi. 414. 2 8 ~
h = here only. EX ETE ued EUUTWYD,
Ezek. xxxiv
IIPOS KOPINOIOYS A.
tae s , TORN a es i .
dia TL ovye paddXov adicetobe 5 oF
MEE
f > Cx , \ , “a ,
Eve Ev UElY OVvdElg GOpOC, O¢ SuVIGETaL
i ~ + ie | A } -~ 3 - ~ ,
‘ Scaxotvat ‘ava ‘pécvv Tov adeApov auTov; 6 aXXNa adeA-
A. 4k N BS “ = ki ' m Vm ~ be ee? ee
poc "meta adeApou KolveTat,” Kal” TOVTO ETL” aTLOTWY.
7 “aN oO \ s p tv q e ec # , e r ,
non peev OUV OAWC YHYTTH Ma uplv EOTLVY OTL KOluaTa
as Ft 4 ’ a) ‘ - uv > ~ ‘ > ‘ € ~ > ~
i202) 3 ora Tel ovyXxl padXov atoorteoeabe 9 8 ada UMELC GOLKELTE
i Matt xiii. 29. , ‘ ; Sy i ae :
Mark vii. 31. v es m m Cad , w ? ry
Rev.vill7 KQL Q@MOOTEOELTE, Kat TOUTO adeA hove. N OUK oleate
only. Exod.
xi. 7. Isa. lvii. 5. constr., here only. k constr., Job ix. 3 F. 1 ver. 1. m Rom. xiii.
11 reff. n=ch. vii. 12, &c. x. 27. xiv.22,%c. 2Cor. vi. 14,15. 1 Tim. v. 8 o ver. 4,
p ch. v. 1 reff. q Rom. xi. 12 only. Isa. xxxi. 8 only. r= here only. Exod. xviii. 22. s = Eph.
iv. 832. Col. iii. 13 (see note there), t Matt. ix. 14. Rom. ix. 32 (reff) al. Nom. xi. 11. u = here
only. mid., cf. duymatiCeade, Col, ii. 20.
only. Mal. iii 5. w ve. 2,3.
5. for Aeyw, Aadrw B.
Thdrt Damase Th] ec.
v Mark x. 19. ch. vii. 5. 1 Tim. vi. 5. Jamesy. 4
rec (for ev:) ectiv, with DF m Ath: txt BCLN rel Chr
rec gopos ovde ets (Rom iii. 10), with D'L rel vulg syrr
(Chr) Thdrt Thl 2c: om ovders D! eth Ath: txt BCR 17 copt Damasc ; ovde eis cog.
Fam Aug. aft os ins ov L.
Kat ov emt ayiwy FF. (ov sic F and G.)
7. om ovv D'N' a 17 latt copt lat-ff, marked with an asterisk in syr.
A Syr eth-rom.
avakpivat X! n.
6. for tovto, tavta CD! syr-marg Thdrt.
for em, peta D}, at end ins
om oAws
rec ins ev bef yaw, with (none of our mss) vulg F-lat Orig-int
Thl: om ABCDLX rel syrr copt Bas Chr Thdrt Gic Antch.
8. transp adiceio0é and amootepeicbe L.
Kpima &.
rec (for tovto) tavta (probably be-
cause two things, adic. and amoort., are mentd), with L rel syr Chr Thdrt: txt ABCDR
17 latt copt Antch Cypr.
mand in ver. 4—I say this to put you to
shame. ottws| Is there so com-
pletely a lack of all wise men among
you.... He now suggests the more
Christian way of settling their differences,
viz. by arbitration: and asks, ‘Are you
come to this, that you are obliged raGi¢ew
any dicaords at all,—have you no wise
man among you (the rec., ovdé eis, would
be ‘quod est vehementius, cum sitis tam
multi.’ Erasm.) who shall be able (in such
event) to decide (as arbitrator) between
his brother (i.e. his brethren)? This last
is a harsh method of expression, and ap-
parently only to be accounted for by the
singular form of oddels copds having
attracted the other into the singular like-
wise, so that instead of cool ot Suvqaov-
Tat diakp. ava pecoy TaY adeAPay avTay,
we have copds ds duvjoetat Siaxp. ava pm.
Tov 45. avTod. But it is not without use:
it prevents the apparent inference, which
might be made if Tay adeAPav avrov were
used, that one wise man was to be appointed
universal arbitrator,—and confines the ap-
pointment of the arbitrator to each possi-
bly arising case respectively. 6.] (Ut
seems not to be so): nay, &e., as implied
in ver. 1. a\Xa after a question passes
rapidly on to the other alternative, the
particle negativing the question being sup-
pressed. So Xen. Mem. i. 2. 2, mas obv
avros &y towvTos &AAous bv aoeBets .. .
émolnoev; “AAN’ @ravoe pev TobTwY ToA-
Aous, aperhs mornoas emOuuciv. See Har-
tung, Partikellehre, ii. 37. 7.| He
gives his own censure of their going to
law at all. ev ovv as above, ver. 4.
ddws, altogether, without the aggrava-
tion of emt anlotwr. ATTHpA, 2
falling short, viz. of your inheritance of
the kingdom of God—a hindrance in the
way of your salvation: see ver. 9 :—not as
ordinarily understood (see especially Estius
in loc.) a moral delinquency (cf. the usage in
reff.), nor an 77Tac@a TH opyh, as Cicuin.
Kpipata, matters of dispute, lead-
ing to kpiverOar; not=xKpioe:s,—el Eav-
Tov, with one another (reff), as being
brethren in Christ. Gdixketobe and
atroorepcta Ge not passives. but middle (ef.
Bernhardy, Syntax, chap. viii. § 4, p. 346:
Menander frag.: ottos kpatiotés ear
avnp, ® Topylta, ostis adiketo@ar mAcioT
ériotatat Bporay: Hesiod. épy. 347, ed wév
MetpetoOat mapa yeltovos, vd drodotvat)
—allow yourselves to be wronged and
defrauded. See Matt. v. 39 ff. 8. |
cannot be, as Meyer, a continuation of the
question, on account of the emphatic duets,
which would thus be without meaning.
The account of this emphatic due?s is to be
found in an ellipsis after droorepetabe to
the effect, ‘as our Lord commanded us His
disciples,’ or ‘as it behoves the followers of
Christ. Then dtue7s comes in contrast :
you on the contrary (dAAd, see above
ver. 6) do wrong, and defraud, and that
«ee Tl~
oTwv,
Kat ov
€mt ayi-
wv F
G).
ABCD
LNabe
defgh
kimn
ol7
6—12. IIPOX KOPINOIOY®S A. 515
z ‘
x= Matt. xxv.
Mn ==;
ch. xv.
hv. Gal.v.
wv ~ ,
Ore adexoe Geou * BastAciav ov *¥ KA npovouyaovew 5
~ ” v2 7 ’ Ui
*wravac0e. ovre * roovor ovre ewAoXaTpat ove ° pot-
21. see James
\ 7 d \ ” e? ~ ” f fi i. 4. 5
XOl ouTE paXdakot OUTE apoEevoKolTat 10 Gure ‘KAémrat ies Aas
” b D > D > ’ bee Gal. vi. 7.
oure — wAsovexrat, ov ®psebvoo, ov © Aoidopot, ovy Pao= Samer. is.
x x , rf) ~ xy x , 1 Je Isa. xii. 10.
Tayec, Bact elav OU KAnOOVOLYGOVOLY, Kal ashe 105
hie Wh ere tS oD , ? Seen © beh. v. 10, 11
TQUTA TIVEC NTE aAXa aveXovoaacle, aA\Xa nytacOnre, (reff). i
> . Im? , m? 7 iieae en ~ , , ~ ¢ Luke xviii.
arXa eorKkaiwOnre ev TH) OVOMAaTL TOV KUPLOU Inoov V1. Heb. xiii.
U 4only. Job
Vom)? Bs , » Otome ole xxiv. 15.
Kal §&V TW TvEevpAaTL TOV VEeou YHuwv. d = here (Matt.
12 n , no »; > , > , Pp , xi. 8 bis. bs
> , , y . Luke vii. 25)
Tlavta poor “e€eotiv, addr’ ov zavra ? cunpéper Lake vii, 25)
xxy. 15. xxvi. 22 only.) e1 Tim. i. 10 only +. see Levit. xviii. 22 f Matt. vi.
al. Obad. 5. gch.v. 1) (reff.). h see John xv.17. 3 John 4, i Acts
xxil. l6 only. Jobix. S0only. see Rev. i. 6. k Rom. xv. 16 reff. 1= Rom iii
20, 30. v. 1 al. m Acts xiii. 39 ret. n constr., Mark ii. 24. ch. x. 23 bis. o Acts
XXi.37 ret. p constr., ch. x. 23. 2 Cor. vili.10. Prov. xix. 10. Sir, xxxvii. 28.
9. rec BaciAciay bef Aeov (as below in ver 10), with L rel latt Clem Chr Thdrt Iren-
int Cypr: txt ABCDN m 17. om ov Bo}. ovd_ (throughout vv. 9, 10) D.
10. mAcoventat ovre KAemTat DL be def g hlno syrr Clem Chr Thdrt Damase
Thl: om ovre wAcoverta k 3. 35. 42. 238 Clem, Orig. rec (for Ist ov) ovre,
with BD3L rel Ath, Thl Ge: ovse D!(as above): txt ACN a 17 Clem, Ath, Julian(in
Epiph) Chr Thdrt. Qeouv bef Bac. D. rec ins ov bef kAnpovounoovew (prob
JSrom writing the ov of beov twice over: the mistake being perpetuated, or even the
readg 6ccasioned, by the ov kAnp. of ver 9. This seems a more likely account than
that a variation betw the two vv should have been sanctioned by perpetuating an acci-
dental omn of the ov), with L rel Ign(but readg varies. Coteler has kAnpovounrat
duvavtra, omg ov) Ath, Ps-Ath Cyr-jer Chr-ms, Thdrt Thl: om ABCD 1! 17 Meth
Julian Ath, Chr Thdrt, Damase (ec (Polyc).
li. [adda (8rd), so ABDN (C has add’ all three times; D!, the 1st time; L, the
2nd and 3rd times). | aft xvpiov ins nuwy B C(appy) m 17 vulg Syr syr-w-ast
Ath, Did, Epiph Iren-int, Orig-int Cypr: om ADLN rel. aft moou ins xpiorov
B C(appy) D'& 1m 17 &e (as precedg): om AD*L Thi He.
themselves to Christian baptism. See ref.
(your), brethren. 9.] ‘Ye comiit
wrong :* this looks as if you had forgotten
the rigid exclusion from the kingdom of
God of all wrong-doers of every kind (in-
cluded here under &uco1) ; see Gal. v. 21.
pe} wAavacbe | This caution would
be most salutary and needful in a dissolute
place like Corinth. It is similarly used, and
with an express reference to dmiAtat karat,
ch. xv. 33. aépvot refers back to ch. v.,
and is taken up again, vv. 12 ff. padakot
= ma@irot (see in Wetst.). peOucor, see
on ch. v. 11. 11. | ‘These things were
the former state of some among you: but
ye are now in a far different state.’ I can-
not think with Meyer that tatrva is used
in contempt, such a horde, or rabble : itis
rather ‘of such a kind, these things,
were some of you (tives limits the byuets
which is the suppressed subject of jjte) :
but ye washed them off (viz. at your bap-
tism. The 1 aor. mid. cannot by any pos-
sibility be passive in signification, as it is
generally, for doctrinal reasons, here ren-
dered. On the other hand the middle
sense has no doctrinal import, regarding
merely the fact of their having submitted
L
Acts), but (there is in the repetition of
aAAd, the triumph of one who was under
God the instrument of this mighty change)
ye were sanctified (not in the dogmatic
sense of progressive sanctification, but so
that whereas before you were unholy, by the
reception of the Holy Ghost you became
dedicated to God and holy), but ye were
justified (by faith in Christ, you received
the diucaoctvn G6eod, Rom. i. 17), in the
Name of the Lord Jesus, and in the
(working of the) Spirit of our God. These
two last clauses must not be fancifully
(as Meyer, al.) assigned amongst the pre-
ceding. They belong to all, as De Wette
rightly maintains, The spiritual washing
in baptism, the sanctification of the children
of God, the justification of the believer, are
all wrought in the Name of the Lord Jesus,
and are each and all the work of the Spirit
of our God. By the 7),u6v again, he binds
the Corinthians and himself together in the
glorious blessings of the gospel-state, and
mingles the oil of joy with the mourning
which by his reproof he is reluctantly
creating.
516
lay on LW Be
Tyvords.ch, = 7 aVTQ 43s
iii. 17 al. 13,
r Luke xxii, aes owpata o
Re on vii. 4 8! «6
Ison
ect. he 17. acsiacie 0 € UVEoc Kat
pede aft bY: =
xiv. 150 L yhoet. TO € oupa ov TY
wae vii. 19.
Loke ii. 11.
es 3. Kal oO KUOLOC TW ompate’
Heb. ix. 10. xiii. 9only. Job vi. 5.
xxi. 15,18, 19. u see ch. vii. 7.
12—20.] CoRRECTION OF AN ABUSE OF
THE DOCTRINE OF CHRISTIAN FREEDOM
WHICH SOME AMONG THEM HAD MADE,
THAT, AS MEATS WERE INDIFFERENT, SO
WAS FORNICATION (vv. 12—17). Srrone
PROHIBITION OF, AND DISSUASIVE FROM
THIS SIN (vv. 18—20). 12.| State-
ment of the tr ue doctrine of Christian free-
dom. Tavta po. ckeortwy are the bona
fide words of the Apostle himself, not, as
some have understood them, the saying of
an opponent cited by him. For (1) the
sentiment is a true Christian axiom : mavta
being of course understood, as it evidently
was even by the abusers of the doctrine, of
things (supposed by thei) d5idpopa. (2)
It is not introduced by any clause indica-
tive of its being the saying of another,
which is Paul’s habit in such eases, see
Rom. xi. 19. (3) The Apostle does not
either deny or qualify the @éeorw, but
takes up the matter from another point
of view, viz. the ouudéper. The wo is
spoken in the person of Christians gene-
rally. ‘Szpe Paulus prima persona sin-
gulari eloquitur que vim habent gnomes:
in hac preesertim epistola, ver. 15, ch. vii. 7,
viii. 13, x. 23, 29, 30, xiv. 11.” Bengel.
ovpdéper| are advantageous—in
the most general sense: distinguished from
oixodouer, ch. x. 23, where the words again
occur. Meyer cites from Theodor. Mops.,
—éreid}) yap ob maytTa ocuupéeper, dhAov
@S ov TaTL XpHaTEeov, GAAG Tots wpEAodut
pdvos. GAN ovK éy® éf.] Meyer
thinks that the éy# here has an emphasis,
as meaning the real I, my moral per-
sonality. But this can hardly be so: the
real emphasis is on od«, and éyé corre-
sponds to for, expressed more to bring out
the first person as the sample of Christians
in general, than for any such formal dis-
tinction. Hovorag@jcopat| I will
not be deprived of my freedom by any
practice;—i.e. indulge in any practice
which shall mar this liberty and render it
no real freedom, making me to be one
under efovcia, instead of « one exercising it.
The play on €£eor: and éfovoia cannot
be given in English. 1S 14s) t<o
cibis ad venerem non valet consequentia.”
Bengel. The argumentis,—meats (of which
I1POX KOPINOIOY®S A.
VA:
re¢
7 3. ’ > ’ CX , e ,
ego 2 adr ovk eyo efouotasOnoouat vir0
, Sener: ’ -
‘kota, Kat n ‘KowXta ToIc
, \ ~ v
“raurny Kat “ tauta * Katao-
, > A es ,
“ Topvela, aXa TY Kuply,
Oo
146 82 ede Kat Tov KUpLOY
t = Matt. xv.17. Rev. x. 9,10. 2 Kings xx. 10. einon!
v Kom. iii. 3 reff.
x ch. v. 1 reff.
he doubtless had often impressed on them
that they were a5iapmopa, whence the abuse)
are expressly created for the belly, and the
belly for them, by its organization being
fitted to assimilate them ; and both these
are of a transitory nature : in the change to
the more perfect state, God will do away
with both. Therefore meats are a5iddopa.
But neither is the body created for forni-
cation, nor can this transitoriness be predi-
cated of it: the body is for the Lord, and
the Lord (in his mediatorial work) for the
body : and God raised up the Lord, and
will raise up us (i.e. our bodies): so that
the body is not perishable, and (resumed
ver. 18) he that fornicates, sins against his
own body. ‘THEREFORE, fornication is not
an ddiapopov. It is very remarkable
how these verses contain the germ of three
weighty sections of the Epistle about to
follow, and doubtless in the Apostle’s mind
when he wrote them, (1) the relation be-
tween the sexes: (2) the question of meats
offered to idols: (3) the doctrine of the
Resurrection of the Body. See Neander,
Pfl. u. Leit. p. 401, note 21. 13.] Tq
KouX., scil. €or. The belly is their ap-
pointed receptacle—they, its appointed
pabulum. Of course even this part of the
argument must be understood within the
limits of od mavra cuudéper. 6 Se
@.....Katapy.| viz. at the appearing of
the Lord: when, ch. xv. 51, 52, we shall
be changed from a céua Wuxirdy, to be a
coma wvevuatixdy: not, at death.
7 topv.| The body was not made for the
practice of fornication. The reciprocal sub-
serviency of the belly and meats is shewn
by their coextensiveness in duration, and
perishing together: but when zopvela (and
even that lawful use which is physically the
same, but which is not here contemplated)
shall have for ever passed away, the body
shall be subserving its real use —that of
being an instrument for the Lord’s work.
kK. 6 Kup. TO gwp.| not, only for
the body: but for the body; to sanctify
our bodies by His Spirit, and finally to
glorify them tor Himself, see Rom. viii. 11.
This tinal reference must not be excluded
here, though it is not the principal thought :
—rather, the redemption of the body from
K kate
TAUTA cee
ABCD
KL ab
cdefg
hklim
nol7
at
13—16. IIPOS KOPINOIOY® A. 517
y ” \ (a z? ~ Q ~ , > ~ ie
NYyEelpev, Kat lage eCeyepet cia tne Ouvapewc QUTOU, Y= Matt. x. 8.
Wierd alia 3c gUSuaeean obi ad ap Rb wa th ac aL Ba.
aie = 15 ode oldare Ore Ta swpata Vuw@y > wéedn XOLOTOU EOTW 5S Xxviiy.
ovk oc 6 et Seba 2 - ~ d , ry eae: z = here only.
sc “apag ovv ta © pédn rou Xetatou ~ Tomsw ~ TOEYNG (Rom. iz-17
ABCDF b U cH ate ») / IS a) ? 7 e © s 3 y i 5°
Rteop MéAn3 “pn yévotro. 16 * ouK oldate Ore 0 EKoAAW- F278)»
cdefg Same 202 a ea tae he sr E , h Taco ee
, oe A?
ik | mi févoc ™ TOO) y EV GWUa EOTIV, OOVTaL yao pnow lt a sii
nol7 4, 5 (vi. 13 reff.). c= Matt. xxi. 21. Johnii. 16. xi. 39. xx. 1. Eph. iv. 31. d = Matt.
iv.19. John vi.15al. Gen xiv. 9. e Matt. xxi. 31, 32. Luke xv. 30 al, Gen. xxxiyv. 31.
f Rom. iii. 4 reff. h ellips., Heb. viii. 5. ch. xv. 27. (see
Rom. iv. 3. ix. 17.
g Acts v. 13 reff. see Matt. xix. 5.
1 Tim. y. 18.)
14. elz vuas (error? Mey thinks, perhaps from Rom viii. 11): txt ABCDKL® rel
vss Polye Iren-int gr-lat-ff. efeyerper AD!: eteyerpet m: eényepev B 67?: susci-
tavit am harl(but qu, for -b7t ?): txt (see note) CD3LN rel syrr copt ath Ath-mss Chr
Thdrt Iven-int Archel Tert.
15. ins 7 bef ovx F.
DF latt Iren-int Cypr Lucif.
16. om 7 DKL rel syr Mcion-e Dial Thdrt-ms Damase Thl Tert : ins ABCFN a! h
m 17 vss Clem Orig Chr (ec Cypr. om ¢now A Epiph Cypr Andr (Tert): ins
quov AN! 238. om eoty F. pean bef ropyns
BCDFKLNX rel Jatt Dial Mcion-e Chr Thdrt Lucif.
sin, and making it into a member of Him-
self by the Spirit. 14.] So far from
the case of the Lord and the body answer-
ing to the other, God raised up the Lord
(Rom. viii. 11, al. fr.), and will raise up
us too by His Power. I cannot adopt
here the reading (€&7yerpev), or the view,
of Meyer. He holds, that all reference to
the resurrection, as a thing future, is out
of place: that the Apostle refers to the
virtual and proleptic resurrection which
has already taken place in the case of
the believer, as Eph. ii. 6; Col. ii. 12,—
and thinks that the reading efeyepe? has
arisen from not seeing this. But how
unnatural will the construction thus be—
6 Se eds kal Thy KUpiov jryetper, Kal juas
etnyeipev, Sia T. Svy. avtov! I can con-
ceive no account of such a sentence, except
that some emphasis is meant to be laid on
the distinction between 7ye:pey and é&jyer-
pev, which idea (maintained by Bengel, al )
Meyer himself very properly repudiates :
see below. The future corresponds to
Katapynoet, and is used with 7uas,—con-
trary to the usual practice of Paul, who
expected to be alive at the mapovala,—
as the expression, in the first person, of
the truth of the future resurrection, not
destruction, of the body. 7yeupev, viz. ex
vexpay, Acts ili. 15; Rom. iv. 24, and
passim: éfeyepet, viz. ex vexpav. So that
there is no real difference between the two
words. 15. | Resumption of 7b caua
T@ kuptw kK. 6 KUplos TG oHmaTt. The two
are so intimately connected, that the Lord
is a mystical Body, of which our bodies,
parts of ourselves in our perfect organiza-
tion, are members. This Christian axiom
is introduced as before (reff.) by ov ofSare
ort. Having then (ody, ‘ concesso,’ that
my body is a member = my members are
members of Christ) alienated (pas is not
merely pleonastic, ‘ Shall I take... . and
make them...., as EK. V. This is shewn
by its position first in the sentence) the
members of Christ (i.e. my own members),
shall I make them an harlot’s members ?
The expression mépyns pméAn is put as
coarsely and startlingly as possible, with
the emphasis on wépy7s. Toujow may
also be the aor. subj., ‘must I, have I
any right to, make them?? But ph yé-
voto answers better to the future.
16. | Explanation and justification of the ex-
pression wépyns “éAn. %, as De Wette
well, “Do you think the expression mojow
mépv. edn too strong?” KoAX. ]
“blider WAusdruct fiir Gefchlechtsvereini=
gung.” De Wette. 7TH Topv.| with
a harlot, generic: or which in fact amounts
to the same, with ‘ the harlot,’ presupposed
in the hypothesis. év oGpa, viz. ‘with
her’ The full construction would be 67:
6 KOAA. TH Top. Kal 7 Wép. Ev a. cio, but
he is here bringing out the criminality of
the fornicator, and leaves the other out of
view. The citation is spoken of mar-
viage; but here as above (see on ver. 13)
he is treating merely of the physical act,
which is the same in both cases. ono,
viz. Gop, Who is the speaker in the Scrip-
tures: so in citing the same words, our
Lord gives them to 6 ro:joas (adTovs)
am apxijs, Matt. xix.5. They were spoken
by the mouth of Adam, but prophetically,
divino afflatu. To render @yow imper-
sonal, ‘it says,’ ‘heift es,’ though justified
by classical usage, see Winer, edn. 6, §
58. 9, would, as Meyer remarks, be alto-
gether without precedent in the citations
of Paul. The words ot 8vo are not in the
518 ITPOS KOPINOIOY®S A. VI. 17—20.
i GEN. ii. 24.
= Dake ili, 6. ol dv0 | etc suoka pee 76 8e ® Kod\AWEVOY TW ’ Kupiy
Gomi. 8 ev mvevpa hidden * pevyere THY Lapa: Tav
20. GL 38) auaptnua O éav " Tomoy elipinee: ° terde TOV cwua-
to dee ait roc éativ' 0 6s "ropvebwy % etc TO tovov sane * auap-
k= Paul only. cape. 199 *ovK oldate OTL TO oma voy * yaoe Tov
2 Tim 22, ev vp aylov TvEevmaToOC Eat, © Ov EXere amo Qeov, Kat
A a OUK EGTE ‘ eauroy 5 ae " ayogas Onre yao “rung. “ do&a-
Stony. ba cate * On Tov Oeoy ev TH cwRaTL VUwY.
n = 2 Cor. xi 7 reff. o = 2Cor, xii. 2 (3 v.r.J$. (Acts xxvi. 22. ch. xv. 27 al. 3 Kings iv. 23 )
p ch. x. 8 bis only in Epp. Rev: ii. 14, 20. xvii. 2. xviii. 3, Yonly. Ps. 1xxii. 27. q Matt. xviii.
15. Luke xv. 18, 21. ch. viii. 12. Gen. xx.6, 9. Xen. Hell. i. 7.20, rch. iii. 16 reff. s attr.,
Acts i. 1 reff. t gen., ch. i. 12. iti. 23. Rom. xiv. 8. a =ch, vii.23. 2 Pet.ii.1. Rev.
v.Y. xiv. 3, 4. V Acts xix. 19 reff. w Rom. i. 21 reff. x = Lukeii. 15. Acts
xiii. 2. xv. 36. Gen. xviii. 4.
18. for gevy., puyere F. for eav, av D! 17. 106.
19. for ro cwua, Ta cwuara (corrn to suit vuwy) A-corr' Ledfgmn17 syr copt
ath arm Orig, Meth Did Jer Aug Ambrst Vig: membra vestra vulg Ambr Pelag Fulg
Bede: txt AN (appy) BCDFEX rel Syr Chr Ge Orig-int (no lat-f).- mvevparos bef
ay.ov B vulg lat-ff. ins tov bef @eov N*. avTov &!.
20. [for dotacare 8n, glorificate et putate vulg G-lat; gl. et tollite spec, dofacare
dn apa Chr-txt (Sav and Matth’s ms,), dotacare 5n apate Chr-txt (Montf and Matth’s
ms)), doé. 7. 9. Tovreotiv apate T. 0. Chr- -txt(ms,)—see Griesb, who adds “Czterum in
comm istud &pare non attingit, preter hom. 4. in 1 Tim. hee habet dofdcowpev 5H roy
Bedy, Epwuev Toy Oedy ev TS odmati.” Ke.—om dy N!: ins N-corr'. | ree at end
adds kat ev Tw mvevuaTi vuwy ativa egte Tov Beou (insd appy with a view to make the
exhortation complete. An ecclesiastical portion began at dogacare), with C3D*3KL
rel syrr Chr Thdrt, Thl ec: om ABC'D'FR 17 latt copt «2th Meth(in Epiph) Did Cyr
Max Damase Iren- anit Tert.
Heb., but in the LXX and the Samaritan
Pentateuch, and are found in the Rabbi-
nical citations of the passage. See note on
Matt. xix. 5. 17.] Union to God,
His service, and His ways, is often ex-
pressed by this word («oAA.) in the LXX,
(reff): but here that inner union with
Christ in spirit is meant, which is the nor-
mal state of every believer, and of which
it may be said that he ey mv. éorw with
Christ. See John xvii. 21, and the parable
of John xv. 1—7. Meyer rightly remarks,
that the mystical marriage between Christ
and His Church must not (as Olsh. from
Eph. v. 23 ff.) be pressed here, as the rela-
tions of the comparedare not correspondent.
Still however, the inner verity of that mysti-
cal relation is the ground of both passages.
18—20. | Direct prohibition of forni-
cation, and its grounds. 18.] hevyere
might be followed by ody, but is more
forcible in this disconnected form.
mav apdpr.| The assertion, which has sur-
prised many of the Commentators, is never-
theless strictly true. Drunkenness and
gluttony, e.g. are sins done in and by the
body, and are sins by abuse of the body,—
but they are still ékrds rod TduaTros—in-
troduced Srom without, sinful not in their
act, but in their effect, which effect it is
each man’s duty to foresee and avoid. But
fornication is the alienating that body
which is the Lord’s, and making it a
harlot’s body—it is sin against a man’s
own body, in its very nature,—against the
verity and nature of his body; not an
effect on the body from participation of
things without, but a contradiction of the
truth of the body, wrought within itself.
When man and wife are one in the Lord,
—united by His ordinance,—no such
alienation of the body takes place, and con-
sequently no sin. 19.| Justification
of the es 7d 75. cGu. quapt. above,—and
this by an amplification of the above caua
7@ kuplw, and ey mvetua éorw. Your
body (i.e. the body of each man among
you, but put singular, to keep, as in ch. iii.
16, the unity of the idea of God’s temple,
or perhaps because the body in its attri-
butes is in question here) is the temple
of (possessed by, as His residence: the
temple, not a temple, see note on ch. iii.
16) the Holy Spirit who is in you (re-
miniscence of the reality of His indwell-
ing), Whom ye have from God (reminis-
cence, whose Spirit He is, and so prepara-
tion for the following inference), and are
not your own (so that ye have no right to
alienate your body, not being yours).
20.| Proof, that ye are not your own.
The possession of your body as His temple,
ABCDF
KLNab
edefg
hklm
nol7
WEE; 2:
I1POS KOPINOIOY®S A. 619
VIL. 1 Meot 88.7 Ge eypavars, *xaddv * avOodrmm ¥trsRom.
? Y§ 2 e av. 18 rett.
L
‘ \ pe rf) ie 25 ‘ 8 ‘ c t v z= Rom.
yuvatkoc Bn aTTEGUal ta fe 17asg TOPVELAC EKQAOTOC xiy. 21 ref.
a= Matt xix. 5 (from Gen. ii. 24), 10.
vv. 8, 26.
b = Gen. xx. 6. Prov. vi. 29. ech. v. 1
reff. abstr. plur., 2 Cor. x1i. 20. Gal. v.20. James ii. 1. Winer, edn. 6, § 27.3.
Cap. VII. 1. rec aft eypaware ins por,
by the Holy Ghost, is a presumptive proof
that ye are not ; but there is also a proof
in matter of fact: For ye were bought
(not, as E. V. are bought, which destroys
the historic reference) with a price (viz.
the blood of Christ, see 1 Pet. i. 18, alee
Matt. xx. 28; Gal. iii. 13,—not as Vulg.
magno pretio: tiyujs merely recalls the
fact here, that a price was paid and so the
purchase completed). This buying is here
mentioned mainly with reference to the
right of possession, which Christ has
thereby acquired in us. In other places it
is alleged as a freeing from other services :
e. g. that of sin (Rom. vi. 17, 18), of the
law and its curse (Gal. iii.), of Satan (Col.
i018); Sofdo. 8)... .| Glorify
then (57, not exactly an inference from the
foregoing, but = ‘eja,’ ‘agedum,’ tending
to enforce and intensify the command: “as
a cheering or hortatory expression,” Stan-
ley. So Od. v. 17, rérAabs 5h, kpadln; see
Hartung, Partikellehre, i. 284 f.) God (i.e.
not praise God, but glorify Him by your
acts) in your body (not, by means of
your body, but ix your body, as the temple
of God; see John xiii. 32).
Cuar. VII. 1—40.] Repiy to THEIR
ENQUIRIES RESPECTING MARRIAGE; BY
WHICH OCCASION IS GIVEN FOR VARIOUS
COLLATERAL INSTRUCTIONS AND COM-
MANDS. In order to the right understand-
ing of this chapter, it will be well to re-
member, that the enquiries in the letter of
the Corinthians appear to have been made
in disparagement of marriage, and to have
brought into doubt whether it were not
better to avoid it where uncontracted, and
break it off where contracted, or this last
at all events where one of the parties was
an unbeliever. These questions he an-
swers, vv. 1—16: and puts on their true
grounds, vv. 17—24. They appear also to
have asked respecting virgins, what was
their duty and that of their parents, as to
their contracting marriage. This he dis-
cusses in its various aspects of duty and
Christian expediency, vv. 25—38. Then
he concludes with an answer and advice,
respecting the liberty of a woman to marry
after the death of her husband. The
whole is written under the strong impres-
sion (see on this, notes, Acts ii. 20; Rom.
xiii. 11, and 2 Cor. v.: and Prolegg. to
with ADFKL rel syrr Meth Chr Thdrt Jer
Aug Ambrst,: om BCN 17 am fuld! Tert,.
Vol. III. ch. v. § iv. 5—10) of the near
approach of the end of this state of things
(vv. 29—31), and as advising them under
circumstances in which persecution, and
family division for the Gospel’s sake, might
at any time break up the relations of life.
The precepts therefore and recommenda-
tions contained in the chapter are to be
weighed, as those in ch. viii. al., with re-
JSerence to change of circumstances; and
the meaning of God’s Spirit in them with
respect to the subsequent ages of the
Church, to be sought by eareful com-
parison and inference, not rashly assumed
and misapplied. I may also premise,
that in hardly any portion of the Epistles
has the hand of correctors and interpo-
lators of the text been busier, than here.
The absence of all ascetic tendency from
the Apostle’s advice, on the point where as-
ceticism was busiest and most mischievous,
was too strong a testimony against it, to
be left in its original clearness. In con-
sequence, the textual critic finds himself
in this chapter sometimes much perplexed
between differing readings, and in danger
of on the one hand adopting, on over-
whelming MS. authority, corrections of
the early ascetics,—and on the other ex-
cluding, from a too cautious retention of
the rec. text, the genuine but less strongly
attested simplicity of the original.
1,2.] Concession of the expediency (where
possible) of celibacy, but assertion of the
practical necessity of marriage, as a re-
medy against fornication. 1.] 8é,
transitional, passing on to another subject.
kadov ... .| not, morally good:
for in ver. 28 expressly not sin, but inex-
pediency, is the reason for not marrying :
nor good in the sense of imepéxov, as
Jerome, adv. Jovin. i. 7, vol. ii. p- 246,
‘si bonum est mulierem non_tangere,
malum ergo est tangere :’ but expedient,
generally: ‘more for a man’s best inte-
rests under present circumstances ;’ Angl.
‘it is the best way,’ in the colloquial
sense: so also throughout the chapter:
see the word qualified ver. 26, kaddy .
dia Thy évertGcav avayny. av-
Oper) though of necessity by what fol-
lows, the man only is intended, yet
avOpém~ does not here or in reff. = avipt,
but as Meyer remarks, regards the man
520
d Matt. xviii.
32. Sia =
xiii. 7 only
(- -nua, Rom. ey éTw.
IIPOS KOPINOIOY®= A.
VIE
my EQUTOU yuvaika éxére, Kal exdorn Tov tov avopa
3 on yuvari 0 avnp TH
wel arodisorw,
iv. 4.)
¢ = Rom. xiii ‘ omotwe ‘Se Skat H yuu" TW avépt. 44 yurn TOU LoLoV
(Rit > fc ’ fag ‘
faebis, Matt. ownaroc ouK * eGovaracet, ona 0 ano’ | omotwe * 6é ' Kat
xxvil. 41 € vz ? See ,
(IMK. vr). O avio TOV LOloV GWLATOE OUK relovaralet, eee n yun.
Luke v. 10 z
h? - 5) , he On ,
=? nn) ATOOTEDEITE adAnAoug, * Et Wn ‘rt av *&K ouupwvov
se Rom. i. n
or 0 m
Ped vi. 12 reff. p ¢
h = here only. (ch. vi. 7, 8 reff.) Exod. xxi. 10.
iii. 34. 2 Cor. viii. 13. ix. 7.
2 Cor. vi. 15.)
only. Exod. v. 8,17 bis. Ps. xlv. 10 only.
2. tnv mopyvetav F vulg syrr Orig-int Cypr.
(homeotel) F 48. 114. 177 Tert.
lhere only. Eccl. vii. 14 F. (-vws, vat.) only.
m Loke viii. 13 (1 Thess. ii. 17) only. Wisd. iv. 4.
o absol., Rom. xii, 12.
, e/ n Na = \ aN
Kalooy, tva oxo QaoOnrTre ™ ° TpOcEVyH Kat TAAL
i Lukeix. 13. 2 Cor. xiii. 5 only. k = John
(-vetv, Acts v.9. -vnacs,
n Matt. xii. 44 (|| L. v.r.)
om kat exact. T. 10. avd. EX.
8. rec for opeiAnv, opetAouevny evvo.ay (see note), with L rel syrr Thdrt Thl He:
txt ABCDFN! 17 latt copt eth arm Clem, Orig, Meth Chr,.
, Chr-mss Cypr Jer.
4. [adda(twice), so ‘ABC (2nd, D!) & 17. ]
rec oxorabnte, with KL rel Meth Chr, Thdrt: txt ABCDFR
rec ins 77 vnotea Kat bef ty mposevxn (see note), with
de A 55 Syr copt Orig
5. om ay B.
Orig, Dion-alex Chirajiq-
not merely in his sexwal but in his human
capacity. Thus in its deeper reference, it
would embrace the other sex also.
amreo Oat | soin reff. ; andin Latin ¢angere,
attingere, virgo intacta. See examples in
Wetst. This expression is obviously here
used in the widest sense, without pre-
sent regard to the difference between the
lawful and unlawful use of the woman.
The idea that the assertion applies to ab-
stinence from intercourse in the already
married (see again below), is altogether a
mistake. 2.| The former course is
expedient—would avoid much trouble ‘in
the tlesh :? but as a general rule 2é may
not be, seeing that for a more weighty
reason the contrary course is to be recom-
mended. But on account of fornications
(the many instances of fornication current.
The plur. of an abstract noun implies repe-
tition, or varieties of the occurrence: so
Herod. vii. 158, buty peydraa wpeAlar Te
Kk. é€maupéceis yeydvact: iii. 40, euol de
ai cal peydAa evTvxXlat ovK apécKovor,
see reff., and Kiihner, Gramm. ii. 28
[§ 408, y]) let each man possess his
own wife, and let each woman possess
her own husband. The éyxérw is (1) not
concessive, but imperative; not, ‘habere
liceat, but ‘habeto” So the other ex-
pressions, yaunodtwoay ver. 9, pevétw
ver. 11, &c. (2) not here in the sense
of ‘utatur, eique commisceatur,’ as Estius,
al., which does not come into considera-
tion till the next verse. (8) not emphatic,
let each retain, according to the mistaken
idea mentioned on ver. 1, that he is speak-
ing to the married, who though they are
not to cohabit are yet to remain together.
Had either of the two latter senses
amod.deTw A, om
been meant, the sentence would rather
have stood éyétw €k. 7. €avT. yuvatka,
k. €xétTw éxdotn T. 16. &vdp. With
regard to the assertion of Riickert, that
the Apostle here gives a very low estimate
of marriage, as solely a remedy against
fornication, the true answer is, that Paul
does not either here, or in this chapter at
all, give any estimate of marriage in the
abstract. His estimate, when he does, is
to be found Eph. v. 25—82.
3, 4.| The duty of cohabitation incumbent
on the married. This point was in all pro-
bability raised in the letter of the Corin-
thians. The Apostle’s command isa legiti-
mate following out of d:a tas mopvetas
above. 3. THY dderdyy| ‘debitum
tori.2 The rec. was perhaps an euphemism
(we have also the varieties, dme:Aouéevny
Tomiyy, Chrysostom once: 6d. Tyhy Kat
e¥vo.ay in the ms. 40) for the same thing.
Meyer will not concede this, but thinks it
arose from a mistaken interpretation of
opetA7 as meaning merely ‘ benevolentia :’
thinking that not evvo.a, but piAdrys would
be the word in the other case. But some
of the later examples in Wetst. seem to
bear out this meaning of edvoia.
4.] The axiom is introduced without a yap,
as frequently. Tov iSiov... . ovK éf-
ovoraler | ‘sui, cum potestatem non habet,
elegans facit paradoxon.’ Bengel. The
ground of this being another’s while they
remain their own, is to be found in the
oneness of body, in which the marriage
state places them. 5.] aroortepeite
is applied by Meyer to ris ékovclas,—
by Billroth, al., to ris apeAjs ; De Wette
suggests tov odmatos, but prefers, and:
rightly, leaving its reference indefinite,
ABCDF
KLNab
cedefg
hklm
nol7
3o—7.
Hq
THY * akoaciav UY.
> Pwd ,
ov Kat — emiTayny.
ec \ ? , a ? \ 10
we Kal guavrov’ adXa : ExaaTo¢ 1OLo”v EyEt
~ ce \ x er ¢
Oeov, o nev * outwe, o b& *
t Matt. xxiii. 25 onlyt. Jos. Antt. viii. 7.
only. Sir. iii, 13 only.
X see ch, vi. 13.
KLN? rel syrr Chr Thdrt Cyr, :
6 rouro 88 AEyw Kata
"Oedw oe mavrac avOowmove elvat
,’
ouTwe.
5. Xen. Mem. iv. 5, 6.
v ae Xvi. 26 reff.
IITPOS KOPINOIOYS A. 521
~
: § dia 1, 44
emt TO auto Pairs, iva uy * realy vuac 0 teens ta P Acts ii. .
q Luke xvii.
35. Actsi.
“ ouyyvonny, 15. ii. 47. ch.
Xi. 2U. xiv.
23.
T Matt. iv. 1, 3.
w , ch, x. 13.
Xaplopa EK Jamesi. 13.
3 Kings x. 1.
s = Rom. xiv.
15 rett.
(-rHs, 2 Tim. iii. 3.) a here
w = here only. (Rom. i. 11 reff.)
om ABCDFR! 17 latt copt «th arm Clem Orig,.
rec for nTe, cuvepxetbe (gloss: see note), with a c h Meth Chr Thdrt, Thi:
ovvepxnobe KL rel Thdrt;, :
yweobe Tatian Clem:
FR 17 eth Orig Dion Cyr Damase Aug(estoteszpe)-
revertimini vulg lat-ff: txt ABCD
om vuwy B Meth.
7. rec yap (gloss, substituted for 5, as more appropriate), with BD?3K LN? rel syrr
Chr Thdrt, Thl He: txt ACD!FX' d 17 am(with demid fuld) copt goth Orig Chr, Cyr
Damase lat-ff.
[adAa, so BCD! 17.]
rec xapioua bef exe, with KL rel
syrr goth Ephr Chr Thdrt lat-ff: txt ABDFX m 17 am(with demid tol) Clem Orig
Cyr Cypr Jer, C(appy) has exe: bef exaoros.
ins Tov bef @eov DF c Thart,.
rec ds (twice), with KLNX® rel Orig Chr Thdrt: txt ABCDFX! 17 Clem Cyr.
to be » supplied in the reader’s mind.
ei py Tt, unless perchance (reff.).
av| ‘The verb is sometimes omitted after
this particle, but always so, that it can be
supplied from a foregoing clause. So Eur.
Alcest. 181, c& 8 &AAn yuvd) KexThoeTat,
Thppwv pmev ove &v madAAov, evTUXNs F
tzws.” Hartung, Partikellehre, ii. 330.
éx, according to: the mutual agreement
being the ground, and the measure, of the
act. iva oyx.]| in order that ye may
have undisturbed leisure for prayer. The
pres. cxoAd(nre of the rec. would refer to
the general habit, and would thus make
77 wpos., ‘your ordinary prayers, —being
thus inconsistent with the direction given
mpos katpdv : the aorist expresses this tem-
porary purpose, and shews that the prayer
meant is not ordinary but extraordinary,
—seasons of urgent supplication.
Both the alteration to the present and the
addition of 77 ynoreia kat, shew how such
passages as this have been tampered with
by the ascetics. HTE,—not cuvépynode
as it has been amended (nor -eo@e as it has
been re-amended), because efva: ém) 7d
av7é in this sense is the zormal state of
the married. For the expression see reff.
The subjune. still depends on 4va—the
aim of the temporary separation is not that
you may keep apart, but for a certain end,
and then that you may be united again.
iva py twetp.| Purpose of the re-union
stated, by that which might happen did it
not take place. meipan now is present,
not aor., as betokening the danger of a
state of abstinence if continued.
axpacta here, not that from é&xpatos
(~~7),—which signifies @ bad mixture, as
up. dépos, ‘insalubrity of the air:’ but
that from apxparns (“~~~),—incontinence ;
see reff. Sia 7. akp. tp., on account
of your incontinence,—but hardly, as
Meyer seems to think, with allusion to the
proverbial fault of the Corinthians in this
particular, which would be more definitely
expressed, were it intended. The tudv is
necessary to carry out the form of the sen-
tence, corresponding to buds above.
6.| But this I say by way of allowance
(for you), not by way of command.
Tovto refers, not to ver. 2, as Beza, Grot.,
and De Wette, because the precept there
given depends on a reason also given, 61a
Tas topvetas, from the nature of which
reason it must be kat’ émitayny : nor to the
whole since ver. 2, as Billroth, Riickert,
al.,—because the precept in ver. 3 depends
on the general truth in ver. 4, and is also
a command: nor to mpds kapdv, as Theo-
phyl. :—nor as the ascetics, Orig., Tert.,
Jerome, Estius (also Calvin), to émi 7d aitd
Hr, because both these are but subordinate
members of the preceding sentence :—still
less to what follows, as Rosenm., al. :—but,
as the context (ver. 7) shews, to the whole
recommendation given in ver. 5. This.
recommendation all depended on the pos-
sibility of their being tempted by incon-
tinence: he gives it not then as a command
in all cases, but as an allowance for those
to whom he was writing, whom he knew,
and EER to be thus tempted. The
meaning ‘by permission, K. V., is am-
biguous, appearing as if it meant by per-
mission of the Lord (to say it): that given
by Hammond, al., kata thy éuhy yvdunr,
is philologically inadmissible. Ucl| ed
rather (5¢) wish that all men were as
I myself also am (at comparandi, so
Xen. Anab. ii. 1. 22, kal jyiv radta Sore?
&amrep kat BaciAe?. See Hartung, Partikell.
522
IIPOS KOPINOIOYS A.
VEL
8 , \ - y Zz , a N
y vv. 11, 32,
veg ye Aeyw Oe FOI ayapouc Kal ers Xnoate, Kadov
zinkelv.-25. auroic. £av pelvwow we Kayo. et 6: PouK eykoaren-
al. 2 Kings d ae
mb ovTat, yapnoatwoay’ Kogiaaov yap EorLv yaunoat n
= Ver. i.
were Kow to aw
o Mat xarhe mupovolat. Tote 8 _yeyaunkoow mapa ovK
viii. 9. ’ ‘
ce ch. ix. 25
only. Gen,
xliii. 31. 1 Kings xiii. 12 only.
17. 2 Pet. ii. 21. (ver. 38. ch, xi.17.
vi.16. 2 Pet. iii. 12. Rev.i. 15. iii. 18) only.
g Marr, xix.6. Judg. iv. 11.
(-rHs, Tit. i. 8.
8. ins or: bef Kkadoy A.
Thl He:
ins ovtws bef pewwow C latt Aug; bef ws m.
yopertaoay F Chr-ed,.
9. for ove eyxp., ov kpatevoyTa I,
am 17. om eotw D'F c Syr Meth.
10. [adda, so AB C(appy) D'8. ]
rel Clem Chr Thdrt Thl Ge.
i. 126)—viz., ev éyxpatetg, which Chrys.
seems to have read in the text; see below
on ver. 8. GAG EkacTos .. . said
in the most general way, as a milder ex-
pression of ‘all have not the gift of con-
tinence.’ ovtws .... otTws| both
are said generally, not one in the way in
which I have it (of continence), another iz
the way of marrying (i. e. though he have
not this, and be therefore better married,
yet has some other), which should be éxet-
vws,—but, one thus, and another thus,—
i.e. one in one way, another in another.’
8,9.| Advice to the unmarried,
that it is best so to remain, but better to
marry than be inflamed with lust.
8. Aéyw 8€] taking up the former Adya,
ver. 6, and bringing this advice under the
same category as ver. 7, viz. his own wish
that all were as himself. The stress is on
Aéyw, not on Tots ay. K. Tals x., which
would in that case be placed first, as tots
yeyaunksow below. Tots GyapoLs,
the unmarried, of both sexes: not as
usually interpreted, widowers, or unmar-
ried males alone: this is shewn by the
contrasted term yeyaunkéow, which em-
braces (see vv. 10, 11) both sexes. Kat
Tats xypats may be added as singling out
widows especially ;—or more probably,
because tots ayduors would naturally be
taken as those who never were married,
and thus widows would not be understood
to be included. KaAdv, see on ver. 1,
it is good for them, i.e. ‘ their best way.’
@s Kayo] i.e. &yauos. This
brings the Apostle’s own circumstances
more clearly before us than ver. 7, which
might be misunderstood : and there ean be
little doubt from this, that he never was
married. Grot. says, “ex h.1. non im-
probabiliter colligitur, Paulo fuisse uxorem,
quod et Clemens Alex. putat, sed cum hee
-te:a, Acts xxiv. 25.)
Prov. iii. 14.
(2 Mace. iv. 38. Ps. xi. 6.)
Heb. i. 4 all2.)
xwpileo dar ADF Epiph Bas Cees :
Eyw, adda 0 0 KvoLOC, yuvaika amo avopoc uy ® ywptsOnvat.
d = Phil. i. 23. 1 Pet. iii.
e = here (2 Cor. xi. 29. Eph.
f Acts xvi. 18 reit.
ree aft avrots ins eotw, with D?3KL rel vss Thdrt
om ABCD!FR 17 Syr.copt Meth Cyr Epiph Chr Damase.
for cay, av B.
kat eyw DF Meth: eywa.
kpecttov BD
yauetw AC'N' 17 Clem, Damasc.
txt BCKLX
scriberentur, mortuam.” But this rests
on the mistaken interpretation of ayauos
noticed above. The passage of Clem. Alex.
(Strom. iii. 53, p. 585 P., alluded to in
Euseb. iii. 30) is grounded on Paul’s having
in a certain epistle addressed tiv avtod
auduyov, hy ov mepiekduice, 81a Td Tis
banpectas evotadés. But the words ovv-
(uye yrijowe, Phil. iv. 3, certainly have no
reference to a wife: see note there.
9.] but if they are incontinent... ot«
must be joined not with ei, which would
require uA, but with the verb. So reff.
and Soph. Aj. 1131, «i robs Oavdvtas ovK
€Gs Odmrew tmapev, ‘vetas. See other
examples in Hartung, Partikellehre, ii.
122 f. éykparevw is said by Lobeck, ad
Phryn. p. 44, not to be found except in
the LXX and N.T. But both Phrynichus
and Thom. Mag. say, a«patever@at pn-
dauas elrns, GAAG OVK eyKpaTeveTOa. See
in Wetst. yapnoat.}| Lobeck, in
Phrynichus, p. 742, says, “post €ynua (ut
éynpa) éydunoa invaluit quod non solum
in N. T. libris, ut quidam putaverunt, sed
etiam in ipsa Greecia reperitur, auctore,
ut videtur, Menandro: éeyaunoev Hv éBou-
Adunv éyé,—nihil impediente pedum mo-
dulatione quominus usitato uteretur aoris-
to.” avpovoGat| ‘“ melius nuberent
quam urerentur, id est, quam occulta flam-
ma concupiscentiz in ipsa conscientia vas-
tarentur.” Aug. de sancta Virginitate, 34,
vol. vi. p. 415. 10, 11.] Prohibition of
separation after marriage ; or in case of
separation, of another marriage. These
yeyopynkdres, as the a&yauor and xijpac
above, are all Christians. The case of
mixed marriages he treats ver. 12 ff.
They are those already married.
10. ov« éya, aAAG 6 KVpLos| Ordinarily,
the Apostle (éy) writes, commands, gives
his advice, under conscious inspiration of
ABCDF
KLNab
cdefg
hklm
nol7
8—13.
’ \
lav 88 Kat
‘ KkataAdXayiTw* Kal avépa yuvatca py
oe Aouroig dey ey, nee, 0 Kbpi0c, el TLC adeApoc an
]
ron EXEL amiarov, ™ Kat
Yer
yy
avooa
avurou, un ‘ agiere auTyy"
1» m ie ee
aTloToV, Kal OUTOC
bis (Luke xi. 48.
p Rom. vii 17 reff.
x. 41 reff.
Acts viii. 1. xxii. 20.
IiPOS KOPINOIOYS A.
g An L
xopes n> Revere
" aurn
13
° suvevooket 4 otk
Rom. i. 32) only fF.
q (=) here bis only t. (Gen. xxvii. 44.)
523
" ayauog n TW avBoi Mis. 10
k oJ
aptévat. 12 TOLC = = here 3ce
nly. Jos.
~ ~ Ich. vi. 6 reff.
S uveve nest Pq oucety m = 2 John 2.
ie ke xvii.
KaL yun ‘arte Sn n Shee 20
rett.
Ver oa ara
constr., here
(1 Mace. i.57. 2 Mace. xi. 24, 35 only.)
Soph. (Ed. Tyr, 94. r= Acts
11. pevew ayauor, and katadAaynva F latt goth lat-ff.
12. rec eyw bef Aeyw, with DF KL rel latt Chr Thdrt Iren-int Ambr Aug: txt ABCN
m 17 copt Syr eth Clem.
18. for nts, ec tus D'FX b! h k latt Chr(not ms,) Thdrt, Thl-mss, lat-ff. rec
(for ovros) avtos, with D? KL rel syrr Chr Thdrt Thi Ce:
the Holy Spirit of God. Seever.40. He
claims expressly, ch. xiv.37, that the things
& ypapw suv should be recognized as
kuplov [evtoAy |. But here he is about to
give them a command resting, not merely
on inspired apostolic authority, great and
undoubted as that was, but on that of THE
LorD HIMSELF. So that all supposed dis-
tinction between the Apostle’s own writing
of himself and of the Lord, is quite irre-
levant. He never wrote of himself, being
a vessel of the Holy Ghost, who ever spoke
by him to the church. The distinction
between that which is imperative, and that
which is optional, that which is more and
that which is less weighty in his writings,
is to be made by the cautious and believing
Christian, from a wise appreciation of the
subject-matter, and of the circwmstances
under which it was written. ALL is the
outpouring of the Spirit, but not all for
all time, nor all on the primary truths of
the faith. Not I, but the Lord, viz. in
ref. Matt. Seealso Mark x. 12, where the
woman’s part is brought out. That i oc-
cupies the principal place here, is perhaps
because the Christian women at Corinth
may have been the most ready to make the
separation: or perhaps, because the woman,
from her place in the matrimonial union,
may be more properly said amd avdpbs
xwpicbjvat than the man amd yuvainds
xwpioOjvat. xwpio0., be separated,
whether by formal divorce or otherwise ;
the kataAAayntw below, is like this, an
absolute passive; undefined whether by her
own or her husband’s doing. 11. | éedy
to kaTadAayjto is parenthetical. It sup-
poses a case of actual separation, contrary
of course to Christ’s command: if such
have really taken place (at, veritably :
see note on 2 Cor. v. 3, and Hartung,
Partikell. i. 182), the additional sin of a
new marriage (Matt. v. 32) must not be
committed, but the breach healed as soon
txt ABCD'ER latt copt goth
as possible. kaTa\A.] see above on
xwpia Oi. kK. GvSp. yuv. py ad.] The
Apostle does not add the qualification map-
extdbs Adyou Topveias Matt. v. 32 (xix. 9),
not found in Mark x. 11 or Luke xvi. 18.
But we cannot hence infer that he was not
aware of it. The rule, not the exception,
here was in his mind: and after what
had been before said on the subject of for-
nication, the latter would be understood
as a matter of course. 12—i6. |
Directions for such Christians as were
already married to Heathens. Such a
circumstance must not be a ground per
se of separation,—and why: but if the
unbelieving party wish to break off the
union, let it be so. 12.| rots Aov-
mois, the rest, perhaps in respect of
their letter of enquiry,—the only ones not
yet dealt with. At all events, the meaning
is plain, being those who are involved in
mixed marriages with unbelievers.
éyd, odx 6 «vp.| I, i.e. I Paul, in my
apostolic office, under the authority of the
Holy Spirit (see above on ver. 10), not
the Lord, i.e. not Christ by any direct
command spoken by Him: it was a ques-
tion with which Hr did not deal, in His
recorded discourses. In the right arrange-
ment of the words (txt) the stress is not on
ey#, but on Aéyw: But to the rest I say
(I, not the Lord). guvevdoket presup-
poses Ais own wish to continue united.
atrn, not advrh, and odTos, not adtds, below,
—see reff. 13.] The oe of con-
struction kal yuv)) Aris... kal odTos. ., is
found frequently with «ai: so Il. a. 78, 4
yap dtouat avdpa xorAwoéuev, bs wéya mav-
Twv | Apyeiwy Kpatéet kat of melOovTat
*Axaol. See reff., and Kiihner, ii. 526
(§ 799). Meyer remarks, that the
Apostle uses the vor media aiévan here,
of both parties, the husband and wife, not
amoAvewv (as Matt. v. 31, &e.), which would
apply only to the husband. In the E. V.
524
IIPOS KOPIN@IOY®S A.
VAL:
M4
a gia ise avriic, ey * aguéreo Tov avdpa. dl a2 ie yap o avg capt
Exod. xxix.
37. 0 "amiorog ep Ty anes Kal Pstrybetertan n youn 7 cdefg
s ver. 12. 2 5 ; ae hkim
t=ch.xv.22 q@7ioTo ‘ey tw ADEN w " Emet a a Ta TékKVa Uuwy nol7
reff. ¢v cud 5 3 or t Ba e A ; Mu
Vv = \ Can, \ >
ras’ éyoye ‘ axaQaora eoTiv, vuv o& ayta £OTLV. 15 £L Of O * amistoc
> >
cwlopat,
Soph, Aj. 519.
Chr, Cyr Aug. (17 def.)
uch. v.10 only.
for ovvevd., evdore: B.
(corrn to confor m to avrny above, ver 12), with KL rel syr Chr Thdrt Tert:
v = Acts x. 14 reff.
rec (for Tov avipa) avroy
auTny
(ol?) 106: txt ABCDF m 17 vulg Syr copt goth eth arm Cyr Jer Aug Ambrst Pelag
Bede :
avtov avdpa X, but av er, ased by N! ors,
14. aft yuvace ins tT) morn DF latt Syr Mart-Clem Tert. (om Aug-mss and expr.) -
[oros of 2nd amoros is supplied in smaller letters by &- -corr!,]
adeApw) avdpt (explanatory gloss, substituted as more appropriate :
rec (for
but adeApw has
peculiar force here), with D'KLN3 rel vulg syrr Chr Thdrt Thl Cc lat-ff (but add 7w
motw vulg Syr Iren-int Tert):
D'F Chr.
this identity of terms is unfortunately ne-
glected. The same word, part from, would
well have expressed &piétw in both cases.
By the Greek as well as Roman cus-
toms, the wife had the power of effecting
a divorce. At Athens,—when the divorce
originated with the wife, she was said a7o-
Aerew the house of her husband: when
with the husband, a@momeuréoOa. At
Rome, the only exception to the wife’s
liberty of effecting a divorce appears to
have been in the case of a freedwoman
who had married her patronus. See
Smith’s Dict. of Gr. and Rom. Antt. artt.
Divortium, and amodectWews Sixn. Olsh.
thinks that Paul puts both alternatives,
because he regards the Christian party
as the superior onein the marriage. But,
as Meyer remarks, this would be incon-
sistent with the fundamental law of mar-
riage, Gen. iii. 16, and with the Apostle’s
own view of it, ch. xi. 3, xiv. 834; Hph. v.
22, 23; 1 Tim. ii. 11, 12. 14.] Ground
of the above precept. nyltaorat| The
meaning will best be apprehended by re-
membering (1) that holiness, under the
Gospel, answers to dedication to God under
the law ; (2) that the 7y:acuévor under the
Gospel are the body of Christian men, de-
dicated to God, and thus become His in a
peculiar manner: (3) that this being so,
things belonging to, relatives inseparably
connected with, the people of God are said
to be hallowed by their ayidrns: so Theo-
phy lact, ovx bri &rytos ylverar 6 “EAAn?.
ov yap elmev Sti Gyids eotiW GAA’, Hyt-
GOTaL’ TOUTEOTL, TH ayidTnte TOU TioTOU
vevicntat. Chrysostom well shews the
distinction between this case and that in
ch. vi. 15, that being a connexion Kata Thv
ao€Beravy,—in and under the condition of
the very state, in which the other party is
impure: whereas this is a connexion ac-
cording to a pure and holy ordinance, by
virtue of which, although the physical
txt ABCDIFN! 17 copt Augexpr Jer.
VUVL
unity in both casesis the same, the purity
overbears the ere. év TH Y-> €V
T@ adeX.] in, ive. his or her aydrns is
situated in, rests in, the other (see reff. :
and note, ch. vi. 2). émret dpa] as ref.,
but here elliptically: since in that case
(i.e. as understood, the other alternative,
—the non-hallowing). éotiv, not
dv en, nor jv, but pres.: because the
supposed case is assumed, and the ind.
pres. used of what has place on its as-
sumption. ayta] as jylacra above:
holy to the Lord. On this fact, Chris-
tian children being holy, the argument is
built. This being so,—they being hal-
lowed, because the children of Christians, —
it follows that that union out of which they
sprung, must as such have the saine hai-
lowed character ; i. e. that the insanctity
of the one parent i is in it overborne by the
sanctity of the other. The fact of the
children of Christians, God’s spiritual
people, being holy, is tacitly assumed as a
matter of course, from the precedent of
God’s ancient covenant people. With
regard to the bearing of this verse on the
subject of Infant Baptism,—it seems to
me to have none, further than this: that
it establishes the analogy, so far, between
Christian and Jewish children, as to shew,
that if the initiatory rite of the old cove-
nant was administered to the one, —that
of the new covenant, in so far as it was
regarded as corresponding to cireumcision,
Ww ould probably as a matter of course be
administered to the other. Those, as
Meyer, who deny any suchinference, forget,
as it seems to me, that it is not personal
holiness which is here predicated of the
children, any more than of the unbelieving
husband or wife, but holiness of dedication,
by strict dependence on one dedicated.
Notwithstanding this ayidérns, the Chris-
tian child is individually born in sin and a
child of wrath ; and individually needs the
14—16.
IIPOS KOPINOIOYS A. 525
" xwoilera, “ yworléobw. * SedovAwrat o aderdpoc 7H Les
n adeAXpn ev Y rote rowovrowc, *év OF Elonvy 2 KEKANKEV el
nnac o Osdc. 18 * ri yap “oldac, yova, ” & tov avopa 32 a
xvi. 16,18. Acts xxii. 22 reff. z= Gal.i.6. Eph. iv.4. 1 Thess. iv. 7. arod a here
only t.
15. om 7 FX! m Chr-ms,.
vuas ACK! Damasc Thl Pelag Sedul Bede:
b Acts xix. 2 (b) reff. 2 Kings xii. 22. Eccl. iii. 21 F. Joel ii.14. Jonah iii. 9.
txt
BDELN? rel latt syrr goth Nyss Chr Thdrt Phot ic Ambrst.
washing of regeneration and the renewing
of the Holy Ghost, just as much as the
Jewish child needed the typical purifying
of circumcision, and the sacrificial atone-
ments of the law. So that in this ayidrns
of the Christian child there is nothing in-
consistent with the idea, nor with the
practice, of Infant Baptism. On viv 8é,
see note, ch. v. 11. 15.| But if the
wish for separation (implied by the pre-
sent xwpi(erat,—is for being separated,
see Winer, edn. 6, § 40. 2. a, and compare
John x. 32, xiii. 6, 27) proceed from the
side of the UNBELIEVER (emphasis on 6
amotos), let him (or her) depart (be sepa-
rated off). ov SedovAd.] ote exer
avayKny 6 mioTds }) TLoTH ev Tols aMlaToLS
‘ToLaUTHY, Ola aVTE ewlkerTat em) TOY TLOTOV.
éxec ey yap mavtl tpdmw, xwpls Adyw
mopvelas, ovx ekeoTi am adAAhAwY Tos
cuvapbevtas xwpiobjva evtadda dé, dy
puey guvevdoKh Th &mistov pépos TS TMiseT@e
cuvotkeiv, Set wy Avew Td CuVoLKEéctov.
ay 5€ oraoid(y Kal THY Avow €KELVOS TOIT,
ov SedoVAwTat 6 mors eis TH My Xwpio-
Ojjvat. Photius, in (cumenius. év
Tots ToLovTois may be taken as masc., in
the case of such persons,—as above by
Phot.:—but the év seems harsh; it is better
therefore to render it, in such cases.
év 8é eip.| Not = eis eiphrny, but signify-
ing the moral element zz which we are
called to be: see reff. and ver. 22 below.
The meaning is, ‘let the unbeliever
depart, rather than by attempting to retain
the union, endanger that peace of house-
hold and peace of spirit, which is part of
the calling of a Christian.’ Observe,
(1) that there is no contradiction, in this
licence of breaking off such a marriage, to
the command of our Lord in Matt. v. 32,—
because the Apostle expressly asserts, ver.
12, that our Lord’s words do not apply to
such marriages as are here contemplated.
They were spoken to those within the cove-
nant, and as such apply immediately to the
wedlock of Christians (ver. 10), but xot to
mixed marriages. De Wette denies this,
and holds that Paulis speaking only of the
Christian’s duty in cases where the mar-
riage is already virtually broken off,—and
by his remarks on Matt. v. 32, seems to
take wopveia in a wide sense, and to regard
it as a justifiable cause of divorce because
it is such a breaking off. This however ap-
pears hardly consistent with ver. 12; for, if
it were so, there would be a command of
the Lord regarding this case. At all
events, we may safely assume that where
the Apostle is distinctly referring to our
Lord’s command, and supplying what it
did not contain, there can be no real in-
consistency : if such appear to be, it must
be in our apprehension, not in his words.
(2) That the question of re-marrying after
such a separation, is here left open: on
this, see note on Matt. v. 32. (3) That
not a word here said can be so strained as
to imply any licence to contract marriages
with unbelievers. Only those already
contracted are dealt with: the érepo(uyeiy
amioro.s is expressly forbidden, 2 Cor. vi.
14, and by implication below, ver. 39.
16.] This verse is generally understood as
a ground for remaining united, as ver. 13,
in hope that conver-ion of the unbelieving
party may follow. Thus ver. 15 is regarded
as altogether parenthetical. But (1) this
interpretation is harsh as regards the con-
text, for ver. 15 is evidently not paren-
thetical,—and (2) it is hardly gram-
matically admissible (see below), for it
makes ef = ef uh,—*‘ What knowest thou
. whether thou shalt not save... . ??
Lyra seems first to have proposed the true
rendering, which was afterwards adopted
hesitatingly by Estius, and of late decidedly
by Meyer, De Wette, and Bisping: viz.
that the verse is not a ground for remain-
ing united, in hope, &e.,—but a ground for
consummating a separation, and not mar-
ring the Christian’s peace for so uncertain
a prospect as that of conver ting the un-
believing party. ti otdas ei thus preserves
its strict sense, What knowest thou (about
the question) whether . . . .? and the verse
coheres with the words immediately pre-
ceding, €v eiphyn KéxA. Tuas 6 0. I may
observe in addition to Meyer and De W.’s
remarks, that the position of the words
further establishes this rendering. If the
point of the argument had been the im-
portance, or the prospect, of saving (=con-
verting) the unbelieving party, the ar-
526—
c = Rom. xi.
14 reff.
d = appy here
[IPOS KOPINOIOY®S A.
Wah,
Cle AN aie Ia 73 ” Oe RN - (ar ee? Sli adee
OWOEIC , 1) TL OLloac, avep, él THY yuvaika GWEC, él
€
Nie: oe e fe ae ? ev e 2 /
only. seeGal, MN) EKAGTW WC EMEOLOEV O KUVOLOC, “ EKAOTOY WE KEKA n-
i.7. 2 Cor. e , ¢
dre KEV) LO Oeoc, OUTWC
€ constr., ch. ae hs A k :
ili. 5. Bd 4
ica @°™ “exxAnolate macatc * Gratdocopat.
f = Mark vi.
41. Luke
Rilo eCors
x.13. Heb. vii. 2. Josh. xiii. 7. g = ver. 15 reff.
Xvi. 16 reff. k—=ch. xvi. 1 reff.
22. Gen. xvii. 10 al.
o Rom. iii. 30 reff.
16. yurvy and avyp F.
17. pewepicey BR?.
Il Lukei. 59. Acts vii. 8.
m hypothet. indic., ver. 27. James v. 13.
U - \ e > ~
TEOLTATELTW Kal OUTWC ێVv Talc
18 | Heotretunnévoc
’ 2 ify 5 ig ae ] U / ,
tic " exANOn, un ° extoracOw* Ev ° axpo(uoria 5 kexAnral
i plur., Rom. c
h = ch. iii. 3 reff.
Gal. ii. 3 al. L.P., exe. John vii.
nhere only ¢. Isa. v.18.
for n Tt, ec Tt A.
rec transp xupios and @cos, with KI. rel Syr Chr Thart:
Geos (twice) 32-3. 63. 93 goth: o xs and o xs o Os G: txt A B(sie: see table) CDFN m
17 latt Syr copt latt-ff.
ins ka bef exaotov ws F.
o xs bef euepicey A: 0 Os euepioey and o ks KexAnxev k.
maocais bef Tats exkAnotats &.
for diarac-
Toma, SidacKw (see ch iv. 17) D'F, doceo latt lat-ff.
18. exAnéy bet tis D'3F goth.
rec (for kexAnrat Tis) Tis ExANON (conformation
to former), with D3KL rel Chr Thdrt: txt AB(D!F)& a m 17 copt goth.
rangement would probably have been ei
céoeas Tov avdpa, and ef cdces Thy
yuvaika, whereas now the verb holds in
both clauses a subordinate place, rather
subjective to the person addressed, than
the main object in the mind of the writer.
Those who take ei for ei wf, attempt
to justify it by reff. 2 Kings, Joel, Jonah,
where the LXX have for the Heb. y1 9,
gis oldev <i, to express hope: but (1) in
every one of those passages the verb stands
in the emphatic position, and (2) the LXX
use this very expression to signify uncer-
tainty, e. g. ref. Eccles., tis cide (olde 7d F)
mvEdMG, Viv TOV avOpdTou, ei avaBatver avTd
(cis F) tv ; The rendering then of the
verse will be as follows: (Let the unbe-
liever depart: hazard not for an uncer-
tainty the peace in which you ought to be
living as Christians): for what assurance
hast thou, O wife, whether thou shalt be
the means of thy husband’s conversion ?
Or what assurance, hast thou, 0 husband,
whether thou shalt be the means of thy
wife’s conversion? ‘This interpretation
is the only one compatible with the obvious
sense of ver. 15, and of the expression (not
tl oldas ei uh, but) tt oldas ei odcess ;
and is also in exact harmony with the
general tenor of the Apostle’s argument,
which is not to urge a union, but to
tolerate a separation.” Stanley; the rest
of whose note is deeply interesting as to
the historical influence of the verse as
commonly misunderstood. 17.| et py
takes an exception, by way of caution,
to the foregoing motive for not remaining
together (ver. 16). The Christian partner
might carry that motive too far, and be
tempted by it to break the connexion on
his own part ; a course already prohibited
(vv.12—14). Therefore the Apostle adds,
But (q. d. only be careful not to make this
a ground for yourselves causing the sepa-
ration) as to each (éxdor. ds = ds Exdor.,
reff.) the Lord distributed [his lot], as
(i. e. 4) KAHoe, ver. 20) God has called
each, so (in that state, without change)
let him walk (reff.). The et py has raised
considerable difficulties. (1) some cursives,
with syr-marg and Sevrn., read ei thy
yuvatka oooets, 7) wy ;—and Knatchbull,
al., join et uw similarly to the foregoing ;
ef....oces,—ei wh. But as De W.
remarks, this would be, as Matt. xxii. 17,
7) ov: and then we should have the strictly
parallel clauses of ver. 16 rendered un-
equal, by an appendage being attached to
the second, which the first has not: be-
sides that ver. 17 would be disjoined alto-
gether. (2) Pott would supply xwpiCerar,
—Mosheim, Vater, and Riickert, odceis,
after ei uy. But so, to say nothing of the
irrelevancy of the idea thus introduced,
ei 5& wh, or ef 5€ Kad wh (as Meyer), would
be required. (3) Theodoret, al., join all
as far as xépios to the foregoing: ‘ What
knowest thou, §e., except im so far as the
Lord has apportioned to each?’ But
thus the evidently parallel members, éxaor.
@s eu. 6 Kvp., and éxdor. &s KéKA. 6 8@.,
would be separated, and a repetition
occasioned which, except in the ease of
intended parallelism, would be alien from
St. Paul’s habit of writing. oUTwS
.. +. Stat.| rtodto elrev, va TS exe Kad
&AAous Kowwvods mpobvudtepor mep Thy
brakojv Siated@or. Theophyl.
18—24.| Hwamples of the precept just
given. clita cvviOws amd Tov mpoKeiuéevov
eis ETEpa peTaBaiver, maar vomoOeT@y Ta
KaTadAAnAa. Theodoret. 18—20. |
First example : CYRCUMCISION.
18. éxAyj6y} Was any one called in cir-
cumcision,—i.e. circumcised at the time
of his conversion. émotdac iw | By
ABCDF
KLNa b
cdefg
hklm
nol7
oes OTTE-
oracbw
ABDF
KLNab
cedefg
hklm
nol7
i
17—22.
TIPO KOPINOIOYS A. 527
A k , 19 « p Bi SG) LON ’ a :
TIC, PN Tepitenvicdw. n TEOLTOUN oveEev Serr ys P Paatonly;
Ve Je > ’ Qs ’ > \ U t 2 i. 22, 23.
kat ) °axooPBvotia Tovdéev eotiv, ada “tHpnotc “ Evro- Nive’.
~ t - 20 v4 ’ ey , Sas , ’ , x. 45. Xi. 2.
Awyv ‘ @eov. exastoc &v TH KAnoee » “EKANON, Ev Tavry Gen. xvi 13,
~ AOS CG , Seed } serena
nevérw. 7! Sovrdoe © EKAHOnC, WH cor * peAéro*® add euwat 2396
= oe 228 4 acre
dvvacat EAevHepoc yevéoOar, wa\dov “yonoat. “0 yao xxii-16, 18.
64. ch. xiii. 2. 2 Cor. xii. 11.
vonstr., see ch. iii. 7.
J2only. Ezra x. 3.
XAvii. 17. ver. 31. ch. ix. 12, 14.
19. om Ist 7 F.
20. for ravTn, Tovrw A.
21. adda D!.
a surgical operation; see Theophyl.,
Wetst.,— Winer, Realwoérterbuch, art. Be-
schneidung,— Jos. Antt. xii. 5. 1; 1 Mace.
i. 15; Celsus de Re Medica, vii. 25 (in
Wetst.). The practice usually was adopted
by those who wished to appear like the
Gentiles, and to cast off their ancient faith
and habits. Among the Christians a strong
anti-Judaistic feeling might lead to it.
amepitepverOw | See Gal. v. 2, al. 19. |
See Gal. v. 6, where our thpynois évtoA@y
@eov is expressed by miotis 8° aydmns
evepyouuevyn ; and Gal. vi. 15, where it is
given by kawy ktiois. Cf. an interesting
note in Stanley, on the relation of these
three descriptions. After 6eod, supply 7a
mavta eotiv: see ch. iii. 7. 20. |
Formal repetition of the general precept,
as again ver. 24. KAyots is not the
calling in life, for it never has that mean-
ing either in classical or Hellenistic Greek
(in the example which Wetst. gives from
Dion. Hal. Antt. iv. 20, kAfoers is used to
express the Latin ‘ classes,’ —&s kadovouv
“Popator «Ajsers, and so is not a Greek
word at all); but strictly calling (‘vo-
catio’) by God, asin ref. The xAjors of
a circumcised person would be a calling
in circumeision,—and by this he was to
abide. év TH... €v TavTy| See ch.
vi. 4: emphatic. 21—24.| Second
example: SuavERyY. Wert thou called
(converted), a slave, let it not be a
trouble to thee: but if thou art even
able to become free, use if (i. e. remain
in slavery) rather. This rendering, which
is that of Chrys., Theodoret, Theophyl.,
(eum., Phot., Camerar., Estius, Wolf,
Bengel, Meyer, De Wette, al., is re-
quired by the usage of the particles,
ef kal,—by which, see Hartung, Partikel-
lehre, i. 139, the kat, ‘also,’ or ‘ even,’
does not belong to the 7, as in ka) ei, but
is spread over the whole contents of the
concessive clause : so Soph. did. Tyr. 302,
moAw mev, €L KaL wu» BAemes, ppovets &
buws, of4 vdow tvveoty. Plat. Rep. p.
r = here (Acts iv. 2. v. 18) only t.
s Sir. XxxV. (xxxii.) 23.
u = Rom. xi. 29 (reff ).
1 Tim. i. 8. v. 23. Prov. x. 26.
John viii.
Wisd. vi. 18 al. ellipt.
t Matt. xv 3]|. Rev. xii. 17. xiv.
v ch. ix. 9 reff. w Acts
om from ecrw to ect F.
om kat F some-mss-of-vulg copt.
337, et 8 oty Kal uh cot Omotov, patveTau
d€ TG epwrnGévts TowotvTwy. Aristoph.
Lysistr. 254, x@per, Aparns, nyov Badny,
eit xat woy duoy aGayeis. Thucyd. ii. 64,
Mhte ewe OC dpyhs ExeTe... €i Kal emed-
Odvres of evavtiot edpacay, &mep cids Hy
By CcAncdytwy tuav braxovew. See more
examples in Hartung. It is also required
by the context: for the burden of the
whole passage is, ‘ Let each man remain
in the state in which he was called’
It is given in the Syr.: which has
weral? wow “choose for
thyself that thou mayest serve,” or simply,
“prefer servitude :’’ not as Meyer from the
erroneous Latin of Tremelius, “elige tibi
potius quam ut servias” [I am indebted
for this correction of my earlier editions
to the kindness of the Rev. Henry Craik,
of Bristol]. The other interpretation,—
mentioned by Chrys., and given by Erasm.,
Luther (Stanley is mistaken in quoting
him as favourable to the other interpreta-
tion: his words are, “Sift du ein Knecht
berufen, forge der micht: doc, fannft du
fret werden, fo brauce de® nicl Lieber”),
Beza, Calvin, Grot., and almost all the
moderns,—understands 77 €Acv@epla after
xpioa: ‘but if thou art able to become
Sree, take advantage of it rather” The
objections to this are, (1) the position of
kal, which in this case must have been after
Sivacat,—ei Stvaca Kal éAcdOepos ye-
véoOat, or have been absent altogether.
(2) The clause would hardly have begun
with @AX4 ei, but with ei 8é—so the alter-
native suppositions in vv. 9, 11, 15, 28, 36.
The add@ brings out a strong opposition to
the peAérw, and implies a climax which
would ill suit a merely parenthetic clause,
but must convey the point of the sentence.
(8) The absence of a demonstrative pro-
noun after Xpioat, by which we are thrown
back, not on the secondary subject of the
sentence, €AevOepia, but on the primary,
dovaeiy. (4) Its utter inconsistency with
the general context. The Apostle would
528
x here only f.
Jos. Autt. vii.
11.2 Ign.ad ¢
Rom. § 4, p.
689. (-potv,
Lev. x1 Xx. 20.)
y ch. vi. 20
23 y
=
fl.). 24% 2
Z ee ceili 23 EkKaoTOg Ev
al a ‘ ff) 2
a = here Taoa EW.
only (?), see
Luke xviii. 27. John viii. 38.
IIPOS KOPINOIOYS A.
VII.
év Kvoly ®kAnDeic SovAoe * ame eb Oco0c Kuplov éativ'
Omolwe oO eAevMeooc ®xAnbeic SovAdc éorev Xpiarou.
TYLNC ¥ nyooaaOnre® pn yivecbe dovAot avlowrwy.
“w ® exdnOn, adeAgpol, ev *rovUTw jEveTw
22. rec aft ouows ins ka (as being usual aft opows: so also de kau), with KL rel
syr-w-ast copt Chr Damase Thl (ie Ambr, :
Chr-ms, Thdrt Ambr, Ambrst Pelag Bede.
24. adeAgo: bef ev w exAnOn DF Ambrst: om adeApa: a! 39. 120 Chr Thdrt.
de kat DF 1: om ABN 17 vulg Syr goth
xpirtov bef ectw FR! ec.
rec
ins Tw bef ew, with A ek Gc: om BDEKLX® rel Thdrt Damase Thl.
thus be giving two examples of the pre-
cept Exaoros évy & eKAnOn ev To’Tw pMe-
vetw, one of which would convey a re-
commendation of the contrary “course.
See this followed out in Chrysostom. (5)
Its entire contradiction to ver. 22: see
below. (6) It would be quite inconsis-
tent with the teaching of the Apostle,
—that in Christ (Gal. iii. 28) freeman and
slave are all one,—and with his remarks
on the urgency and shortness of the time
in this chapter (ver. 29 ff.),—to turn out
of his way to give a precept merely of
worldly wisdom, that a slave should become
free if he could. (7) The import of xpa-
ouat in such a connexion, which suits
better the remaining in, enduring, labour-
ing under, giving one’s self up to, an
already-existing state, than the adopting
or taking advantage of a new one; cf.
such expressions as To1wovTw udp éexph-
coato 6 mats, Herod. i. 117: oupopé,
auvtuxia, evtuxia, xpiobe, often in He-
rod.: aualia xpjoOa, and the like. The
instance quoted by Bloomfield for ‘ become
free,’ Exwv yap obdels SovAlw xpjTra Gye,
Esch. Agam. 953, tells just the other
way. There xpjra is used not of entering,
but of submitting to, the yoke of slavery,
as here. 22.| Ground of the above
precept. For the slave who was called
in the Lord (not, as E. V. and De Wette,
‘He who is called in the Lord, being a
slave, which would be dv0A0s kAnéels,
see above, do0A0s exAnOns: év Kuplo,
as the element in which what is about to
be stated takes places) is the Lord’s freed-
man (“ ameAc’Oepos with genit. is not here
in the ordinary sense of ‘ libertus alicujus,’
‘any one’s manumitted slave:’ for the
Jormer master was sin or the devil, see on
ch. vi. 20 ;—but only a freedman belong-
ing to Christ, viz. freed by Christ from the
service of another. This the reader would
understand as a matter of course.” Meyer):
similarly he that was called being free
(not here, KAnOels €AevOepos, see above) is
the slave of Christ. Christ’s service is
perfect freedom, and the Christian’s free-
dom is the service of Christ. But here the
Apostle takes, in each case, one member
of this double antithesis from the outer
world, one from the spiritual. The
(actual) slave is (spiritually) free: the
(actually) free is a (spiritual) slave. So
that the two are so mingled, in the Lord,
that the slave need not trouble himself
about his slavery, nor seek for this world’s
freedom, seeing he has a more glorious
freedom in Christ, and seeing also that his
brethren who seem to be free in this world
are in fact Christ’s servants, as he is a
servant. It will be plain that the reason
given in this verse is quite inconsistent with
the prevalent modern rendering of ver. 21.
23.| Following out of d0dAds éotw
xpistov, by reminding them of the PRICE
PAID whereby Christ PURCHASED them for
His (ch. vi. 20): and precept thereupon,
BECOME NOT SLAVES OF MEN: i.e. ‘do
not allow your relations to human society,
whether of freedom or slavery, to bring
you into bondage so as to cause you
anxiety to change the one or increase the
other.’ Chrys., al., think the precept
directed against op@aAmodovAcia, and ge-
neral regard to men’s opinion. But it is
better to restrict it (however it may legiti-
mately be applied generally) to the case in
hand. Hammond, Knatchbull, Michaelis,
al., understand it as addressed to the free,
and meaning that ¢hey are not to sell them-
selves into slavery : but this is evidently
wrong: as may be seen by the change to
the second person plur. as addressing all
his readers: besides that a new example
would have been marked as in vv. 18, 21.
See Stanley’s note. 24.|] The rule is
again repeated, but with the addition mapa
Ge, reminding them of the relations of
Christ’s freedman and Christ’s slave, and of
the price paid, just mentioned :—of that re-
lation to God in which they stood by means
of their Christian calling. “The usual ren-
ABDF
KLNab
cedefg
hkim
nol7
23—27.
IIPOX KOPINOIOYS A. 529
\ ~ ’ 7
25 Ieor of twy » TapBévwy © em tTayny Kupiov ouK EX, » Paul, here
- youn oe
*
élvat, 26
1 € G2 , cre , \
© Stdwut we nAEnuévoc vo kuptou ® misTo¢
U7 a ~ h ‘ ic , ‘ ‘
vouitw ovv trouto "KaXdov uTao ye oua Thy
We. (7 times)
and 2 Cor. xi.
2only. Matt.
i, 23 (from
~ vii. 14)
a
k?} +e ee ¢ h ‘ ? , N e . ae
EveoTWoaV avayKny, ort "KaXov avOpwmw ro ™ ovTac © Rom. x¥i. 26
7
élval,
f pass., Rom. xi. 30, 3] reff.
Viii. 16 reff.
only. 1 Macc. xii. 44, (see note.)
7. 1 Kings xxii. 2.
1 Pet. iii. 11.
vi. 33. Col. iii. 1.
viii. 8 only. q = Acts xxii. 30.
m = ver. 40.
26. aft oT: kadov ins eat D'F vss.
dering, Deo inspectante (Grot.), i.e. ‘ per-
petuo memores, vos in ejus conspectu ver-
sari’ (Beza), does not so well suit the Zocal
word uevétw.” Meyer. 25—38. | Ad-
vice (with some digressions connected with
the subject) concerning the MARRIAGE OF
VIRGINS. 25.] map0évev is not, as
Theodor-mops., Bengel, Olsh., al., wnmar-
ried persons of both sexes, a meaning
which, though apparently found in Rev.
xiv. 4 (see note there), is perfectly un-
necessary here, and appears to have been
introduced from a mistaken view of' vy.
26—28. The emphasis is on émrayhyv—
command of the Lord have I none, i. e.
no expressed precept: so that, as before,
there is no marked comparison between
6 kupios and eye. TiaTos etvar| to
be faithful, as in ref.,—as a steward and
dispenser of the hidden things of God,
and, among them, of such directions as
you cannot make for yourselves, but re-
quire one so entrusted to impart to you.
This sense, which has occurred in the esti-
mate given of himself in this very Epistle,
is better than the more general ones of
true (Billroth, Riickert) or believing (Olsh.,
Meyer, De Wette). 26.] The ques-
tion of the marriage of virgins is one
involving the expediency of contracting
marriage in general: this he deals with
now, on grounds connected with the then
pressing necessity. ovv, then, fol-
lows on yvéu. d{5wur, and introduces
the youn. Tovto indicates what is
coming, viz. Td ottws elvat. Kkalov,
see note on ver. 1: the best way.
Thy éveotao. avayx.| the instant neces-
sity: viz. that prophesied by the Lord,
Matt. xxiv. 8, 21, &ce.: which shall precede
His coming: see especially ver. 19 there:
not, the cares of marriage, as Theophyl.,
dia Tas ev ait BSuskoAdlas, kK. TH TOD
yduouv oxAnpa: nor persecutions, as Pho-
tius in (cum., al., which are only a part
of the apprehended troubles. These the
Apostle regards as instant, already begun :
Vor. 1s:
27" Be8ecat yuvacki, uy °nra © Nbow* *éXvoat
g = ch. iv. 2al. fr.
k Rom. viii. 38. ch. iii. 22.
1 Mace. ii. 29.
Ps. cxlv. 7.
d =ch. i. 10
(refl.).
e 2 Cor. viii. 10.
i Acts
Heb. ix. 9
h = ver. 1.
Gal.i. 4. 2 Thess. ii. 2. 2 Tim. iii. 1. :
|= Luke xxi. 23. 2 Cor. vi. 4. xii. 10. 1 Thess. iii.
n = Rom, vii. 2. ver. 39. o = Matt.
p here only. Eccl. vii. 30 (viii. 1). Wisd.
om to F Meth.
for this is the meaning of éverrdcav, not
imminent, shortly to come: see reff. and
Jos. Antt. xvi. 6. 2, 7d vos tay "Iov-
dalwy edxdpicroy ebpéOn, od wdvoy ev Ta
EVET@TL KaipG, GAAG Kal ey TH mpo-
yeyevnueve,—where all time future is
evidently excluded. See note on 2 Thess.
ii. 2, where this distinction is very im-
portant. . Gru Kad. dv8......] De
Wette takes 871 as because, understanding
TovTo above =7d mapbévoy civa, ‘ that
this (virginity) ts best on account of the
instant necessity, because it is (generally)
best for a man so to be (i. e. unmarried).’
But this seems constrained, and tauto-
logical, and the only rescue of it from the
charge of tautology is found in the word
‘ generally,’ which is not in the text. Far
better, with Meyer and most interpreters,
to view the sentence as an anacoluthon,
begun with one construction, rodTo KaAdv
imdpxeww, and finished, without regard to
this, when on account of the intervening
words it became necessary to restate the
kaddy, with another construction, S71, &e.
Thus we shall have it, literally rendered :
I think then this to be the best way on
account of the instant necessity, that it is
the best way for a man thus to be.
ovTws = ws Kaye as ver. 8? or perhaps
@s éoriv, which seems better on account
of the following context, ver. 27. This, in
the case of the unmarried, would amount
to the other: and the case of virgins is
now that especially under consideration.
av0pe7rw, not as in ver. 1 (which
in its outward form will not bear the wider
meaning), but here purposely general, in-
cluding those treated of, young females.
27.| 7d ottws civar restated and
illustrated: neither the married nor the
unmarried are to seek for a change. The
general recommendation here is referable
alike to all cases of marriage, and does not
touch on the prohibition of ver. 10,—only
dissuading from a spirit of change, in
consideration of the éveat@oa avaykn.
Mm™
IIPOS KOPINOIOY® A. Wk:
98 9% \
28 eav Oe
Jnl ® )
oo
Sak , S09! - \ ,
amTo yuvatkoc, py Cyret yuvatka. Kat yapnonc,
Y yapew, of
the woman
ver. 34 ? e A ee eS r , c b Ge ? er I
‘Tim. v.11, OVX NMAOTEC, Kal eav YHRY [n] maoUEevoc, ovx NuaoTev
I4only. of ~ \ i \sev e ~ > x A, kee ime
both, ver. 35° OXbu Of TH ‘ saoKt © eGovarw “ ot ToLovTOL, EYwW of Uuwy
only. of the = , 29 <a io stig ’ 7 Ve Sas
eps peloonat. ToUTO 6é pnt, adeA pol, 0 Kaipoc — ouy-
(2 Mace. xiv. , ’ ‘ ‘ , ee Nie tlC alt ~
Sspisonly) EGTaAREVOe EaTtiy 7O * AOLTOY, Lva Kal OL EYOVTEC yUVaIKaG
s John xvi 33 f ¢ 2 /
* Rev. ii. 10. Sir. li. 3. t dat., 2 Cor. xii. 7 uyer. 15. v Rom. xi. 21 reff.
x = here (Acts v. 6) only+. Sir. iy. 31. see Tobit xii. 13.
i y = Matt.
(Eph. vi. 10 reff.)
w = ch. xv. 50. see ch. i. 12
xxvi.45. Heb. x. 13.
28. rec for yaunons, ynuns (to conform to the follg), with KU rel Chr Thdrt ;
AaBns yuvaxa DF: acceperis uxorem latt lat-ff: duxeris Tert: txt A(-on) BX m 17
Bas Damasce. for ynun, youn DF. om 7 BF: ins ADKLX rel. ins ev
bef 77 capri D!F Gc-txt.
29. elz ins ott bef o Kaipos (supplementary: see ch. xv. 50, where there is no var
readg), with DF de h1 copt Orig Thl: om ABKLN rel vulg syr Eus Meth Bas (Chr)
Thdrt lat-ff. cuvveoraAdpevor(sic) &. ree To Aoiwoy bef eotiv, with D?KL
rel Thdrt Thl: eorw* Aouroy eotw F 67? latt Tert Jer: txt ABD!?& a! m 17 copt
(Syr ?) syr arm Bas Cyr.—om 70 D'. There is great var in the punctn :—ree (with L
&e syrr copt Thdrt Thl (ic) has ovv. ro A. ecru; DF 67?. 68. 71 latt lat-ff (Aug, :
To Aottrov twicegiq) TUVETT.” TO AOLTOY ETTLY Wa; TUVETT. ETTLV’ TO AolT. B?: cuveor.
cot To Aovrov? in. (The varr have appy arisen from a desire to fix the connexion of
It seems better to take the verse thus,
than with Meyer and De Wette, to regard
it as inserted to guard against misunder-
standing of the preceding yvdun of the
Apostle. A€Avoat does not imply
previous marriage, but as Phot., obx) mpds
Tovs ouvapbevtas, elta SiadvOevtas,...
GAN GarA@s mpos Tos py auvedAbdvTas
bAws eis ydpuou Kowwvlay, GAAG AEAv-
pévous bytas Tov ToLovTov Secuod,—and
Estius, “ intelligit liberum a conjugio, sive
uxorem aliquando habuerit, sive non.”
28.| Not sin, but outward trouble,
will be incurred by contracting marriage,
whether in the case of the unmarried man
or of the virgin; and it is fo spare them
this, that he gives his advice. But if also
(kal, of the other alternative: see ver. 21)
thou shalt have married, thou didst not
sin (viz. when thou marriedst); and if a
virgin (if the art. is to stand, it is generic)
shall have married, she sinned not; but
such persons (viz. of yhuavtes) shall
have tribulation in the flesh (it is doubt-
ful, as Meyer remarks, whether the dative
belongs to the substantive,—trouble for
the flesh,—or to the verb,—shall have in
the flesh trouble): but I (emphatic—my
motive is) am sparing you (endeavouring
to spare you this @Atjw 7H capkl, by ad-
vising you to keep single). 29—31.]
He enforces the foregoing advice by so-
lemnly reminding them of the shortness
of the time, and the consequent duty of
sitting loose to all worldly ties and em-
ployments. 29.| tovro 8é gypr.. .
q. d. ‘What I just now said, of marrying
being no sin, might dispose you to look
on the whole matter as indifferent: my
motive, the sparing you outward afflic-
tion, may be underrated in the importance
of its bearing: but I will add this solemn
consideration.’ 6 KaLp. ouvEOT. ECT.
7> ourdv] The time that remains is
short: lit., ‘the time is shortened hence-
forth :’—i. e. the interval between now and
the coming of the Lord has arrived at an
extremely contracted period. These words
have been variously misunderstood. (1) 6
kaipds has been by some (Calvin, Estivs,
al.) interpreted ‘the space of man’s life
on earth :’ which, however true it may be,
and however legitimate this application
of the Apostle’s words, certainly was not
in his mind, nor is it consistent with Ais
usage of 6 kaipds : see Rom. xiii. 11; Eph.
v. 16,—or with that in the great prophecy
of our Lord which is the key to this
chapter, Luke xxi. 8; Mark xiii. 33. (2)
ovveotadmevos has been understood as
meaning calamitosus (so Rosenmn.,Riickert,
Olshausen, al.). But it never has this sig-
nification. In such passages as 1 Macc. iii.
6, v. 3; 2 Mace. vi. 12, wapakadre .
ovoTéAAcoOat Sid TAS TUUpopas: 3
v. 33, TH dpdoet. .. . ovverTdAn,—it has
the meaning of hwmbling, depressing,
which would be obviously inapplicable to
kaipds. The proper meaning of ovoreaA-
Aeo@at, to be contracted, is found in Dicd.
Sic. i. 41, 8d Kal Tov NetAov evAdyws
Kata Tov KXEma@va juKpdy elvat Kal ov-
oté\Neo Oar. It is, as Schrader well ren-
ders it, ‘in Ktirzem frtirgt die alte Welt uz
fammen.’ cvorédAAcoPa and wvaroAy are
the regular grammatical words used of the
shortening of a syllable in prosody. (3)
tT» Aourdy has been by some (Tertull. ad
28—3l.
€ sf > 30
Wo BN EYoUTEC Wo”,
ay e , € ‘ , \ Ce Ze F ,
Kat ot XKaloovTec WC XaLOOVTEeC, Kal Ol ayooalovrec
= ee) , 31
WC —MN KaTEY OVTEC, K
wc py ° Kataypwmevot’
w.acc., 3 Mace. v. 22.
e Phil. ii. 8 only. Isa. iii. 17 only.
To Aoiwov more definitely.)
30. for kAaovres (twice), KAcOovTes F.
IIPOX KOPINOIOY®S A.
‘ e b
at Oot
50l
\ e ’ € ‘ ’ s <<
Kal OL KAatovrec WE UN KAatovrec, oe 20
a = 2 Cor. vi.
10. Josh.
ver. 21 reff.
acc., see note.
ix. 18
, » -
XKPwmevor TOV KOGpoY, »
, N ee. - = cch:
Taoayet ya2e TO oxXNUa TOU onlyt. Ep.
Jer. 28 only.
dirtrans., Matt. ix. 9 (and always, exc. 1 Jobn ii. 8,17). Ps. cxiiii. 4.
om wow F syr arm.
31. rec (for roy koouov) Tw koouw TovTw (gramml corrn, and supplementary addn),
with D?-3KLN% vulg Syr rel Thdrt Thl: tov koouov rovroy DF: rw(sic, appy) Koopor
toutov 17: txt ABN! coptt.
latt lat-ff (not Tert).
Uxorem i. 5, vol. i. p. 1283, Jer. de perp.
virg. B. V. M. adv. Helv. 20 [vol. ii. p.
227], on Ezek. vii. 13 [lib. ii., vol. v. p.
69], on Keel. iii. [vol. iii. p. 410],—
Vulg., Erasm., Luther, Calvin, Estius ;
also E. V. and Lachm.) joined to what
follows: ‘it remains that both they, &e.
But thus (a) the sense of fa will not be
satisfied—see below: (8) the usage of 7d
Aaméy is against it, which would require
it to stand alone, and the sense not to be
carried on as it is in ‘ swperest ut,’ Td dAor-
mov, va....,—see reff. and Phil. iii. 1,
iv. 8; [LL Thess. iv. 1;] 2 Thess. iii. 1.
(y) The continuity of the passage would
be very harshly broken: whereas by the
other rendering all proceeds naturally.
We have exactly parallel usages of 7d
Aourdy in reff. iva kal...] The
end for which the time has been (by God)
thus gathered up. into a short compass :
in order that both they, &c.: i.e. in
order that Christians, those who wait for
and shall inherit the coming kingdom,
may keep themselves loosed in heart from
worldly relationships and employments :
that, as Meyer, “the married may not
fetter his interests to his wedlock, nor the
mourner to his misfortunes, nor the joyous
to his prosperity, nor the man of com-
merce to his gain, nor the user of the
world to his use of the world.” This
is the only legitimate meaning of va with
the subj. The renderings which make
it = ére, ‘tempus ....futurum cum ei
qui uxores habent pares futuri sint non
habentibus,’ Grot., or ‘ubi’ (local), are
inadmissible. We may notice that ac-
cording to this only right view of iva, the
clauses following are not precepts of the
Apostle, but the objects as regards us,
of the divine counsel in shortening the
time. 30. as py Katexovtes | as not
POSSESSING (their gains). So in the line
of Lucretius (iii. 984), “‘ Vitaque mancupio
nulli datur, omnibus usu.” 31. xpo-
Kataxpopevot| The kard, as
M
for kataxp., mapaxp. L. Bas Thdrt,; xpwmevor 121
in karéxovtes, appears here to imply that
intense and greedy use which turns the
legitimate use into a fault. This meaning
is better than ‘abuse,’ which is allowable
philologically, and is adopted by Theo-
doret, Theophyl., Gic., Luther, Olsh., al.,
but destroys the parallel. I would render
then, and they who use the world, as
not using it in full. So, or merely ‘as
not using it,’ regarding karaxp. = xp.,—
Vulg., Calv., Grot., Estius, al., and Meyer
and De Wette. xpio@a with an ace.
is found only here: never in classical
Greek, and very rarely in Hellenistic.
Almost the only undoubted instance (in
ref. Wisd., F reads ktnoduevor. Stanley
quotes Xen. Hier. xi. 11, but the reference
is apparently wrong) seems to be in a
Cretan inscription, Boeckh, Corp. Inscr. ii.
400, kai Ta GAAG wdvTa xphuevot, ev dE TE
656 tas ~Eevixds Colvas. See Bornemann,
note on Acts xxvii. 17, where Bonéeias is a
var. read. in some mss. Tapayer
yap....] gives a reason for 5 kaip.
cuveotaAp. eat. TO Aoit., the clauses
which have intervened being subordinate
to those words: see above. Emphasis on
mapayer: for the fashion (present ex-
ternal form, cf. Herodian i. 9, avyp p:Ao-
copov pépwy oxijua, and other examples
in Wetst.) of this world is passing away
(is in the act of being changed, as a passing
scene in a play: cf. wdapaye mrépvyas,
Kur. Ion, 165). This shews that the time
is short :— the form of this world is already
beginning to pass away. Grot., al., ac-
cording to the mistaken view of ver. 20, .
— ‘non manebunt, que nune sunt, res
tranquille, sed mutabuntur in turbidas.’
Theophyl. and many Commentators un-
derstand the saying of worldly affairs in
general—iixpis bees cit TA TOD TapdyTos
kéouov, kal émiméAaia:—but this is in-
consistent with the right interpretation of
ver. 29: see there. Stanley compares a
remarkable parallel, 2 Esdr. xvi. 40—44,
probably copied from this passage.
M 2
582 IIPOS KOPINOIOYS A.
BGs aS uae
® ayapoc " wepuva ‘ta TOU Kuplov, TOC ‘ apioy TW
AGED.
eas , ,
Ff Matt. xxviii, KQGUOU TOUTOU.
Wisd. vi.15. ¢
vii. 23 only. O
f? ' 5
aueoluvoug elvat,
a oe ie ean eee si aeatienane :
rec KUOLW o 6 yapnoag mépiuva =Ta TOU KOGMOV, TWC
Phil. il. 20. K doton TH yuVatKt 4 cat | ueusotorar Kat n vn oink -
lv. Ps if P
Exod, v-U(a). PECAN ERY HEeuEeo y
i Rom. ii. 14 Og ge h bt eS me Site. Neel a
om. dL. maoUvevoc. N° ayanoc MEptUva TA TOU KUGLOV, LYa ¥y
k Rom. viii.8 ¢ 7 \ oie toe 2 ‘ “- 2 , 2 Ate 8 A ,
reff. ayla Kat T@ GwuaTt Kal TW TWvEvMATL N OE yaunoaca
1 see ch. i. 13 L v
: m vv. 25, 28.
n 1 Thess. v. 23. see ch. v. 3 reff. o of the woman, see
reff.
ver. 28 reff.
32. om de F 0 61 fuld D-lat: yap 38 Clem.
33. rec (for apeon vv 32-3-4) apece:, with KL 17(ver 33) rel Clem Orig Meth Ath
Epiph, Cyr Ephr Thdrt Damase Th] (Ec: txt ABDFX 17 Eus. for kupiw, ew F
vulg Orig Cypr.
34. rec om Ist «a, with D3FKL rel Chr Thdrt,: ins ABD! 6.17. 31. 47. 71-3 vulg
syrr copt Eus Method Bas Cyr Epiph Pelag Aug Jer Fulg Primas Bede. rec om 2nd
kat, With D! demid(and fuld) copt Cyr Epiph Ephr Aug Jer: insABD3FKLX 6.31. 47.
71-3 rel vulg syr Eus Method Bas Chr Thdrt Damasc Pelag Fulg Primas Bede.—weu. de
30, meu. Se Kat Syr. aft 7 yuvn ins 7 ayapmos (retaining it also after tap8evos) AN
17 «th Damasc ; so (but omg the 2nd) B 6. 31. 47. 71-3 vulg Eus Ps-Ath Jer, Aug,
Pelag.
al) Syr copt Orig, Ath Did Tert.
Tov kocpou B.
32—34.] Application of what has been
just said to the question of marriage.
32. OéX\w S€...] But (i.e. since
this is so—since the time is so short, and
that, in order that we Christians may sit
loose to the world) I wish you to be with-
out worldly cares (undistracted). Then
he explains how this touches on the sub-
ject. Tas apéoy—how he may
please: mas apéoei—‘ how he shall please.’
The variety being not in reality a various
reading, but only an itacism, I retain the
form found in the most ancient MSS.
34.] See var. readd.: I treat here
only of the text. Divided also is the
(married) woman and the virgin (i.e.
divided in interest (i. e. in cares and pur-
suits] from one another: od thy avrhy
éxouot ppovtida, aAAG pemepiomevat cio
tais omovdais, Theophyl.: not merely,
different from one another, as K. V.,
Chrys., Luth., Grot.,al. Divisa est mulier
et virgo D-lat G-lat Tert). It may be well
to remark as to the reading, on which see
Digest,—that Jerome testifies to this having
been the reading of the old Latin copies,
and himself’ sometimes quotes the passage
in this form ; but, when speaking of it eri-
tically, he states that it is not in the “ apos-
tolica veritas,” i.e., it would seem, the
Greek as understood by him. ‘‘Nune illud
breviter admoneo in Latinis codicibus hune
locum ita legi: ‘ Divisa est virgo et mulier;’
quod quamquam habent suum sensum, et a
me quoque pro qualitate loci sic edissertum
sit, tamen, non est apostolice veritatis.
Siquidem Apostolus ita scripsit, ut supra
om ka (bef tw cwuart) A m 17 vulg-ed(with some mss, but agst am demid
rec om Tw (bef cwu. and bef wvevp.), with DF KL
rel Orig, Method, Did Thdrt Thl Gc: ins ABN a m 17 Clem Orig, Ath,.
om Ta
transtulimus: ‘Sollicitus est que sunt
mundi, quomodo placeat uxori, et divisus
est. Et hac sententia definita transgredi-
tur ad virgines et continentes et ait: ‘Mu-
lier innupta et virgo cogitat que sunt Do-
mini ut sit sancta corpore et spiritu.’
Non omnis innupta, et virgo est. Que
autem virgo utique etinnupta est. Quam-
quam ob elegantiam dictionis potuerit id
ipsum altero verbo repetere, ‘rulier in-
nupta et virgo :’ vel certe definire voluisse
quid esset innupta, id est virgo: ne mere-
trices putemus innuptas, nulli certo matri-
monio copulatas”’ (Hier. contra Jovin. i.
13, vol. ii. p. 260). The sing. verb seems
to be used, as standing first in this sen-
tence, and because 7 yuv}) kK. % apd. em-
braces the female sex as one idea: so e.g.
Plat. Lys. p. 207, piAei ce 5 marhp Kal 7
untnp: Herod. v. 21, efrero yap 54 oft k.
oxhuata k. Oepdmrovres Kal 7 Taga TOAAH
mapackeuyn: q. d. ‘There loves thee father
and mother,’—‘ there followed them,’ &ce.
See more examples in Kiihner, ii. p. 58
(§ 433, exception 1):—Reiche thinks that
one and the same woman is intended at
different periods: but 7 5& yauhoaca is
against this: it would be yaujoaca Sé
(Meyer). The judgment of marriage
here pronounced by the Apostle must be
taken, as the rest of the chapter, with its
accompanying conditions. He is speaking
of a pressing and quickly shortening period
which he regards as yet remaining before
that day and hour of which neither he, nor
any man,knew. Hewishes his Corinthians,
during that short time, to be as far as pos-
ABDF
KLRab
edefg
hklm
nol7
32—36.
h i eee. = , Cal a ee -~ 9 5 95
KEOYG “TA TOV KOGMOV, THC “ apEay TY avOol.
ay P ‘ ‘ e ~ > ~ q , DY: > ef
€ "Te0C TO vAwY auvTwv “ovupooov éyw, ovy ‘wa
r ¢ rane 5? an tA Na p ‘ te \
Bpoxov vai * exiBarw, adrdra TO0C TO “EVaXNMOV Kal
u aw) ta Ly , v? ,
ev apedpov T]! Kup ° aTEptaTraoTwe.
~ = > ~
¥ aoxnuove “ext thy * tapfévov avrov
Be Cle \ Wy] b>? ie U A) a APN ’ 3
uTEpakoc, Kat ovtwg “ opetA yivecIat, o OéAet ToLEiTw
t Acts xiii. 50 reff.
20.1llal. (-oros, Wisd. xvi. 11.
24] 5. James v.14.
Vili. 2U reff.
a here only t+.
ii. 17. v. 3.
IIPOX KOPINOIOY®S A.
u here onlyt. (aapedpevecv, ch. ix. 13.)
méepionmacbar, Luke x, 40. Sir. xli. 2.)
only. Deut.xxv.3. Ezek. xvi.8. (-wv, ch. xii. 23. -ootvn, Rom. i. 27.)
533
TOUTO P =ch. vi. 5.
xX. 1). xii.
only ft.
Eccl, ii. 3
Symm.
< ,
r here only.
a od TIC Prowai
Zz D rs BS Vile. 215 Xtal
VOMICEL, €GV 7) 25 only.
© sand constr.,
Mark xi. 7.
Prov. xx. £6.
v here onlyt. Polyb. ii.
w ch. xiii. 5
x Mark xv.
36
= Eur. Iph. in Aul. 714, ¢keto’ amdtec ony Eunv te mupbevor ;
Soph. Cid. Tyr. 1452, tatv dOdAcaiv oiktpaiv te Tapbévow euaiv.
: see Sir. xlii. 9.
z and constr., Acts
b—ch. v.10. ix. 1u. Heb.
35. rec cuudepov, with D3FKLN? rel Meth Chr Thdrt: txt ABD'X! (m ?) 17 Hesych.
rec evmposedpoy, with KL rel Chr (c: mposedpov L: evmposexrov 5. 6: txt
ABDFX m 17 Clem Eus Bas.
36. arxnuover (for acxnpovev), and om vouce: F.
for yauertwoav, yauertw D'F vss Epiph Aug: si nubat vule
yevecOa F a Meth.
sible totally undistracted. He mentions
as an objection to marriage, that which is
an undoubted fact of human experience :
—which is necessarily bound up with that
relation: and without which the duties of
the relation could not be fulfilled. Since
he wrote, the unfolding of God’s providence
has taught us more of the interval before
the coming of the Lord than it was given
even to an inspired Apostle to see. Andas
it would be perfectly reasonable and proper
to urge on an apparently dying man the
duty of abstaining from contracting new
worldly obligations,—but both unreason-
able and improper, should the same person
recover his health, to insist on this absti-
nence any longer: so now, when God has
manifested His will that nations should
rise up and live and decay, and long cen-
turies elapse before the day of the coming
of Christ, it would be manifestly unreason-
able to urge,— except in so far as every
man’s kaipds is cuveoTaApévos, and similar
arguments are applicable,—the considera-
tions here enforced. Meanwhile they stand
here on the sacred page as a lesson to us
how to regard, though in circumstances
somewhat changed, our worldly relations ;
and to teach us, as the coming of the Lord
may be as near now, as the Apostle then
believed it to be, to act at least in the
spirit of his advice, and be, as far as God’s
manifest will that we should enter into
the relations and affairs of life allows,
auépyuvot. The duty of ver. 35 fin. is in-
cumbent on all Christians, at all periods.
35.| Caution against mistaking what
has been said for an imperative order,
whereas it was only @ suggestion for their
best interest. TovTo |] vv. 32—34.
Tpos TO tp. avT. ovp.| For your own
(emph.) profit,—i. e. not for my own pur-
for ovtws, Tovto A.
poses — not to exercise my apostolic au-
thority :—not that I may cast a snare
(lit. ‘a noose; the metaphor is from
throwing the noose in hunting, or in war ;
so Herod. vii. 85, 7 85€ udyn TodTewy
Tay avopay ide. eweay cumpicywor Tors
moAcutos, BaddAovot Tas ceipas ew kKpw
Bpéxous éxovoas, brev © dy tixn Hvte
trmov ute avOpdmov, er Ewiitoy EXKer” of
de ev Eprear eumaraccduevor diapOelpovrat.
See other examples in Wetst.) over you (i.e.
entangle and encumber you with difficult
precepts), but with a view to seemliness
(cf. Rom. xiii. 13) and waiting upon the
Lord without distraction. De W. re-
marks, that mpds 7d mapedpevew TG k. drep.
would be the easier construction. Stanley
draws out the parallel to the story in ref.
Luke. 86—38.] For seemliness’ sake :
and consequently, if there be danger, by a
father withholding his consent to his
daughter’s marriage, of waseemly treat-
ment of her, Jet an exception be made in
that case: but otherwise, if there be no
such danger, it is better not to give herin
marriage. But (introduces an inconsis-
tency with «toxnuov) if any one (any
father) thinks that he is behaving un-
seemly towards his virgin daughter (viz.
in setting before her a temptation to sin
with her lover, or at least, bringing on her
the imputation of it, by withholding his
consent to her marriage. Or the reference
may be to the supposed disgrace of having
an unmarried daughter in his house), if
she be of full age (for before that the
imputation and the danger consequent on
preventing the marriage would not be such
as to bring in the acxynyoctyn. The
&kuh of woman is defined by Plato, Rep. v.
p- 460, to be twenty years, that of man,
thirty. See Stanley’s note), and thus it
ot
5
IIPOX KOPINOIOY®S A.
VIL. 37—40.
37 6
c see ver. 28 > £ , c , 33 ” » =
al Ovuyx AUAOTaVEL, ieee me € emg: Ev Ty
dch. xy. 58. , ’ ra dhe - 4
Col. 1, 23 eapcig ploeat ’ edpaioc, oe ox eXwv * avayxny, '§ Eousiay
onlyt. Ps.
\
lvi. 8 Symm.
e = Luke xiy. OE |
EXet ® reol oe, tolov © GeXnuaroe, Kal TOUTO EE OEEY
18, [x3iii. Lot ot Og NG
17.1 Heb. év Ty) t ta kao ‘a * rngsty THv Eavtou * rap €VvoV, lca WC
vii. 27. Jude , 38 ¢ ry N « ~ ,
Se ane Antt. a ca WCTE Kal 0 ™ [ex ly apicwoy [cmv €auTOU mapbe-
{Matt. o U o ez,
on ae vov | | KaAwe Tol, Kat o py ™ [ex | yaniZov Kpetooov
Luke xii. 5. 7
xix. 17, TOU)CEL,
Acts ix. 14. Barren
Rom. ix. 21. 2 Thess. iii. 9. 1 Mace. x. 35. g¢ here only. h of man, Luke xxiii. 25. John
i. 13. ch. xvi. 12. Eph.ii.3. 2Pet.i.21. 3 Kings v. 8. i= Acts xv. 19 reff. k = 1 Thess.
v. 23. see John xii. 7. 1 Pet. i. 4. 1= Acts x.33. Phil.iv.14. James ii.8, 19. 2Pet.i.19. 3 Kings
viii. 18. m [here bis.] Matt. (xxii. 30 || L. rec.) xxiv. 38 only t. (yauig., Mark xii.25. Luke
xvii. 27 fT.) n ver. 9 reff.
(including F-lat) D-lat lat-ff.
37. rec edpaios bef ev rn Kapdia, with KLN? rel Thdrt, Thl: om edpacos F D-lat eth:
txt ABD! ad m 17 vulg syrr coptt Bas Thdrt, latt-ff.
been made for perspicuity, to bring eatnkey and edpaos together.)
with KL rel Syr Thdrt, Damase Thl ic :
kapdta (alone) 677: txt ABN a.
(ec: om ABN ed 17.
Damase Thl He:
with KL rel Thdrt Damase Augahiq :
vulg Syr syr-w-ob coptt Clem Aug.
17 rel.
(Ke:
ins ABDFX dm 17 vss Bas Thdrt.
(for 11a kapdia) kapdia avtov, with DFKL rel Thdrt Damasc:
(The transposn seems to have
rec om avTou,
rec
01a Kapdia avTov m:
rec ins Tov bef typew, with DF KL rel Damase
rec (for woimoe:) mover, with DF KL rel syrr eth Bas Thdré
txt ABN 6. 17. 672 coptt.
38. om wste to moet (homeotel) Fb! da.
rel Thl He: yaui(wy ABD F(once) 8! 17 Clem Meth Bas.
ins AN Method Bas:
rec exyaurCwv (twice), with KLN3(2nd)
rec om Tyv eav. Tapé.,
thv wap. eav. BD m 17
for movet, tornoet B m 6. 672: txt AKLN
rec (for kat 6) 6 Se (corrn for contrast), with KLNX* rel syr Thdrt Thl
txt ABDFR! m 17 latt Syr coptt «eth Clem Method Bas Chr.
rec (for
moimoet) Tove, With DFKL rel latt Thdrt: txt ABX m 6. 17. 67?.
must be (i.e. and there is no help for
it,—they are bent on it beyond the power
of dissuasion :—depends not on éayv, as the
indie. shews, but on ef. otTws, viz. that
they must marry. Theophyl. takes the
words for the beginning of the consequent
sentence = oitws kal yevéoOw. But, as
Meyer remarks, the words would thus be
altogether superfluous, and after opefAer,
ovx Gmaptdver would be inapplicable),
what he will (as his determination on this
voutcerw), let him do (1d Soxotv mpattéeTo,
Theodoret), he sinneth not (auaprias
yop 6 yamos eAcvOepos, Theodoret); let
them (his daughter and her lover) marry.
Some (Syr., Grot., al.) take &oynmovety.
passively,—‘ thinks that he is (likely to
be) brought into disgrace as regards his
daughter, viz. by her seduction, or by her
being despised as unmarried: But this
would require (1) the future doxnuovfcew.
— (2) ém with a dative, the ace. shewing
that the verb is one of action : Meyer com-
pares aoxnuovety e¥s tiva, Dion. Hal. ii.
26. And (8) the active sense of the verb
is found in this Epistle (ref.), the only
other place where it occurs in the N. T.
37.]| But he who stands firm in
his heart (= purpose,—having no such
misgiving that he is behaving unseemly),
not involved in any necessity (no ddelAcs
yevéoOa as in the other case; no deter-
mination to marry on the part of his
daughter, nor attachment formed), bué
has (change of construction:—the clause
is opposed to €xwv avdyr.) liberty of action
respecting his personal wish (to keep his
daughter unmarried), and has determined
this in his own (expressed, as it isa matter of
private determination only) heart (totro,
not stated what, but understood by the
reader to mean, the keeping his daughter
unmarried :—but this would not be in ap-
position with nor explained by tod rnp. rT.
éauT. Tap0., see below), to keep (in her
present state) his own virgin daughter
(the rec., tov ryp., would express the
purpose of the determination expressed in
Kexpikey: not [as commonly given] the
explanation of tovro, which would require
To Tnpetvy or Thpetv. It shews that the
motive of the «éxpucer is the feeling of a
father, desirous of retaining in her present
state his own virgin daughter. So Meyer,
and I think rightly: see note on Acts
xxvii. 1. De Wette, on the other hand,
regards the words tod rnp... ., as merely
a periphrasis for not giving her in mar-
riage. Our present text merely explains
the rodro), shall do well. 38.| The
latter «af has been altered to S€ because a
contrast seemed to be required between
ABDF
KLNab
cde fg
hklm
nol7
1
WELLE,
IIPO2- KOPINOIOY®= A.
O30
‘ ’ 7 a: ee 5 ~ ee
89 Tun ° déderau Pep * door P Xeovov Cn o anno aurng’ 5 ae
’ \ ae ’ » > \ €
eav de TKoyunfy o avo, *edrcvBépa eotivy @ OéXeL yapn-
Onva Ovoy °¢ yiw, 4°
nvat, ovo v KUplw.
u e ' \ x ’ A Vv , oo, ~ x ? i‘
OUTWC Melvyn), Kata T HV ELtypv yrerny ooKw O& Kayw
x = aoe 94
TVEVLA Geov eye.
‘ pakapwwrépa O€ EoTLv, gay *2
p Rom. vii. 1
reir.
q = Matt xxvii.
Acts vii.
60. xiii 36.
ch. xi. 30,
xv. 6, &
1 Thess. iv.
13,14. Isa.
xiv. &.
rn
VII. 1 Tepi ds tav * adwAobitav, * oldaney 7 Ore ™ Waitt bet
Xvi. 2, 8, 11 al.
i. 10 reft.
19. Acts xv. 29. xxi. 25.
w ch. iii. 18 reff.
t compar., here only t. see Acts xx. 35.
Rev. ii. 14, 20 only ft.
s = Rom.
u ver. 23, v=ch.
x Rom. viii. ¥. Jude 19. y vv. 4, 7, 10. ch. x.
z<=ch. vi. 2 al, fr.
39. rec aft Sederou ins vouw (from Rom vii. 2), with D?-3FLN? rel vulg-ed(with fuld
F-lat) Syr syr-w-ob Orig, Chrgepe Thdrt Damase, Ambrst, :
17 am(with demid tol harl?) coptt Clem Orig, Cyr lat-ff.
D3FLabefhlosyr Thdrt Ze: om ABD'K® rel vss Clem Orig.
amobavn A '73 syr-marg basm Clem Bas.
om ABD}! Coisl-oct-marg
ins kat bef rouunOn
for koiunén,
rec aft o aynp ins avtys, with DFL am
17 syr-w-ast vss Orig, Damase Th] lat-ff: om ABKN® Orig, Bas Cyr Thdrt, @e Vig.
ol
for yaunOnvat, yaundy ¥ latt lat-ff: yaunoo L!.
40. for 2nd Se, yap B m 4. 17. 672. 71-3. 116 tol syr(Se in marg) basm Ambr Ambrst
Vig Sedul (not Tert, Aug Jer).
KaA@s and kpetooov. One account might
be (as M. and De W.) that Paul had in-
tended to write «adds mot. twice, but
currente calamo, intensified the expres-
sion to Kpetocoy mornoet. Perhaps a better
one would be found by referring the cal—
xat to that which kad@s and xkpeiocoy
have in common: ‘both he who gives in
marriage does well, and he who gives not
in marriage shall do well, even in a higher
degree. I need hardly remind the tiro
that * both—and’ here does not, as Bloomf.
objects, represent te rai,—each subject
being accompanied by its own predicate.
Observe the woijoe:—moret—roinoer; the
pres., of the mere act itself, the fut., of its
enduring results. 89, 40.] Concern-
ing second marriages of women.
39. SeSerar] viz. 7G avdpi, or perhaps
absolutely, is bound, in her marriage state.
yopnOyver| yaundjvar and yaujoat
are later forms, reprobated by the gram-
marians: yaweOjvacand yauéoa being the
corresponding ones in good Greek. See
Lobeck on Phrynichus, p. 742. Meyer
cites Schol. on Eur. Med. 593, yae? wev
yap 6 ayhp, yauetra Se Hh yurvh. But
not invariably, see ver. 28. p.dvov
éx kupiw| only in the Lord, i. e. within
the limits of Christian connexion—in the
element in which all Christians live and
walk ;—‘let her marry a Christian” So
Tertull., Cypr., Ambros., Jerome, Grot.,
Est., Bengel, Rosenm., Olsh., Meyer, De
W. But Chrys. explains it eta cwppo-
ovvns, meTa KoTMLOTHTOS :—and so (but in
some cases including in this the marrying
of a Christian) Theodoret (touvtéorw 6uo-
misT@, evoeBel, Twppdvws, evvduws), Theo-
phyl., Calv., Beza, Calov., al. This how-
ever seems flat, and the other much to be
for exer, exw }' Tert, Ambrst Aug.
preferred ; also as making a better limita-
tion of @ @éA«c. 40. paapiwtépa |
happier, partly by freedom from the at-
tendant trials of the éverra@oa avdynn,—
but principally for the reason mentioned
verse 34. “To higher blessedness in
heaven, which became attached to celibacy
afterwards in the views of its defenders
(Ambrose, Corn.-a-Lap., al.), there is no
allusion here.” Meyer. Sond Se kaya |
This is modestly said, implying more than
is expressed by it,—not as if there were
any uncertainty in his mind. It gives us
the true meaning of the saying that he is
ging his opinion, as ver. 25: viz. not that
he is speaking without inspiration, but that
in the consciousness of inspiration he is
giving that counsel which should determine
the question. The rationalizing Grotius
explains mvevua Oeod, ‘non revelationem,
sed sincerum affectum Deo et piis ser-
viendi,’ referring to ch. iv. 21, where (1)
the meaning is not this (see note); and
(2) the expression is not mveiua Oeor.
Kayo | ‘as well as other teachers.’
Whether said with a general or particular
reference, we cannot tell, from not being
sufficiently acquainted with the circum-
stances.
VIII. 1—XI. 1:] ON THE PARTAKING
OF MEATS OFFERED TO IDOLS, AND AS-
SISTING AT FEASTS HELD IN HONOUR OF
IDOLS.
Cuap. VIII. 1—13.] Though (vv. 1—6)
Sor those who are strong in the faith, an
idol having no existence, the question has
no importance, thisis not so with all (ver.
7); and the infirmities of the weak must
in such a matter be regarded in our con-
duct (vv. 8—18). 1.] 8€, transitional,
as in ch. vii. 1, al. fr. As regards the
536
a= vv.7, 10,
Ll. “Hos. iv. mavTEC * yrwou EXouev"
6. seel Tim. ¢ Q 4”
vi. 20, olKodopel. EL mE
) ch. iv. 6 reff.
c = Actsix. 31 reff.
IIPOS KOPINOIOYS= A.
Fail.
= € Ot 2 7
n “yuwouc * pusr0i, ur E ayara
“ SoKet Eyvwkevat Tl, ouTw eyvw
Crap. VIII. 2. ree aft e ins de, with DFKL rel vulg syr-w-ast (ath) Chr Thdrt Thl
(Ee Jer:
Damase Orig-int Tert Cypr Ambrst.
om ABN m 17 am(with fuld harl'[appy] tol) coptt arm Clem Melet Nyss
rec (for eyvwnevat) edevar, with KL rel Chr
Thdrt Thl (Ec, scire vulg: txt ABDFX m 17 coptt Clem Nyss, Thdrt, Damase, cogno-
visse D-lat.
(G-lat has both cognoscere and scire.)
rec (for Aes ovderw, with
DFKL rel Nyss Chr Thdrt, Damase Thl Ee: om m: txt ABN 17 Clem Melet.
rec aft ovmw ins ovdev, with DKL rel syrr Chr Thdrt, Damase Th] @e: om ABD!FR
17 latt coptt Clem Melet Nyss Thdrt,.
rec (for eyyw) eyvwxev, with D?KL rel
Chr Thdrt, Thl ce: txt ABD!FN a m Clem Melet Nyss Thdrt, Damasc.—for ov7w
eyva Kabws Be: yvevat, ovdey eder (= 7ber) Kabws der 17.
construction, we may observe, that ep) 6.
Tov €i5., is again taken up ver. 4, meph Tis
Bpéo. otv ray eid., after a parenthesis.
We may also observe that in the latter
case ofauev bt is restated, bearing there-
fore, it is reasonable to suppose, the same
meaning as before, viz. we know, that.
This to my mind is decisive against begin-
ning the parenthesis with 671, and render-
ing 71, ‘for,’ as Luther, Bengel, Valckn.,
al.:—‘we know (for we all have know-
ledge),” ge. Are we then to begin it with
mavres, leaving wept... ofdamev ‘br broken
off, corresponding to the words resumed in
ver.4? We should thus leave within the
parenthesis a very broken and harsh sen-
tence: mdvtes yvGow exouev (what yva-
ots? if yv. about the eidwAo8., it should be
joined with the preceding; if yv. in general,
it should be thy yvéouw, see ch. xiii. 2,
which would be absurd; if some yy. on
some subjects, as ob miorw exes, James ii.
18, it would here be irrelevant), 7 yv.
guatoi, 7 SE ay. «.7.A. The first logical
break in the sense is where the concrete
yvaots, that wept tev €id., is forsaken,
and the abstract 4 yvaors treated of.
Here therefore, with Chrys., &c., Beza,
Grot., Calv., Est.,al., De Wette, and Meyer,
I begin the parenthesis,—. .. we are aware
that we all (see below) have knowledge;
knowledge, &c.; not however placing it
in brackets, for it is already provided for
in the construction by the resumption of
mepl..ovv below; and is not a grammati-
cal but only a logical parenthesis. The
eiSwAd0uTa were those portions of the ani-
mals offered in sacrifice which were not laid
on the altar, and which belonged partly to
the priests, partly to those who had offered
them. These remnants were sometimes
eaten at feasts holden in the temples (see
ver. 10), or in private houses (ch. x. 27, f.),
sometimes sold in the markets, by the
priests, or by the poor, or by the niggardly.
Theophrastus, Charact.xviii., describes it as
characteristic of the avcAev8cpos,—exdid0vs
adtov Ouvyarépa, Tod péev iepelov, TAY TOY
tep@v, Ta Kpea amodidoc0a. They were
sometimes also reserved for future use:
Theophr. mentions it as belonging to the
évalaxuyvTos,—Ovoas Tots Geois avTds pey
dermveiy wap’ étTéeps, TA SE Kpea AmoTevat
ado) macas. Christians were thus in con-
tinual danger of meeting with such rem-
nants. Partaking of them was an aboimi-
nation among the Jews: see Num. xxy.
2; Ps. evi. 28; Rev. ii. 14; Tobit i. 10O—
12; and was forbidden by the Apostles and
elders assembled at Jerusalem, Acts xv. 29;
xxi. 25. That Paul in the whole of this
passage makes no allusion to that decree,
but deals with the question on its own
merits, probably is to be traced to his wish
to establish his position as an independent
Apostle, endowed with God’s Holy Spirit
sufficiently himself to regulate such mat-
ters. But it also shews, how little such
decisions were at that time regarded as
lastingly binding on the whole church:
and how fully competent it was, even
during the lifetime of the Apostles, to
Christians to open and question, on its own
merits, a matter which they had, for a
special purpose, once already decided.
There should be a comma at eiSwAoditwr,
as the resumed sentence (ver. 4) shews.
TavTes yvaow exopev| Who are
amavtes? Meyer says, Paul himself and
the enlightened among the Corinthians :
Estius, al., these latter alone; and some
think it said zronically, some concessively,
of*them: Grot., “pars maxima nostrum,
ut Rom. iii. 12.” But it is manifest from
vv. 4—6, which is said in the widest possi-
ble reference to the faith of all Christians,
that all Christians must be intended here
also: and so Chrys., Theophyl., (icum.,
Calov., al., and De Wette. But then, ver.
7, he says, ov« év waow 7 yv@ors: and
how are the two to be reconciled? By
taking, I believe, the common-sense view
of two such statements, which would be,
in ordinary preaching or writing, that
ABDF
KLNa b
cdefg
hklin
nol7
2—d.
KkaQoc det yvevat’ 3. Of TIC
d? S
ae TOV
HPOS KOPINOIOYS A. 537
~
40.6 os d Matt. xxii.
Deov, ovroc 871, and Luke
er eur? > ~ 4 ‘ - 27, from
EyVWOTAL uT auTou. TEL TNC ‘ Powsewe ov TOY Theat vi. 5.
zg? i g of gt ee BS om. viii. 28.
eLowA obbrwyr, . oloapev OTL OQUOEV EL wXov ev KOO MW, sf ean 20,
‘oe 9 \ Sy Aah is? SO \ ‘ 4 2 \ e=Gal. iv. 9.
Kal OTL OUOELC Ode él py ELC Kal ya2e ELTEO ELOLV 22 Tim. ii. 19
(from. Num.
Xvi. 5). Matt. vii. 23. f Rom, xiv. 17 reff. g ver. 1. h = Matt.
xii. 4. Gal. i. 19.
8. om um avTou N).
4. for 7. Tns Bp. ovv, m. 5€ Ths Bp. D2>:3 e 1.17. 108-15 vulg D-lat Iren-int Aug:
(autem vulg al: enim spec :) ergo F-lat.—for Bpwoews, yuwoews D' 121.
ins eotw F vulg.
aft ovdev
rec aft @cos ins erepos, with KLN? rel syrr Chr Thdrt Damase
Thl Ge: om ABDFN! 17 latt Cyr Bas Iven-int lat-ff.
the first was said of what is professed and
confessed,—the second of what is actually
and practically apprehended by each man.
Thus we may say of our people, in the
former sense, ‘ all are Christians ; all be-
lieve in Christ :’? but in the latter, ‘ allare
not Christians ; all do not believe.’
yvaory, scil. rep) adTav. From 7 yv. to
end of ver. 3 (see above) isa logical paren-
thesis. yveors, knowledge, abstract,
—scil. when alone, or improperly predomi-
nant: it is the attribute of 7 yvéots,
‘barely. q aydtrn | viz. ‘ towards the
brethren,’ see Rom. xiv. 15, and ch. x. 23.
oikod.| helps to build up (God’s
spiritual temple), ch. iii. 9. 2,3.] The
general deductions, (1) from a profession of
knowledge, and (2) from the presence of
love, in a man:—expressed sententiously
and without connecting particles, more, as
Meyer observes, after the manner of St.
John in his Epistles. On the text, see
var. readd. The case supposed is the
only one which can occur where love is
absent and conceit present: a man can
then only think he knows,—no real know-
ledge being accessible without humility and
love. Such a man knows not yet, as he
ought to know: has had no real practice
in the art of knowing. But if a man
loves God (which is the highest and noblest
kind of love, the sowrce of brotherly love,
1 John vy. 2), this man (and not the wise in
his own conceit) is known by Him. The
explanation of this latter somewhat difli-
cult expression is to be found in ref. Gal.,
vow de yvdures Oedv, paddov Se yoooévres
tw Beov. So that here we may fairly
assume that he chooses the expression €yvw-
ota. tr avtod in preference to that which
would have been, had any object of know-
ledge but the Supreme been treated of, the
natural one, viz. obtos @yvw avtdv. We
cannot be said to know God, in any full
sense (as here) of the word to know. But
those who become acquainted with God by
love, are known by Him: are the espe-
cial objects of the divine Knowledge,—
their being is pervaded by the Spirit of
God, and the wisdom of God is shed abroad
in them. So in ref. 2 Tim., éyvw kdpios
Tous bvtasauTov. Seealso Ps.i.6. Cog-
nitionem passivam sequitur cognitio activa
¢. xiii. 12. Egregia metalepsis : cognitus
est, adeoque cognovit.” Bengel. ywornw
does not seem, any more than yy? in Ps. i.
6, xxxvii. 18, for which the LXX have
yweoKkw, to signify to approve, any further
than personal knowledge of an intimate
kind necessarily involves approval.
4.| The subject is resumed, and further
specified aby the insertion of tis Bpdcoews,
ovv resumes a broken thread of ae
course : so Plat. Apol. p. 29, éste ov®
pe aplere... ef mot mpds Taira eben
&e.... el ovv we, Owep elroy, em) TovTo.s
aplorre . See Hartung, Partikellehre,
ii. 22. We know that there is no idol
in the world, i.e. that the e¥wAa of the
heathen (meaning not strictly the images,
but the persons represented by them)
have no existence in the world. That
they who worship idols, worship devils, the
Apostle himself asserts ch. x. 20; but that
is no contradiction to the present sentence,
which asserts that the deities imagined by
them, Jupiter, Apollo, &c., have absolutely
no existence. Of that subtle Power which
under the guise of these deluded the na-
tions, he here says nothing. The rendering
of Chrys., Theodoret, Theophyl., Cicum.,
Vulg., E. V., Luther, Beza, Grot., Est., al.
(‘an idol is nothing in the world,’ ch. x.
19; Jer. x. 3. Sanhedr. 63. 2 [Wetst.],
*noverant utique Israelite: idolum nihil
esse”), is certainly wrong here, on account
of the parallel ovSels Oebs ei wh eis which
follows. And that there is no god, but
One: the insertion of €repos has probably
been occasioned by the first commandment,
ovK €govTal cot Beol Erepor TAYY euod.
5, 6.) Further explanation and confirma-
tion of ver. 4. 5.| For even sup-
posing that («Zep makes an hypothesis, so
that “in incerto relinquitur, jure an injuria
sumatur,” Herm. ad Viger., p. 834. See
538 IIPOS KOPINOIOY® A. VIIL.
"a." Eph fi ‘ Aeyopevor Oeot cite ev ovoavy, clre én yics Wome
k wacko xxv. Elo Devt moAAot Kat * wtptoe ToAXoi, ° aan " maty dig
1= ol. 8. Dec o Tarno, "e& ov tra wavta Kal metic " ete avroy,
n Hom, xi, 30, Kal £iC KUpLOC Insovc Xploroc, "8 ov ta mwavta kat
o Acts xii. 19- Octe “Oe avrou. 'adA’ ovK ’év wacw 7 P yvucic’ TwWiC «
p ver. 3.
q W. cen. obj» Oe T
1 Pet. ii.
Heb. x. ovviO., of xi. 16 reff.
5. ins o: bef Aeyouevor FK.
xuptot D Ambrst Pelag.
gn
om from ero. to eow L.
rec ins rys bef yns, with rel Thdrt, ic: txt ABDFKN
, v ” ED RIN e , ,
Guvelonaét Ewe" apTLTov ELowArov we © ELdwAdBuTOV
rch. iy. 13 reff.
aft Ist @cot ins kat
f¢klmn17 Orig, Cyr-jer Chr Cyr, Thdrt, Dion-areop.
6. om add’ B basm Iren-int.—nuw S¢ 17 copt Ath Did Cyr, Epiph.
ins X-corr!.
Oeos F. om Geos &!:
ins o bef
om Ist ta D. dt ov B.
ite * suvnlleta ABN! 17 syr-marg copt eth Damase: cuveinoes DELN?® rel latt
syrr Chr Thdrt Thi (ec Tert” Aug.
spicuity), with AL rel Chr Thl (Ee:
for ec@tovo., eotiv N!: txt N-corr).
also Hartung, Partikellehre, i. 343, who
gives many examples. Kal yap et, as
Eur. Med. 460, kat yap ef oU pe oTvyets,
ovk by Suvatunv ool Kak@s ppovety wore ;
see Hartung, Partikellehre, i. 140 f.)
beings named gods (not those who are
named gods, ot Acy. 8., i. esset, all who
are so named) EXIST (the chief emphasis vs
on eto, on which the hypothesis turns),
whether in heaven, whether upon earth,
as (we know that) there are (viz. as being
spoken of, Deut. x. 17, 6 yap kvpios 6 Beds
bpay, outos Oeds TOV an Kal KUpios TOV
Kuptov, see also Ps. CXXXY. 2,3) gods many,
and lords many (the sep brings in an
acknowledged fact, on which the possibility
of the hypothesis rests—‘ Even if some of
the many gods and many lords whom we
know to exist, be actually identical with
the heathen idols... The Apostle does
not concede this, but only puts it). This
exegesis, which is Meyer’s, is denied by
De Wette, who takes eZmep as concessive,
‘even though, and understands eiciy both
times as only ‘are,’—in the meaning of
the heathen,—imagining it impossible that
Paul should have seriously said in an ob-
jective sense, ‘there are gods many.’ But
in the sense in which he uses @eof (see
above) there is no unlikelihood that he
should assert this. Chrys. gives the
following explanation: kal ydp elrep eich
Acydbuevor Ocol, Ssmep obv kal eiaiv, ovx
GrA@s eigiv, GAAG, Aeydmevoi, ovK ev
mpdyuatt, GAN ev phuari tTovTo ExovTes*
elre év oipave, elre éml vis’ ev ovpavg
Tov HAwov A€ywov K. THY oEAHVHV K. TY
Aoimoy THY koTpwy xopdv’ Kal yap Kai
TavTa mposexvynoay “EAAnves' éml vis
5 Saluovas, nal Tovs e& avOperwv Beo-
moinbévras amaytas. And similarly Theo-
doret, Theophyl., (cum., Caly., Beza,
rec Tov etdwAou-bef ews apri (corrn for per-
txt BDF m latt Syr arm Bas Thdrt lat-ff.
Calov., Estius, Schrader, al. See the vari-
ous minor differences of interpretation, in
Pool’s Synopsis and De Wette: and a
beautiful note in Stanley. There is a
sentence in Herodotus (ix. 27) singularly
resembling this in its structure : nuty dé,
ei pndev GAAO eat) amodcdeyuevoy, dsmep
€oT) TOAAG TE Kal ev ExovTa, ... GAAG Kah
amy tov év Mapabau epyou kil eouer,
x.7.A. Cf. also Hom. Il. a. 81 f.; $. 576 f.
6.| Yet (see reff. just given, and
ch. iv. 15) TO US (emphatic: however that
matter may be, we hold) there is ONE
Gop, the Father (6 marjjp answers to
*Incovds xpiotds in the parallel clause be-
low, and serves to specify what God—viz.
the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ), of
Whom (as their Source of being) are all
things, and we unto (i.e. for) Him (His
purposes—to serve His will); and one
Lord Jesus Christ (notice the eis @eds
opposed to @col moAAot,-and eis xbpios to
kUptot modAol), by Whom (as Him by
whom the Father made the worlds, John
i. 3; Heb. i. 2) are all things, and we
(but here secondly, we as his spiritual
people, in the new creation) by Him.
The inference from the foregoing is that,
per se, the eating of meat offered to idols
is a thing indifferent, and therefore al-
lowed. ‘The limitation of this licence now
follows. 7.) But (jondern) not in all
is the knowledge (of which we have been
speaking: i.e. see above, is not in them in
their individual apprehension, though it
is by their profession as Christians): bat
(aber) some through their conscious-
ness (or, according to the other reading,
habituation) to this day, of the (par-
ticular) idol (i.e. through their having
an apprehension to this day of the reality
of the idol, and so being conscientiously
on YWo-
ow K.
ABDF
Lrabec
defgh
klmn
o17
6—11.
’ 0; Niet og } } Oe ta2 ‘ oe u
€oULOUOLY, Kal nN ouvelonatc aQUTWY aoQevnc ovoa bo-
dé Mb Goma Shen ide cop.” ee
UVETal. Powna € ynuac ov TAPAGTHOEL TW Ew
” an NY 7
OUTE EaY [LH paywpev,
TTPO KOPINOIOY®S A. 539
SW. gen. subj.,
Rom. ii. 16.
ix. le 2 Cor,
i. 12 al.
xc , rf) ” a’ , ; ig ond
voTepouusva, OUTE Eav paywpev, nace?
, t \ Pi e b? ! Be At) iv. 19 al,
Yweorccevousy. 9” Prémere SE * nn * Two H ” Eovola UMOY y Rev tind.
7] ec , / et ae 9 , 1028 , Fe eet
auTn ~ TeocKouma ‘yévntar tote * acMevécty. fay yao Ts Ixy. dal
TIC toy o& TOY éxyovra * -yuwow ev ° Elowd Ely
e ' 28.
KQTQKElL- y Rom. xiv. 15
ff
a] \ c s ey > ~ (iD Q ~ ” Yet. Ph s
MEVOY, Ovyl OvuvelOnotg avtou aGVEVOUG OVTOS wRom. xii.1.
* otkoSopnOyosrat ELC TO Ta ® edwAobura colic,
12al. (Rom. iii. 7 reft.)
Vii. 37 al. c Rom. ix. 32, 33 reff.
e= Mark ii. 15 || L. xiv.3. Luke vii. 37 only ft.
only. see Mal. iii. 15.) constr., Eph. ii. 22.
8. vuas 81 ck 1m.
Z = Acts xiii. 40 reff.
(Proy. vi. 9.)
Xiv. 10.
11 » | 2 Cor. iv: 14.
KQ@l x chi.7 reff.
y =ch. xiy.
a = Rom. xi. 2). b=ch.
d here only+. Esdr. ii.10. 1 Mace. i. 47. x. 83 only.
f = Acts ix. 31 reff. (iron., bere
& ver. 1 reff.
rec mapiorntt (corrn to suit the follg pres tenses), with
DLN’ rel Orig, Ath-4-mss Chr Thdrt Jacob-nisib lat-{f: ouviotnow F: txt ABN 17
coptt Clem, Orig, Ath Damasce.
ree aft ovre ins yap, with DFL rel latt syrr
Clem Orig Chr Thdrt Jac-nisib Ambrst: om ABN 17 am(with tol) coptt «th Cypr
Aug, (Tert,).
(appy to bring closer the clause paywu. Te
connected with it), with DFLN.rel syrr C
TeC ouvTe cay hay. wepiocevouev bef ouvte cay bn pay. voTEpouue9a
pio., to Bpwu. ov mapist., as being logically
lem Orig Chr Thdrt Jac-nisib Cypr: cay uy
paywuev Mepiogevouey ouTe Eay parywuev voTepouucba A 17 (but in A “epic. usque ad
vor. voces rescripte : quid olim non liquet
”): txt AIB
am(with demid flor mar tol)
coptt arm Bas Damase.—zepiocevoueda B Orig.
9. rec acOevovow (appy corrn to suit acberer below, which however is gradually
introduced,— acdeveriv,—aa0evous ovTos,—aobevwy), with L rel Chr Thdrt Thl Gc:
txt ABDFR 17 Clem, Damase.
10. e:5y A.
bef exovra N?.
€10wA obuTa DFE vss Orig-int Aug.
afraid of the meat offered, as belonging to
him: not wishing to be connected with
him. 7H cvvedhoe &ws &pri is not = Th
€ws dpi ovv., but gws apts stands sepa-
rate, as above: so dia Tis euis Tapougias
amddw mpds buds, Phil. i. 26) eat it as
offered to an idol, and their conscience,
in that it is weak, is defiled. By €as
Gpru, it is shewn that these acevets must
have belonged to the Gentile part of the
Corinthian church : to those who had once,
before their conversion, held these idols to
be veritable gods. Had they been Jewish
converts, it would not have been cuvelSnois
Tov e€idHAov which would have troubled
them, but apparent violation of the Mosaie
law. 8.] Reason why we should ac-
commodate ourselves to the prejudices of
the-weak in this matter : because it is not
one in which any spiritual advantage is to
be gained, but one perfectly indifferent :
not, with Calv., al., an objection of the
strong among tlie Corinthians: no such
assumption must be made, without a plain
tndication in words that the saying of an-
other is being cited: see Rom. ix. 19;
xi. 19; and as Meyer well remarks, if the
eaters had said this, they would have ex-
pressed it, ore cay ph pdyouey mepioc.,
ote cay ody., borep., as it has actually
om oe BF Orig-int: ins ADLN rel s
edwdiw ABDLN h k m 17 (180A. AFR 17).
yrr coptt goth gr-#.
Py
yowow
ecOew bef ta
been corrected (see var. readd.) in some
MSS., and adopted by Lachm. in his last
edn. The d¢ carries on the argument.
Bengel remarks (against the ordinary
rendering, which takes rapiornut = ovr-
tornut, “commendo,’ which meaning it will
not bear) that mwapacrfoce: is a verbum
ééoov, after which may follow a good or a
bad predicate :—will not affect our (future)
standing before God ;—and to this indif-
ferent meaning of mapaorhoer answers the
antithetic alternative which follows.
9.] 8é—q. d. “I acknowledge this indif-
ference —this licence to eat or not to eat ;
but it is on that very account, because it
is a matter indifferent, that ye must take
heed,” &e. The particular rpéskoupa in
this case would be, the tempting them to
act against their conscience :—a practice
above all others dangerous to a Christian,
see below, ver. 11. 10. | Explanation
how the mpéskoppa may arise. Tis,
scil. (see below) aaGevhs wv. TOV
€xovTa yvaou seems to imply that the
weak brother és aware of this, and looks up
to thee as such. ev cidwdeiw kar. ] See
on €idwdoé., ver. 1. elOwAciov, as Toge:-
detov, “AmoAAwveioy, "Iaciov, &e.
“cixodopnn@ycerat is not a vow media,
as Le Clere, Elsner, Wolf, al., nor is
540 IIPOS KOPINGIOY® A. VIL. 12348:
. j ~ ~— = if ? A
h Rom. xiv.15 © qaroddurat 0 'adbevav * ev ™ on P yvwort, 0 adeApoc
i Rom. iv. 19 »> a bs , ‘A pen wet 3} fiat ,
ie ou ov xptorog amebavev 5 ovrwe 6& — ajaptavovTec
< Matt. vi. 7. ? : Q Wm Se ee ‘ o ’
leonstr., ch. | ge Tove AbEAPOVE Kal” TUTTOVTEG aUTWY THY oUVvELON-
m = here only. te 42 fa) - Ve pi al) Wks , 130 § 4
iKingsi 8 Olv ‘aaevovoav, tic YploTOY apapTaveTe. LOTED
FERN AAAS: > p S q 5 bee . "3 " , > ‘ ,
0 ter 7. El Poona oKavoaNt et TOY a eA pov Mov, ov py payw
Ger ‘ ~ e
“(iv 13vr) “Kpéa “tlc TOV alwva, twa py TOY aceA pov pov ‘oKav-
only.
p ses xiv. 15 daAicw.
reff.
gq Matt. xv. 12.
xvii. 27.
Rom. xiv.
2Qit. Sir. ix. 5. xxiii. 8. xxxv. (xxxii.) 15 only.
xxi.19. Mark iii. 29. John viii. 35. Deut. xv. 17.
IX. ! Ovk tut EdAcdOeo0¢ 3 ovK Ell ATOGTOACEC 3 ovyl
r Rom. xiv. 2] only. Gen. ix. 4al. 8 Matt.
11. for kat aoaA., amod. yap BN! 17 coptt goth Clem, (elsw cites freely aAAa am.) amor.
ovyv A: kat am. ovy 46 Damasc: txt DFLN® rel syrr Chr Iren-int Jer. (The sentence
has prob been tampered with to get rid of the apparent awkwardness of the question
being carried on through ver 11,—and ovy and yap have been attempts to break it off
at eo@vetv.) rec amoAeitat (to suit the fut above), with D§FL rel vss Chr(edd and
mss vary) Thdrt Thl (Ec Iren-int Jer: txt ABD'X® copt goth Clem, Bas Antch Thdrt,
Damase. (aroAvta D!, aroAAvtat D?: 17 illeg.) rec emt (= ‘on account of,’ seems
to have been a corrn for the more difficult ev,—see note), with L rel Chr Thdrt Thl
(Ee: txt ABDFX 17 Bas Thdrt,: iz latt Iren-int Jer: om ev Clem, (Orig) Thdrt-ms.
rec adeAgos, omg art, bef ev Ty on yrwoet (attempt to simplify, at the expense of.
the emphatic character of the sentence), with LN® rel fuld Chr Thdrt al (a8. 0 a06. syr
al): om adeAgos vulg-ms Syr: txt ABDFR! m 17 latt copt goth wth Bas Iren-int Jer
Ambrst (Clem, has 0 a3. ac9.: elsw, he cites am. yap 0 ac. 77 o7 ‘yv.).
12. om tous F. om ka F(including F-lat G-lat) D-lat goth.
13. ins To bef Bpwua F. om pov (twice) F (including F-lat G-lat) Cypr; goth
Clem also omit Ist wou; D'(and lat) omit 2nd. Kpeas NX}.
Cav. IX. 1. rece aroarodos ovk eu bef cdevdepos (possibly to bring the weightiest
question into prominence,—or, as Mey, ovk eu. am. having been omd in mistake | as 71.
178], was re-insd first as the weightier and first treated, cf vv 2, 3), with DFKL rel
fuld syr basm goth Chr Thdrt Ambrst : txt ABN m 17 vulg copt Syr xth arm Orig Tert
it impelletur, as Castal., Bengel, Kypke,
al., nor confirmabitur, as Syr., Grot.,
Billroth, al.” (Mey.), but as Meyer and
De Wette, edificabitur, not without a
certain irony, seeing it is accompanied
by a@o8evods évros,—tfor thus the building
up would be without solid foundation—
a ruinosa edificatio, as Calv. 11.]
....and (thus) the weak perishes (here-
after: see the parallel, ref. Rom. and
note) in (as the element im which,—he
entering into it as his own, which it is not)
thy knowledge,—the brother, in whose
behalf Christ died? See again Rom. as
above. 12.] ovrws, viz. as in vv. 10,
11. «af fixes and explains what is meant
by Guapr. eis T. a5. TUMTOVTES | smit-
ing: tl yap amrnvéctepov avOpdrov yé-
voir by toy vooodyta TumTovTos; Chrys.
13.| Fervid expression of his own
resolution consequent on these considera-
tions, by way of an example to them.
Bpapa, food, i. e. any article of food,
as ver. 8; purposely indefinite here ; ‘if
such a matter as food ....,’ but presently
particularized. ov pH dye, strong
future, I surely will not eat; ‘there is
no chance that I eat.’ kpéa] ‘Quo
certius vitarem carnem idolo immolatam,
toto genere carnium abstinerem.’ Bengel.
oxavdaliow | be the means of offend-
ing; “commutatur persona: modo dixit sz
cibus offendit.” Bengel. “ Non autem hoe
dicit quod hoe aliquo casu opus sit, sed ut
ostendat multo graviora quam de quibus
hie agitur sustinenda pro proximorumn
salute.” Grot. IX. 1—27.] He di-
gressively illustrates the spirit of self-
denial which he professed in the resolution
of ch. viii. 1383,—by contrasting his rights
as an Apostle with his actual conduct in
abstaining from demanding them (vv. 1—
22). This self-denying conduct he further
exemplifies, vv. 23—27, for their imita-
tion. See Stanley’s introductory note; and
Conyb. and Howson, vol. i. pp. 61, 457,
edn. 2. 1.] He sets forth, (1) his in-
dependence of men (contrast ver. 19); (2)
his apostolic office (for the order, see var.
readd.) :—(8) his dignity as an Apostle, in
K ovtws
ices
wee TUVEL-
dnow d.
ABDF
KLNab
cefgh
kimn
ol7
IX. 1—4.
teen! eet
Kuploy nuwYy
c ~ , ’ , ?
UMLELGC EOTE EV eupeys eens
’ ~ .
Incovv tov
“adda YE vp eye” n yao
IIPOS KOPINOIOYS A.
(5 aete A
ewpaka ;
541
ov ro épyov [ou eda 1g,
adore ovK eit andorohog, a dats chai
" sppayic jou TNC
* aooro- v ch. ie 15
c > ‘
Ave vasic EOTE EV Kuply. n Eun > arohoyia roig EME "in (etiy only.
Ne > x Acts i. 25,
* avakoivouaiv Early aurn. a By) ‘our ° eX omen » e£ou- Hones i. 5.
al. ii. 8
only. Deut. xxii. 7. w. dat., 1 Pet. iii. 15 only. see Acts xxii. 1 (xxv. 16 reff.). z Acts
iv. 9 refi. a here bis "Roms x. 18, 19. ch. xi. 22 only. P. bch. vii. 37 reff.
Aug Ambr Pelag Cassiod Bede.
rec aft ino. adds xpiotoy, with DKL rel vulg-ed
syr-w-ast copt Chr Thdrt: om ABN a am(with harl tol) sah eth Orig Ambrst : pref,
F demid Tert Aug. (17 illeg.)
eopaka B'(Verc) D'FN e.
2. om A (i.e. from ev kupiw to ev Kup).
rec (for «ov tns) Tns euns, with
DFKL rel Chr Thdrt, apostolatus mei vulg D-lat: txt (Meyer objects to txt, that oop.
pov is prob a corrn to suit epy. mov above.
apostolatus F-lat G-lat.
This is surely improb) BX 17 Orig, mei
om ev kupiw D'(and lat) tol Syr Chr.
8. rec avty bef ect, with DF KL rel vss Thdrt Thl Ge: txt ABN m 17 Chr Damase.
having been vouchsafed a sight of Christ
Jesus our Lord ;—(4) his efficiency in the
office, as having converted them to God.
édev0.] So that the resolution of ch.
viii. 13 is not necessitated by any depend-
ence on my part on the opinion of others.
éépaxa.| Not, during the life of our
Lord on earth, as Schrader, nor is such an
idea supported by 2 Cor. v. 16; see note
there ;—but, in the appearance of the Lord
to him by the way to Damascus (Acts ix.
17; ch. xv. 8: see Neand. Pfl. u. Leit.
p- 151, note); and also, secondarily, in
those other visions and appearances,—
recorded by him, Acts xviii. 9 (?), xxii. 18,
—and possibly on other occasions since
his conversion. od puixpdy 5€ Kal TovTo
aélwua nv, Chrys. év Kupiw is not
a mere humble qualification of 7d &pyov
pov, as Chrys., tovtéati, Tov Oeod Td epyor
éotlv, ovk euov,—but designates, as else-
where, the element, in which the work is
done: they were his work as an Apostle,
i.e. as the servant of the Lord enabled by
the Lord, and so IN THE LoRD. See ch.
iv. 15. 2.] At least my apostle-
ship cannot be denied by you of all men,
who are its seal and proof. ebeaiery:
ovk eipi] ov, because it belongs closely to
the hypothesis: ‘if I am no-Apostle/
see-ch. vii. 9. a@AAous, to others, i. e.
in the estimation of others. adda ye,
yet at least, is stronger than @AAd alone.
The particle shews that the sentiment
which it introduces has more weight than
the other to which the aAAd is a reply.
See Hartung, Partikellehre, i. 385. Meyer
(after Klotz) remarks that ‘in the classics
GAAd ye is never found without one or
more words intervening:” those words
being emphatic: e. g. Aristoph. Nub.
399, m@s odx) Simm evéempnoev.....
AAG TY adTOU ye Vewy Barre;
oppayis | as being the proof of his apos-
tolic calling and energy, by their con-
version : better than,—by the signs and
wonders which he wrought among them, as
Chrys. (al.) from 2 Cor. xii. 11—13, and
perhaps misled by the similarity of onmetoy
and oppayis. Their conversion was the
great proof: so Theodoret, amddetw yap
TOY AMOOTOALK@Y KaTopOwudTaV THY due-
Tépay Exw weTaBorny. év kup. | belongs
to the whole sentence, see above, on ver. 1.
3.| This belongs to the preceding,
not to the following verses : avTn, viz.
the fact of your conversion: this word is
the predicate, not the subject—as in John
1.19; xvii. 3, and stands here in the em-
phatie place before the verb; referring to
what went before. With ver. 4:a new course
of questions begins, which furnish no azo-
Aoyla. Tots éue avakp.| For the dat.
see Acts xix. 38; 2 Cor. xii. 19 :—to those,
who call me in question: éud, emphatic,
as Chrys. says, of ver. 2, kav BovAnral tis
mabey mwo0ev Ott GméaToAds cium, twas
mpoBaddAAomat. 4.| He resumes the
questions which had been interrupted by
giving the proof of his Apostleship.
pH ovK éx.| wn asks the question: ovk
éxouwev is the thing in question: Is it so,
that we have not power....?% The plur.
seems to apply to Paul alone: for though
Barnabas is introduced momentarily in ver.
6, there can be no reference to him in ver.
11. It may perhaps be used as pointing
out a matter of right, which any would
have had on the same conditions (see ver.
11), and as thus not belonging personally
to Paul, as do the things predicated in vv.
1, 2,15. This however will not apply to
ver. 12, where the emphatic jets is per-
sonal. gayetv x. metv| To eat and
542
[IPOS KOPINOIOY® A.
IX.
, ~ \ - LO SoS: Wed bf b 3¢ “
ctrans, here Olay g~ayew Kat wee py OUK — EyOmEY — ELOVoLaY
only. Ezek. , A ‘2 = , c ‘ e EA leaded
Feasts adeA pny yuvaika ¥ TEOLAYELY, WE Kal Ot Aourot “ aToato-
xiii. 1 refi. \ t Lan X \ - ’ ‘ ites, Are jhe ,
d=actsxiv. AOL Kat Ol ave pot Tov Kuolov Kat Knoac; ° 4 pmovoc
4 (note), 14.
e constr , Acts
xiv. Y reff.
4. mw D'FR.
’ , b ’ ~
eyw Kal BapvaBac OUK » Ey omen eSovolav [* row | un
5. for adeAbny yuvaca, yuvaias F (Clem,) Tert: adeApas yuvaucas arm(and mss
mentioned by Jer): adeApor yuvaia lectt 8. 56: Sedul says, in gra@co sorores, non
mulieres, legitur: uxores Helvid Cassiod: mulierem sororem vulg(with harl', not am
demid fuld al).
(The variations shew, as in ch vii., how the sacred text was tam-
pered with by the parties in the controversy on celibacy.)
om 2nd of K.
6. om Tov (to conform to vv 4 and 5) ABD!FR 17 Isid: ins D*KL rel Chr Thdrt
Damase Thl (Ee.
to drink, sc. at the cost of the churches :
not with any reference to the eating of
things offered to idols (as Schrader, iv. 132),
nor to Jewish distinctions of clean and
unclean (as Billroth and Olshausen) ;—see
below, vv. 6, 7. 5. | Have we not the
power to bring about with us (also to
be maintained at the cost of the churches,
for this, and not the power to marry, is
here the matter in question) as a wife, a
(believing) sister (or, ‘to bring with us
a believing wife :’ these are the only ren-
derings of which the words are legitimately
capable. Augustine, De Opere Monacho-
rum, 4 [5], vol. vi. p. 552, explains it
thus: “Ostendit sibi licere quod ceteris
Apostolis, id est ut non operetur manibus
ad hoe
enim et fideles mulieres habentes terrenam
substantiam ibant cum eis, et ministra-
bant eis de substantia sua,’ &e., and
similarly Jerome adv. Jovin. i. 26, vol. ii.
p. 277. So likewise Tertull., Theodoret,
(Ecum., Isid. Pelus., Theophylact, Ambrose,
and Sedul. So too Corn.-a-Lap. and Estius.
See Estius, and Suicer, yuyf, Il. And
from this misunderstanding of the passage
grew up a great abuse, and such women
are mentioned with reprobation by Epi-
phan. Her. 78, vol. i. [ii., Migne], p. 1043,
under the name of a@yarnral. They were
also called adeAgai: and were forbidden
under the name of ouvelsaxro: by the
3rd Canon of the 1st Council of Nicea.
See these words in Suicer), as also the
other Apostles (in the wider sense, not
only the twelve, for ver. 6, Barnabas is
mentioned. It does not follow hence that
all the other Apostles were married: but
that all had the power, and some had
used it) and the brethren of the Lord
(mentioned not because distinct from the
amésrodo, though they were absolutely
distinct from the twelve, see Acts i. 14,
—but as a further specification of the
most renowned persons, who travelled as
missionaries, and took their wives with
them. On the 43. rod kup. see note,
Matt. xiii. 55. They were in all proba-
bility the actual brethren of our Lord by
the same mother, the sons of Joseph and
Mary. The most noted of these was
James, the Lord’s brother [ Gal. i. 19; ii.
9, 12, compare Acts xii. 17; xv. 13; xxi.
18], the resident bishop of the Church at
Jerusalem: the others known to us by
name were Joses [or Joseph], Simon, and
Judas, see note on Matt. ib.), and Cephas
(Peter was married, see Matt. viii. 14. A
beautiful tradition exists of his encouraging
his wife who was led to death, by saying
Méuvynoo, @ attn, Tov Kupiov, Clem. Alex.
Strom. vii. § 11 [63], p. 868 P. Euseb.
H. E. iii. 830. Clem. Alex. Strom. iii. § 6
[52], p. 535 P., relates that he had chil-
dren)? On a mistake which has been
made respecting St. Paul’s (supposed) wife,
see note on ch. vii. 8. 6.] Or (im-
plying what the consequence would then
be, see ch. vi. 2, 9: does not introduce
a new éfovola, but a consequence of
the denial of the last two) have only I
and Barnabas (why Barnabas? Perhaps
on account of his former connexion with
Paul, Acts xi. 30; xii. 25; xiii. l—xv.39;
but this seems hardly enough reason for
his being here introduced. It is not im-
probable that having been at first asso-
ciated with Paul, who appears from the
first to have abstained from receiving
sustenance from those among whom he
was preaching, Barnabas, after his separa-
tion from our Apostle, may have re-
tained the same self-denying practice.
“This is the only time when he is men-
tioned in conjunction with St. Paul, since
the date of the quarrel in Acts xv. 39.”
Stanley) not power to abstain from work-
ing (i. e. power to look for our mainte-
nance from the churches, without manual
labour of our own. The Vulg. has ‘hoe
operandi,’ so also Tertull., Ambrose, al.,
ABDF
KLN ab
cefgh
klmn
o1l7
d—10.
IIPOS KOPINOIOYS A. O45
f? , e , , 707 h? ! i Lee. 3
C ya- epyaleaBat : 7Tle ° oroareverat toto o~wrviore ' Tore 5 fabsol, Acts
en ae , ie Boe \ ‘ . ey > Rom. iv. 4, 5.
ABCDF tie purevet auTeEAwYa, Kat Tov KAPTOV GAUTOU OUK ZO Thess iis
KLNab , as aes F a , oe -~ pis “al. Exod. vy.
pot eh eo Dict » TLE WOatvEel — TOluvHY, Kat ° EK TOU yaXak- ginksiseas
mn Li 14.
~ n , > 0? ' ‘ Q v O07 S
ol7 tog THE. Tolmvncg ovK °eoHia ; ® un TKara avlowzoy iter tee
= = r® fr \ € ’ = > , 9° 2Tim ii. 4.
TaurTa AaXa, n kat O vOmMOoG TaUTa ov Aeyer 5 Ev James iv. 1.
a = 1 r ' Seht . 2 ] me ee
yap Tw Mwuoewe VOUW yEypaTrat Ov KNUWGEC Bow ae ag 1
2 ~ ‘ ~- ~ u , - = 0 ® «yo ce , hibukewiia:
aXowrra, My TwY Bowy mer gl TW bw, » Ol Ypac How. vie =
Y OF. Kl,
only ie Esdr.iv. 56. 1 Macc. iii. 28. xiv. 32 only. dat., ch. xi.5, 2 Cor. i. 15 al. i = Heb.
i 1
i. 5, 13.
here only. Isa. v. 1.
bis. Mart. xxvi. 51. Lukeii. 8.
13). 2 Kings xii 3. see John vi. 26, 50, 51.
r Luke xi. 11, 12. xviii. 11.
iv. 9. s here only t.
bis. 1 Tim. v.18 (from |. c.) only.
k ch. iii. 6 reff. Deut. xx. 6.
m = Luke xvii. 7.
John x. 16 only. Gen. xxxii. 16.
Rom. ii. 15. ch. xvi. 6. 2 Cor. i. 13.
(-uos, Ps. xxxi.9. Ezek. xix. 4, 9.)
1 Chron. xxi. 20.
I Mat’. xx. 1, &c. fal. in Gospp. elsw.,
1 Kings xxy. 16. see Acts xx. 28 rett. n here
i o = here only (ver,
q Rom. iii. 5 rett.
Job ix, 26. interrog., Luke xii. 41. Rom,
DEuvT. xxv. 4. t here
u constr., but ellipt., ch. vii. 21. Xen.
p ch. iii. 2 reff.
Cyr. iii. 1. 3U. gen., here only. usu. w. mept, Matt. xxii. 16 al.
7. vee (for toy kapmoy) ex Tov Kaprov (corrn to conform to the follg ex tov yar.),
with (C3 ?)D?-383 vss Chr Thdrt, de
Jruectu vulg-ed(with am fuld): ek tev kapror,
(C3?) Damase: txt ABC'D!FX! 17 sah Orig-e, fructum G-lat flor(and harl tol) F-lat
Bede. aft eo@ce: ins ka miver DE.
Syr coptt Damase ec: txt B C?(appy) DF latt s
Ambrst.
8. for Aadw, Acyw DF f.
KL rel sah Dial Chr Thdrt ; simly,
‘
rec ins 7 bef tis wom., with AC'KLN rel
yr sah goth arm Chr Thdrt Thl Aug
”
for rns Toiuyns, avtys D'F vss Chr Thl Aug Hil Ambrst.
rec ins ovxz bet’ kat 0 vowos (omg ov bef Aeyet), with
but « instead of ovxi, F (an si lex hee dicit lat) :
ecce etiam lex hee dixit Syr: txt ABCD Orig Epiph Mcion-e, an et lex hee non
dicit vulg. (17 def.)
> YeypamTat yap, OMg ev TW LLwWUTEWS YoU,
Orig, gr-ff Aug.
Dial Cyr Thdrt,: txt B'D'F Chr Thadrt,.
omitting wh, and against the usage of épyd-
(ec@a, see reff.) ? 7—12.] Ezam-
ples from common life, of the reasonable-
ness of the workman being sustained by
his work. 7.) from the analogies of
human conduct. (1) The soldier.
idiots doviors] with pay furnished out of
his own resources,—the dativus modalis,
see Winer, edn. 6, § 31. 7. oTpa-
Tevopnat, of the soldier, who serves in
the army: otparedw, of the general, or
the nation, that leads, or undertakes, the
war. So Thucyd. iii. 101, of the states
which joined the Peloponnesians, ofro: xa)
tvveatparevoy mdvtes: but Xen. Cyr. viii.
4. 29, of the wife of Tigranes, dvdpelws
Evveotpareveto TG advdpi. See Kiihner,
ii. 18 (§ 398). (2) The husbandman.
Tov Kapi. aT. ovK éo8.] Thy Kapmdy, as
Meyer observes, is simply objective: he
does eat the fruit, though it may be only
part of it. (3) The shepherd. Here it
is €k Tod ydA., perhaps on account of the
inappropriateness of 7d) ydAa.... eoOlet,
and also of 7d ydAa mivet, milk being for
the most part made into other articles of
food, which sustain the shepherd partly
directly, partly by their sale. 8.] Am
I speaking these things merely accord-
ing to human judgment of what is right ?
Or (see note, ver. 6) does the law too not
D'F Orig, Hil: txt ABCKLN rel vss
rec (for knuwoets) piuwoers (see ||), with AB2CD23K LN rel Orig,
ins wept bef twy Bowy DF.
say these things ? 9.] (It does say
them): for in the law of Moses it is
written, Thou shalt not (on the fut. with
an imperative meaning, ‘Thou shalt not,’
i. e. ‘This I expect of thee, that thou wilt
not,’ common to all civilized languages,
see Winer, edn. 6, § 43. 5. c; Kiihner,
§ 446. 2) muzzle (the reading gimdces
probably came in from the similar place,
1 Tim. v. 18. The verb kyudw occurs,
with its substantive knuds, in Xen. de re
equestri, v. 3, del Sor dy axXaAivwrov
&yn, Knuotv dei- 5 yap knuds dvamveiv
Mev ov KkwAver, Sdevew 3& odK €@) an ox
while treading out the corn (in the sense
= ‘the ox that treadeth out ; but strictly
that would require réy B. Tov dAo@vTa)—
“ddogv dicuntur boves, quum grana ex
aristis exterunt pedibus, qui mos Orientis,
sed et Greecie, ut ex Theophrasto et aliis
discimus. Hic triturandi mos in Asia ho-
dieque retinetur. Solent enim illarum re-
gionum incole, postquam demessze fruges
sunt, non domum eas ex agris, more nostro,
granis nondum excussis, in horrea conyel-
lere: sed in aream quandam sub dio com-
portare : deinde, sparsis in aream manipulis
frugum, boves et bubalos immittunt, qui
vel pedibus caleantes (see Micah iv. 13), vel
curruum quoddam genus trahentes super
frumenta, ex aristis eliciunt grana.” Rosen-
544 IIPOS KOPINOIOY®S A. LX;
v Acts xxi. 22
y ~ o ’
‘ ravtwe Neyer 5 ou ac yao eyoapn, ore” Operate * eq ABCDF
~ \
vat KLNab
th. vil. 36 2 , € > ~ > € 3 ~ x? 1 ae ,
reli. : éAmidt 0 ? aoorowwy % aporpiav, Kat 0 * Gow * ex eX mlor cefgh
x Rom. iv. 1 5 > = ie sb “o2 ,
eb Zz a ! 11 © £ 017
y here bis TOU ie ’ EL bea UULLV fi Pilea aan , EOTEL*
ii. 7 s e = ee ‘ e =
only. Deut. PAMEV, “péya EL NMELC UUwWY Ta " CapKLKa Depiconer 5
Xxil. 10.
Z ren Xiv. 9 reff. a here bis. ch. x. 17, 21, 30. Heb. ii. 14. v.13. viii. 13 only. Prov.i.18. Esdr.
v. 40 al. b Rom. xv. 27 (reff.). c = Mark iv. 14 al. fr. d= 2 Cor. xi.
15 only. Gen. xlv. 28. Isa. xlix. 6.
e Matt. xxv. 24, 26]. Johniv, 36. 2 Cor. ix. 6. Ps.cxxyv. 5.
10. ree em’ cAmid: bef opeiAer 0 apotpiwy (appy connected with the next var read,—
to throw the 1st em edad: more into emphasis at the beginning, as the 2nd is at the end
of the sentence), with D?KLN* rel (vss) Chr Thdrt Thl (ec : 0 em Am. ap. op. D!: opetrer
0 ep AT. ap. operAer F: in spe qui arat debet arare F-lat, so also D3(and lat) : txt ABCN!
m 17 Orig Dial Eus Cyr Damasc, debet in spe qui arat arare vulg Aug Pelag Bede.
rec (for ew eAm. Tov peTexev) TS EATUBOS avToU meTEXELW Ew EATS, With D? 3K LN
rel Chr Thdrt Damase Thl ec: tys eAmidos avtou wetexe D'F: txt ABCR!17 (vulg)
syrr (copt) sah arm Orig Eus, Cyr Aug. (Meyer's account seems to be the right one,
that, it being overlooked that adoav must be supplied aft adrowy, wetexetv was supposed
to be infin aft opetdret, and so Tov altered to avtov; then the sense bettered by insg ts
eAmidus and transposing the original ew edmd: to the end.)
11. ins ov bef veya D'(and lat).
rel Chr Cyr Damase Th] (ec.
miiller. Is it for oxEN (generic) that
God is taking care? We must not, as
ordinarily, supply udvoy, only for oxen, and
thus rationalize the sentence: the question
imports, ‘In giving this command, are the
oxen, or those for whom the law was given,
its objects ?’ And to such a question there
can be but one answer. Every duty of
humanity has for its ultimate ground, not
the mere welfare of the animal concerned,
but its welfare zn that system of which MAN
is the head: and therefore man’s welfare.
The good done to man’s immortal spirit by
acts of humanity and justice, infinitely out-
weighs the mere physical comfort of a brute
which perishes. So Philo (de Victimas
offerentibus, § 1, vol. ii. p. 251) rightly
explains the spirit of the law: ov yap brép
Tav dddywv 6 vdéuos, GAN brep TaV vodY
kK. Adyov éxdvtwy' ste ov TGV Ovomevwy
ppovtis ect, Wa pndeuiay €xor AdSBnv,
GAAG TaY OudvTwy, iva wep) undev mados
Knpalywot. 10.] Or (the other alter-
native being rejected) on OUR account (5?
nas, emphatic—not on account of men
generally, but as Estius, “propter nos
evangelii ministros:” cf. the jets of vv.
11, 12, with which this 7ué@s is inseparably
allied) altogether (7d mdvrws mposdels,
. +++. Wa pH ovyxwphon und briody avT-
eimeiy TG aKpoath. Chrys.) does it (6
véuos: or perhaps 6 @eds, but better the
former, as above, T@ 0e¢ being only in-
cidentally introduced as the confessed
Author of the law, and 6 vduos remaining
the subject of the sentence) say (this) ?
(on our account): for on our account it
(viz. ob Knudoes K.7.A., not, that which
follows, q. esset yéyparta:) was written
because (argumentative, as the ground of
Gepicayey CDFL c¢ m latt Thdrt: txt ABN k
éypapn,—not, as in former editions, con-
taining the purpose of éeypapn, expressed
in its practical result) the plougher (not
literal but spiritual, see below) ought to
plough in hope, and the thresher (to
thresh, see var. readd.) in hope of par-
taking (of the crop). The words used in
this sentence are evidently spiritual, and
notliteral. They are inseparably connected
with 8? juas which precedes them: and
according to the common explanation of
them as referring to a mere maxin of agri-
cultural life, would have no force whatever.
But spiritually taken, all coheres. “The
command (not to muzzle, &c.) was written
on account of ws (Christian teachers) that
we ploughers (in the yewpy:oy O¢0%, ch. iil.
9) might plough in hope,—and we threshers
(answering to the Bovs dAody) might work
in hope of (as the ox) having a share.” So
Chrys. and Theophyl.: touvréotiy, 6 Sidac-
Kados opelrAc: dpotpiay, kal komidy em e€A-
mid: dworBAs K. avTiiablas. So also Meyer
and De Wette: but by farthe greater part of
interpreters (also Stanley) take it literally ;
understanding 744s of mankind in general,
and 6 dpotpiéy and 6 dAoay of labourers in
agriculture. |Nominute distinction must
be sought between the dporpiay and the
adAoéy. The former is perhaps mentioned
on account of the process answering to the
breaking up the fallow ground of Heathen-
ism :—the latter on account of its occur-
rence in the precept. 11.|- The qpeis
(both times strongly emphatic :—we need
sorely some means of marking in our Eng-
lish Bibles, for ordinary readers, which
words have the emphasis) is categoric, but
in fact applies to Paul alone. The secon-
dary emphasis is on buiv... duer. It is
11—14.
12 t adAoe rig Uuov e£ovstac *
muELS 5 aXvX’ ovK * exonoameBa Ty éSovata =a, adXa
iva un Tiva
h
navra ore yous,
evayyert TOU Xetorou.
ho
13!
q
Ich. vi. 2, &c. m adj.
i. Qlonly. (edrapedpos, ch. vii. 35.)
IIPOX KOPINOIOYS A.
OUK ‘oars ore ot ra ™
EpyaComevor é EK Tou leoou eafiovew, ot Tw P Ouotagrnpiy
TapEedcpevOVTEC TW P Puatact not * auimepiloveaes > 4 obrwe GT 22 )
, 2 Tim. iii. 15 only. Josh. vi. 7.
9. (pyacia, 1 Chron. “a 4Y, ix. 13. xxviii. 13.)
545
Meréxovaw, ov padXoyv ae
John xvii. 2.
Rom, ix. 21.
a co 4.
* Eykomny * Semen TW
ey Vii, an reff,
a h ch. xiii. 7.
lod 1 Thess. iii. 1,
5 only t. Sir.
viii. 17 only.
i here only t.
k = 2 Cor. vi.3.
o = Jer. xxxvii. (xxx.)
q here only. Proy-
n here only.
p ch. x. 18 reff.
r here only +.
12. rec efovoias bef vuwy, with KL rel vulg Chr, Thdrt: txt ABCDFX m 17 arm
Chr,. for ov, ovx: N3.
ov Kexpnucba A.
rec eykomny bef tiva, with
DFKL rel syr Chr Thdrt: txt ABCN 17 vulg D-lat Syr copt Tert Ambrst: om tia
F-lat G-lat sah arm Clem Orig-int.
exxorny Nab! fgko.
13. ins tra bef ex D'FR 46, que de sacrario sunt vulg G-lat, lat-ff. (F-lat omits
sacrario and reads que desunt.
rel Chr Thdrt Procop, Thl c :
one of those elaborately antithetical sen-
tences which the great Apostle wields so
powerfully in argument. The 7mets—
jets, being identical, stand out in so
much the stronger relief against the triple
antithesis, butv, mvevpatika, éorretpapev,
—and tpev, capkikd, Oepiowpev. If
we read the subjunctive, for the usage after
ei, see Winer, edn. 6, § 41. 2, end; ch
xiv. 5; 1 Thess. v. 10; Kiihner, § 818 4.
1. The usage is common in Homer, Od.
a. 204, al. fr..— doubtful in Herod. ii. 13;
vill. 49, 118,—and hardly ever found in
Attic writers. See Soph. Gd. Tyr. 198,
ef te vdE adh, and Cid. Col. 1442, ef cov
oTEpnea. amvevp. and capk. (see Rom.
xv. 27) needno explanation. The first are
so called as belonging to the spirit of man
(De W. and Meyer, as coming from the
Spirit of God; but it is better to keep
the antithesis exact and perspicuous), the
second as serving for the nourishment of
the flesh. 12.] GAXov does not neces-
sarily point at the false teachers ; others
may have exercised this power. Upov
is the objective genitive : power over you,
—see reff. The second @AAg@ is not in
apposition with the first, but in opposition
to the idea implied in exp. tH e&. TavTn.
Meyer compares Hom. Il. a. 24 f., aan’
ov “Atpetdn “Ayaueuvovr jvdave Ouue,
-AAAG KaKGs apter. otéyopnev| The
word was commonly used, as may be seen
in Wetst., of vessels containing, holding
without breaking, that which was put
into them ; thence of concealing or cover-
ing, as asecret; and also of enduring or
bearing up against. In this last sense
Diod. Sic. iii. 34, uses it literally of ice,
oTéyovTos Tov KpuoTdAAuU SiaBaoets oTpa-
Tomédwy Kk. Guatay epddovs,—and (xi. 25,
Wetst. but ?) of a besieged fort, ob unyye
thy épuhv...toreyey...70... TElxos,
Vou. II.
rec Mposedpevortes (see ch vii. 35), with KLN*
txt ABCDFR! m! 17 Eus Procop, Damase.
.GAAG dmelkew Avaykacero. So also
fEsch. Sept. c. Theb. 216, mipyov oréyew
eVxeo9e ToAcuiwy Sépv. These last usages
are very near akin to this of our text,—
We endure all things: viz. labour, pri-
vations, hardships. The éykomat (hin-
drances —so Diod. Sic. i. 32, speaks of the
Nile as being moAAdkis 81a Tas éyKoTas
avakA@mevos) would arise from his being
charged with covetousness and self-seeking,
which his ixdependence of them would
entirely prevent. 13,14.] Analogy of
the maintenance of the Jewish priesthood
Srom the sacred offerings, with this right
of the Christian teacher, as ordained by
Christ. Meyer rightly remarks, that ot
Ta icpa épyaldpevor can only mean the
priests, not including the Levites: and
therefore that both clauses apply to the
same persons. épyaleoGar, epdeiv,
peCew, are technical words for the offer-
ing of sacrifice. See reff. to LXX.
tepov here, as @vc.acTnpiov is parallel with
it below, is probably not ‘the sacrifice,’
‘the holy thing, but the temple—‘ the
holy building. Similarly Jos. B. J. v. 13.
6, makes the Zealots say, de¢....Tods TG
vag oTparevomevous eK TOV vaov Tpéde-
oa. tapedp.| So Jos. contra Apion.
i. 7, speaks of the priests as TH Ocpamela
TOU Oeod mposedpevovtas. On the prac-
tice referred to, see Num. xviii. 8 ff. ; Deut.
xviii. 1 ff. No other priesthood but the
Jewish can have been in the mind of the
Apostle. The Jew knew of no @vc1acTh-
ptov but one: and he certainly would not
have proposed heathen sacrificial customs,
even i connexion with those appointed by
God, as a precedent for Christian usage:
besides that the idea is inconsistent with
oUTws kal: see below. 14.] So also
(i. e. in analogy with that His other com-
mand) did the Lord (Christ zd the Author
N
546
, Vie ,
s constr. dat., Kal O KUOLOG
TIPOS KOPINOIOY®S A.
IX.
° Siérakev roic TO evayyéAvov * KkatayyéA-
Matt. xi. 1.
Acts xxiii. ’ Lefer cd ’ uy” 3 ew \ ee, PA,
1. 3 Kings Aovow, EK TOU evaryysAtov Cyv. 15 ey Oe ov Keyonuat
X1, 26. 10k, ) \ ’ , / \ ~ oe e 7
Foe ape OVOEVL TOUTWY" OUK eypawa Of TavTa Wa ouvTwC yEVNTal
i f, h ‘ id bd '. ‘ , ~ > - xn \
infshere | “ey guot’ ™ Kahoy yao pot * padrrov atofavev n TO
5Theod. 5 , , shad an b , 16° N Che
te eS COUN Hee fuou iva TIC KEVWOEL. gay yao — evay-
= Matt. iv. ’ etd z , ge ,
"TrLion ‘yeriZwuat, OvK EoTLy mot ~ KavyXnma avaykn ‘yao pot
pent vili-3) Gor 7 re £7 oem Sea , f? ‘ rs Rote. 3 ri
5 OES ays ETLKELTAL oval yao pou EoTtv Eav py evayyeAlowpat.
reff. . ’ ‘ g e ‘ ~ tg h Ao a 7 > 3:
w Matt: xvii. & yao EKWY TOVTO TOAGOW, pucHov Eyw* EL OF
2. n
Xxii. 37. Sah 81. John xiv. 30. x = ch. vii.1, 8, 26. Jonah iv. 3. y Mark ix. 42. constr.,
Acts xx. 35. z Rom. iv. 2reff. Prov. xvii. 6. a arrang. of words, 2 Cor. ii. 4 refl.
b Rom. iv. 14 reff. c absol., Rom, xv. 20 reff.
Hom. Il. €. 458.
fhere only. Hos. ix. 12.
1. Rom. iv. 4 reff.
d Acts xxvii. 20 reff Kpatepy 0” Emekeicet’ avayKny
e Paul, here only. epp., Jade 11 only. gospp. (but not John) and Rey. passim.
g Rom. viii. 20 only. Exod, xxi. 13 only.
h = Matt. v. 12. vi.
15. rec ovdev expnoapny TOVTwY, with K rel Chr Thdrt Thl Gic: ovdem Toutwy expn-
cauny ©: ovK expnoauny ovdevt T. N3 23:
D2L: txt ABCD!3FR! m 17 Damasce.
ovdecs un A: Tis F 26: wa Tis ov py 109:
Thdrt Damase Thl ec Jer Aug.
DFLN k 17.
16. evayyearcoua: L f k Damasce :
gratia DF'S}(txt X-corr’) Ambrst-ms.
that yap explains avaykn), with KL?
Orig Ath Chr, Cyr Orig-int Jer Ambrst.
better to the last day) F Ambrst Symm :
evaryyeritouat (from Comat above), with
rec KEvwon,
evayyeAioouat DF.
est aut erit G-lat: om 119 Syr copt.
AKN rel Orig Ath Cyr: evangelizem D-lat
ovdevt ov Kexpnuct T. 80: ovdevr KeXpNMaL T-
FO VOELC BD'N! 17 sah Tert Ambrst-ed :
wa Tis CD23KLN? rel vulg(and F-lat) Chr
with KL rel Chr Thdrt: txt ABC
for Kavxnua, Xapis
rec ovat Se (clumsy alteration, not seeing
rel syrr Chr Thdrt: txt ABCDFN! latt coptt
for ectiv, cota (alteration, to apply it
rec
G-lat(2nd altern) : -Coua: L f m: txt ABCDF Chr,: evangelizavero vulg(and F-lat)
G-lat(1st altern).
by His Spirit of the O. T. as well as the
New) command (viz. Matt. x. 10; Luke
x. 7,8) to those who are preaching the
gospel, to live of (be maintained by.
Themistius [Kypke] has (hv e& épyactas)
the gospel. Observe, that here the Apos-
tle is establishing an analogy between the
rights of the sacrificing priests of the law,
and of the preachers of the gospel. Had
those preachers been likewise sacrificing
priests, is it possible that all allusion to
them in such a character should have been
here omitted ? But asall such allusion és
omitted, we may fairly infer that no such
character of the Christian minister was
then known. As Bengel remarks on ver.
13: ‘Si missa esset sacrificium, plane
Paulus versu sequente apodosin hue ac-
commodasset.’ 15.] obSevi rovTwv is
best explained of the different forms of
éfovola,—not, with Chrys. al., r@v moAA@Y
mapaderyudtwy—morArav "yap [ot mapeXov-
twv ekovoiav, Too oTpaTi@ToV, TOU “yE-
wpyod, TOV Tolmevos, TAY aroctéAwy, TOU
vouov, Tav Tap huey eis duas VEvOMEVOY,
Tov Tap Suey eis Tos UAAoUS, THY fepewv,
Tov mposTdypatos TOU XpioTod, ovdevi Tov-
twv emelaOny cis TO KaTaAdoa TOY euavTOU
véuoyv, Kal AaBeiv. True, that each of
these examples pointed to a form of
€fovela, and none of these forms had he
’ with da.
made use of. See ref. on ch. vii. 21.
éypawa is the epistolary aorist—I wrote
(write) not these things however, that it
may be thus (viz. after the examples
which I have alleged) done to me (in my
case, see reff.):—for it were good (reff.)
for me rather to die (or, better for me to
die, see ref. Mark) than that any one
should make void (the remarkable reading
of the great MSS. appears to have arisen
from the unnatural look of the future
It can only be explained by
supposing an aposiopesis; the Apostle
breaking off at 7, and exclaiming with
fervour, 7d Kadxnud pov oddels Kevdoet)
my (matter of) boasting. To understand
amodaveiv as Chrys., Theophyl., c., Es-
tius, Billroth, al., dro0. Aup@, seems quite
unnecessary. Further on, Chrys. himself
expresses the true sense: odtw kal (wijs
ate yAuKbrepoy Av Td yiwduevor :—and
Calvin, “tantum Evangelii promovendi
facultatem nimirum proprie vite pra-
ferebat.” 16 ff.| The reason why
he made so much of this materies glori-
andi: viz. that his mission itself gave
him no advantage this way, being an office
entrusted to him, and for which he was
solemnly accountable: but in this thing
only had he an advantage so as to be able
to boast of it, that he preached the gospel
ABCDF
KLNab
cefgh
kimnoa
017
d «va...
ABCDF
KLNab
cdefg
hklm
nol7
15 —19.
i” k ? ’
AKWV, ~ OlKOVOLLav
€
evayyédwov, si¢ TO UH
2 és
> , , , DY >
gy TW Evayyerl } 19 P eA ebDEp0¢ yao wv &kK TAYTWY,
’ ‘ | 2 U A
Tact EMUaAUTOV edovrAwaa, wa
refl,
Gen. xvii. 5).
Vv. 22. Pp
vii.43. Acts xix,
15.
m here only t.
Gen. xxxii.12. Wisd. x. 2).
18. ree (for Ist pov) por,
TO evayyeAwoy ins Tov
II1POS KOPINOIOYS A.
1 ,
WETLOTEVUAL.
h , ow ec? ,
t@) puoldoc, tva evayyeAtZomevoc
, ‘ ‘
w.€X, here only. w. az, Rom. vii. Ss
32. xxvii. 12. ch. x. 5. xv. 6al.
1 Pet. ili. 1. (Matt. xvi. 26 al. fr.t. Job xxii.3Symm. -dos, Phil. i. 21.)
547
18 , s 243 F
TLC OUY MOU EGTLY phos pie
oO 5
m? , n , \ ly.
acdamavoy Ohow ro Eien:
) , @ = cE ! 3, 4. Rom i.
10. iii. 2, 9.
kata XOENGas at ™) é ovala fhou eer
1 Tim. i. 4
only. L.P.
"rove * mAklovac * Keodnow: ez
Tv J OW 27 only.
S $ - " 1 = Rom. iii, 2
n constr., Matt. xxii. 44 |] (from Ps. cix, 1). Rom. iv. 17 (from
0 ch. vii. 31 only +, Ep. Jer. 28 only. 3 Macc.
rt Luke
8== Matt. xviii.
q Acts vii. 6 reff.
Exod. xxiii. 2 vat.
with BDFLN% rel syr Chr Thdrt Aug: txt ACKN! n 17
vulg Syr coptt eth Cyr Jer Ambrst Pelag Bede.—eora: yor erit mihi DE.
XpioTou (see ver 12), with D23FKL rel syrr Thdrt Jer: om AB
rec aft
CD'X a 17 vulg(not F-lat) D-lat coptt arm Chr-comm, Cyr Ambrst Aug Pelag Bede.
kataxpacba: A 17.
19. ins <v bef raow D'(and lat).
without charge. oval ydp—explains
the avdycn. On odat éotiv, see ref, Hos.
17.| For (illustration and con-
firmation of ova) yap K.7.A. above) if I am
doing this (preaching) of mine own ac-
cord (as a voluntary undertaking, which in
Paul’s case was not so, as Chrys., 7d éxdy
Kk. Gkwv em) rod eyexeiplobar Kad uh ey-
KexetploOa AauBdvey: not, as E. Vesral..
willingly, for this was so), Ihave a reward
(i.e. if of mine own will 1 took up the
ministry, it might be conceivable that a
#19865 might be dueto me. That this was
not the case, and never could be, is evident,
and the uia0ds therefore only hypothetical):
but if involuntarily (which was the case,
see Acts ix. 15; xxii. 14; xxvi. 16), with
@ STEWARDSHIP (otc. emphatic) have I
been entrusted (and therefore from the
nature of things, in this respect I have
no mic@ds for merely doing what is my
bounden duty, see Luke xvii. 7—10: but
an oval, if I fail in it. Chrys. observes
well: ob5€ yap eclrev, ci 8& Ekwv, odk eXw
bicOdv, GAN otk. wemlor. deuxvis Bri Kad
otTws exer pic Ody, BAAG ToOLOUTOY, oioy 6 Td
emitaxbev ekavioas, odx olov excivos b ex
TOY EauTOD PiroTimunoduevos k. brepBas Td
emlitaryua), The above interpretation,
which is in the main that of Chrys., Theo-
phyl., eum. (altern.) al., Meyer, and De
Wette, is the only one which seems to me
to satisfy, easily and grammatically, all the
requirements of the sentence, and at the
same time to suit the logical structure of
the context. The other Commentators go
in omnia alia, and adopt various forced and
arbitrary constructions of the verse.
18.] Ordinarily, and even by De Wette,
thus arranged and rendered : ‘ What then
is my reward? (It is), that in preaching
I make the gospel to be without cost, that I
use not my power in the gospel. But this,
aft raraxp. ins ev (but marked for erasure) N!.
though perhaps philologically allowable
(against Meyer,—see John xvii. 3,—atrn
€oTly % aidvios (wh, Wa yiweokwo.....
also John xv. 8; 1 John iv. 17 [?]), is not
true. His making the gospel to be without
cost, was not his uicds, but his Kavxnwa
only: and these two are not identical.
The kavxnua was present: the bicOds,
Suture. Meyer’s rendering is equally at
fault. He would make ris ogy pov éorw
6 wicOds ; a question implying a negative
answer —‘ What then is my reward?
None: in order that I preach gratui-
tously, &e. But thus he severs off (see
below) the whole following context, vv.19
—23: and as it seems to me, stultifies the
kavxnua, by robbing it altogether of the
coming wio@és. Iam persuaded that the
following is the true rendering : What
then is my reward (in prospect) that I
(wa, like érws in classical Greek, with a
fut. indic., points to the actual realization
of the purpose, with more precision than
when followed by the subjunctive. So
Xen. Cyr. ii. 4. 31, Kipos, ® ’Apuénie,
KeAcvet ow moe oe, STwS ds TAXITTO.
Exwv oioers cal troy Sacudy Kad Td oTpd-
Tevua,—Kiihner, Gramm. ii. 490, where
see more examples) while preaching, ren-
der the gospel without cost (i.e. what
reward have I in prospect that induces me
to preach gratuitously) in order not to
use (as carrying out my design not to use,
kKataxp. sce ref. and note: not, to abuse,
as E. V.) my power in the gespel (= 77
etove. mov TH ev T@ evayy., as often; cf.
Tots kuplos Kata odpra, Eph. vi. 5; of
vexpol €v xpiota, 1 Thess. iv. 16, al. fr.) ?
19 ft. ] He now proceeds to answer
the question, « What prospect of reward
could induce me to do this ?? For (q. d.
the reward must have been great and glo-
rious in prospect) being free from (the
Nw2
548
t Rom. vi. 14,
14. Gal. iv.
4,5, 21.
n=here4d
times. Acts
ii. 23 only.
Wisd. xvii. 2.
(-ws, Rom.
ii. 12.)
v = here (Acts
} Ul s , A ~
alouvc KEponow TOLG
* aN £ 1c ‘ Ul
@v avuTtoc v7TO VOUMOV,
21
- u ’ , c
TOLC AVOLOLG WC
20. om kat D'(and lat) m coptt.
Sedul. (ws quasi G-marg.)
vouov, by oversight of copyist),
latt syr sah goth arm Chr Cyr
Kepdjow to Kepdnow L.
21. rec dew and xpistw (confusion
IIPOS KOPINOIOY®S A.
20 kat eyevounv roic ‘lovdatoig we "Lovdatoe,
> De BIRR d ~ ef
arr’ ‘évvopog yotstov, Wwe
99» , ne, PR 0 , w? , ef » w
2 evevouny rows “ aoveveotv aoQene, tva TOUC
rec OM [My wY aUTOS UT VoOKLOY (i. e. fi
with DK rel Syr copt Orig, Thdrt :
Damase Orig-int Mar-merc(quoting Nest).—om from
IX.
iva "lov-
see , € t ¢_"'S , ‘
UTO vOMOV WG UTO VOMOYV, ft?)
a ‘ te ‘ U s , a
tva Touvc uTO vomuoV KEponow
u ¥ ‘ nn u ~
avomoc, #N wy = avomog Qeou
s , ‘ u? ,
KEPOaved TOUC aVOLOUC.
, -
aa bevete
om Ist ws F-gr 39. 672 (Clem) Orig, Tert
rom vouov to
ins ABCDFR 17
of vowels and not observing the constr: see note),
with D3KL rel Thdrt: txt ABCD!FX dm 17 latt syr copt arm Orig Did Chr Cyr Isid
Damase (c-comm Thi Ps-Ath lat-ff.
ree kepSnaw (from ver 20), with DKLX$
rel Orig Did Chr Thdrt: txt ABCEN! 17 (xepd2vomev Clem), and (so Scriv) m in next
verse.—rous avouous bef xepd. D.
with FKLN3 rel Chr Thdrt : ins
22. aft evyevounv ins de xa autem et F.
rec om tous (probably to suit tovdmous above),
ABCDN! (m ?) 17 Orig Did.
acbevovow DF. rec aft ac@eve-
aw ins ws (to tally with the three former), with CDFKLN? rel vss Chr Thdrt Thl: om
ABN vulg(not F-lat) D-lat Orig(retaining the three former) Cypr Aug Amb Ambrst
power of) all men, I enslaved myself
(when I made this determination: and
have continued to do so) to all, that I might
gain (not Tobs mavras, which he could not
exactly say, but) the largest number (of
any: that hereafter Paul’s converts might
be found to be of mAeloves : see below on
ver. 24). Bengel has remarked on kep-
Siow, ‘congruit hoc verbum cum conside-
ratione mercedis :’ but ‘ congruit’ is not
enough: it is actually THE ANSWER to
the question tis pov éartiv 6 piobds; This
‘lucrifecisse’ the greater number is dis-
tinctly referred to by him elsewhere, as his
reward in the day of the Lord: Tis yap
juav edms 7 xapa 7) otépavos KavX7)-
cews, 7 ox) Kal duets, Eumpoobey Tov
Kuptov 7M@v "Incod ev TH avTod mapov-
olga; dpets yap eoTe h ddta quay ka 7
xapd. 1 Thess. ii. 19, 20. And it is for
this reason that iva... . Kepdnow is three
times repeated : and, as we shall presently
see, that the similitude at the end of the
chapter is chosen. 20—22.] Spe-
cializes the foregoing assertion Waoiv ef.
edovAwaa, by enumerating various parties
to whose weaknesses he had conformed
himself, in order to gain them.
20. rois *Iovd. as lovd.| See examples,
Acts xvi. 3; xxi. 26. od# elev, *Tovdatos,
BAX? @S "lovdatos, iva Selty ETL oixovoulaTd
mpayua jv, Theophyl. after Chrys. The
Jews here are not Jewish converts, who
would be already won in the sense of this
passage. rots vd vépov....| These
again are not Jewish converts (see above) ;
nor proselytes, who would not be thus dis-
tinguished from other Jews, but are much
the same as *Iovdato1, only to the number
of these the Apostle did not belong, not
being himself (avtés contrasts with as
above) under the law, whereas he was
nationally a Jew. 21. Tots avdpots ws
av.| The avouan are the Heathen: hardly,
with Chrys., such as Cornelius, fearing God
but not under the law. Paul became asa
Heathen to the Heathen, e. g., when he
discoursed at Athens (Acts xvii.) in their
own manner, and with arguments drawn
from their own poets. py dv K.7.A. |
not being (being conscious of not being,
remembering well in the midst of my
avoula that I was not. This is implied by
uh, which is subjective, giving the convic-
tion of the subject, not merely the objective
fact, as ov« &y would do) an outlaw from
God (#cod and xpio7o0d are genitives of de-
pendence, as after kariioos, Zvoxos, Ke.)
but a subject-of-the-law of Christ (the
words seem inserted rather to put before
the reader the true position of a Christian
with regard to God’s law revealed by Christ,
than merely with an apologetic view to
keep his own character from suffering by
the imputation of évoula) that I might
gain those who had no law. Kepdava
(here only in N. T.) and repdfow are both
found in the classics: see Matthi, § 239,
and Lobeck on Phrynichus, p. 740. The
doGevets here can hardly be the weak
Christians of ch. viii. and Rom. xiv., who
were already won, but as in ref., those
who had not strength to believe and re-
ceive the Gospel. This sentence then does
not bring out a new form of condescen-
sion, but recapitulates the preceding two
ABCDF
KLNab
cedefg
hkim
nol7
20—24.
*Kepoynow. ‘roc * racw
‘ z rd
Tivac * cGwow.
“ouykotvwvoc avurou yévopat,
ev * oradiw TOEXOVTEC TaVTEC
~ '
ANauaver 70 * BoaBetor ; vUrwe
bch. vi. 2. ver. 13 al.
only, Polyb. xviii. 29. 4 al.
ix.3U. Phil. iii.12. Exod, xy. 9.
Bede. for yeyova, eyevouny F Clem.
macw: but often when ravta occurs,
Orig, Mac Chr, Thdrt: txt ABCD'!FN Clem Orig, Naz Chr, Cyr.
Twas, Tavtas (conformation to the foregoing clauses) DF latt
ith KL rel syrr Thdrt Damase Thl Ge: txt ABCDFN m
Clem Orig, (but wayra,).
23. rec (for mavra) Touro, w
IIPOS KOPINOIOYS A.
= , AA = . A ’ / ef
3 ravra Of mow Sta TO evayyédiov, iva
b 2 b of) e
Ub Gu! Oioare OTL OL
e a of f X ,
TOEXETE, tva KatadAa-
c = here (Luke xxiv, 13, John vi. 19. xi. 18, Rev. Xiy. 20. xxi. 16)
d Phil. iii. 14 only +. i
549
, , / ,
yéyova mavra, iva * ravrwe * Rom.xi. 32
y Acts xxi, 22
reff.
z = Rom. xi.
14 reff.
a Rom, xi. 17,
Phils.
Kev.i.9
only t.
(-vetv, Eph.
v. 11.)
\ =
MEv Tp&xovaL, sic Oe
f= Rom.
e = Rom. ix, 16 rett.
rec ins ta bef ravta (prob to suit ras
ta is insd bef it in some mss), with D2°KL rel
for mavTws
lat-ff, tovs mavtas 17
17 latt copt ath Naz Chr(schol on 7) Ambrst Pelag Sedul Bede.
24. aft BpaBeioy ins eyw de Aeyw vuw ego autem dico vobis F,
classes, ro?s trd vduov.... rots dvduors.
22. tots waow....] This sums
up the above, and others not enumerated,
in one general rule,—and the various ocea-
sions of his practising the condescension
(aorists) in one general result (perfect).
To all men I am become all things (i.e.
to each according to his situation and pre-
judices) that by all means (‘omnino:’ or
perhaps as Meyer, in all ways: but I pre-
fer the other) I may save some (TLvas
is emphatic: some, out of each class in
the wdyres. It is said, as is the following
verse, in extreme humility, and distrust of
even an Apostle’s confidence, to shew them
the immense importance of the yuc@és for
which he thus denied and submitted him-
self), 23.] But (q. d. ‘not only this
of which I have spoken, but aZZ’) all things
I do on account of the gospel, that I may
be a fellow-partaker (with others) of it
(of the blessings promised in the gospel
to be brought by the Lord at His coming).
24 ff.] ‘This is my aim in all I do:
but inasmuch as many run in arace, many
reach the goal, but one only receives the
prize,—I as an Apostle run my course,
and you must so run yours, as each to
labour not to be rejected at last, but to
gain the glorious and incorruptible prize.’
This, as compared with the former context,
seems to be the sense and connexion of
the passage. Hewas anxious, as an Apostle,
to labour more abundantly, more etfectually
than they all: and hence his condescension
(cvykardBaots) to all men, and self-denial :
accompanied with which was a humble
self-distrust as to the great matter itself
of his personal salvation, and an eager
anxiety to secure it. These he proposes
for their example likewise. :
The allusion is primarily no doubt to the
Isthmian games; but this must not be
pressed too closely: the foot-race was far
too common an element in athletic con-
tests, for any accurate knowledge of its pre-
dominance in some and its insignificance
in others of the Grecian games to be here
supposed. Still less must it be imagined
that those games were to be celebrated in
the year of the Epistle being written. The
most that can with certainty be said, is
that he alludes to a contest which, from
the neighbourhood of the Isthmian games,
was well known to his readers. See Stan-
ley’s note: who, in following out illustra-
tions of this kind, writes with a vivid
graphic power peculiarly his own.
BpaBetov] Wetst. quotes from the Schol.
on Pindar, Olymp. 1, Aéyera: 8& 7d 8i-
dduevoy yépas Ta vikhoarti QOANTH ard mev
TOY Sibd6yT@Y a’Td BpaBevtaéy BpaBetoy, aad
d€ Tay GOAovvTwy GAAoy, and from the Ety-
mol., BpaBetov Aéyerm 6 mapa ToY Bpa-
Bevrav Bidduevos orépavos TH vikovee.
ovtws tp. | Thus (after this manner
—viz. as they who run all, each endeavour-
ing to be the one who shall receive the
prize:—not, as the one who receives it
(Meyer, De Wette),—for the others strive
as earnestly as he: still less must we take
va KataddByre for &s katadaBety, which
is barely allowable, and here would not
suit the sense; the oftws being particu-
larized presently by one point of the ath-
letes’ preparation being specially alleged
for their imitation) run (not xa) duets
Tpéxere, because the evident analogy be-
tween the race and the Christian conflict
is taken~ for granted. If, as Dr. Peile
imagines, a contrast had been intended,
between the stadium where one only can
receive the prize, and the Christian race
where ail may, it must have stood ofrws
5 buets Tpéxere, ws Kad (wdvras ?) KaTa-
AaBeivy. But such contrast would destroy
550
IIPOS KOPINGIOY= A.
IX. 25—27.
nod 5 ~ q © ’ , h Zan i» , S
coe gag Pnre. : Tac ée o ® aywriloucvog TavTra eyKkpaTevetat
36. Col. i. Oe : ae *% ew J ff) x , Xr , c -
oy. iv.12. EKELVOL Mev OouV iva p apTtov otepavov aBpwowr, TAELC
1Tim.iv.10 ay y » r Op = rim ee — : ate &
S tin dcey. ot ap aoTor. eyo TOLVUV ouTwe TOEXYW WC OUK
onlyt. Sir. >O7 n ?¢ , € > oF ro A
iv. Seal. °GSnAwe, “ourwe ? muKrevw "we ovK “aépa * déowy
Theod.. hconstr., Acts xx. 35 reff. ich. vii. 9 (reff.) only t. k ch. vi. 4 reff.
1 Rom. i. 25 (reff.). m Luke xx. 25. Heb. xiii. 13 (James ii. 21 v.r.) only. Isa. iii. 10. v. 13. nch.
iii, 15 reu. o here only ¢. (-Aos, ch. xiv. 8. -AdTns, 1 Tim. vi. 17.) p here onlyt. Xen,
Rep. Lac. iv. 6. gq Acts xxii. 23, ch. xiv. 9. Eph. ii. 2, 1Thess.iv.7. Rev. ix. 2. xvi. 17 only. Wisd.
v. 11, 12. r Acts v. 40 reff.
25. om ovy K k 6. 119; insd iu syr with an asterisk.
ap$aprov is written over the line by R'.]
the sense), in order that ye may fully
obtain (the prize of your calling, see Phil.
iii. 14. On AauBdvw and katadrauBavw
see note, ch. vii. 31). 25.] The point
in the ovtas, the conduct of the athletes
in regard of temperance, which he wishes
to bring into especial prominence for their
imitation :—as concerning the matter in
hand,—his own abstinence from receiving
this world’s pelf, in order to save himself
and them that heard him. The 8€ spe-
cifies, referring back to ottws. The em-
phasis is on 1as, thus skewing ottws to
refer to the mavtes who Tpéxovow.
éyovildpevos is more general than tp€éxwyv,
—q. d. ‘Every one who engages, not only
in the race, but in any athletic contest,’
and thus strengthening the inference. The
art. (6 d@ywv.) brings out the man as an
enlisted and professed @ywriCduevos, and
regards him in that capacity. Had it
been mas 5& aywu¢., the sense would have
been, ‘ Now every one, while contending,’
&e., making the discipline to be merely
accidental to his contending—which would
not suit the spiritual antitype, where we
are enlisted for life. Examples of the
practice of abstinence in athletes may be
seen in Wetst. in loc. I will give but two:
(1) Hor. de Art. Poet. 412: “Qui studet
optatam cursu contingere metam, Multa
tulit fecitque puer, sudavit et alsit: Ab-
stinuit venere et vino.” (2) Epict. ¢. 35:
6éAcis GAtumiA viKTooL; Kayo Vv) ToOds
Oeovs, KouWoy yap eat. GAAG oKdre Kal
7a Kabnyoupeva Kal Ta axdAovba, Kal ofTws
dmrou Tav épywy. det o evTaKTEly, dvay-
KoTpopeiv, améxeoOar menudrav, yuurd-
Ceobar mpos dvdyKny ev Spa retaypery, ev
Kavpatt, ev Woxe, wh Wuxpdy mlyev, wh
olvov' &s eruxev amA@s, ws laTp@ mapa-
dedwkevar cavtdy TH emiaTaTy, Elta eis TOY
dyava mapépxeccu. éxetvot| scil.
éykpatevovTat. pev ovv, ‘immo
vero’ (reff.). The Schol. on Pind.
Isthm. imdOeots, cited by Meyer, says:
atépos 5€é éott Tov ayavos wirus, Td de
dvéxabev céAwa kai avtod jv 6 orédavos.
Apeis Sé, scil. eyxpatevducda iva
AdBapev orepavov. He takes for granted
[a at the beginning of
the Christian’s temperance in all things, as
his normal state. 26.] I then (eyé
emphatic—recalls the attention from the
incidental exhortation, and reminiscence of
the Christian state, to the main subject,
his own abstinence from receiving, and its
grounds. totvuy, as distinguished from
other particles which imply restriction of
what has been generally said to some par-
ticular object, indicates the dropping of
minute or collateral points, and return-
ing to the great necessary features of the
subject,—and this, as introducing some
short and pithy determination or conclu-
sion: see Hartung, Partikellehre, ii. 348.
E. g.,—Xen. Cyr. vi. 3. 17, rodtwy pev
tolvuy GAis eln, & dE Kalpbs Huy cidévan,
Tava, py, Sinyov) SO run as (ovTws—as,
see reff.) not uncertainly (reff.: cf. also
Polyb. ili. 54. 5, rijs xsdvos GSnAov Tro.ov-
ons éxdorots Thy emlBaow :—‘ uncertainly,
i.e. without any sure grounds of con-
tending or any fixed object for which to
contend ; both these are included. Chry-
sestom rightly brings it into subordination
to the main subject, the participation with
idolaters :—ti 5€ éori, odK ddjAws ; mpds
ckomév Tia BAétwv, pyciv, ovK eikh Kal
parny, Kabdrep Sucis, TL yap vuiv yiveTat
aAéov amd Tov Els EidwAETA Elsteval, Kat
Thy TeAcLOTHTA| OHGEV exelyny EmdeiKvVTIAL
ovdév. GAA oUK ey® TOLODTOS, GAAG TaYTA
dimep Toe, irép Tis TOY TAnClov cwrnplas
Tom. Koy TeACLOTHTA emdel~muat, 5° av-
Tous’ Kav ouykatdBaow, 80 avtovs’ Kay
imepB@ Ieérpoy ev TG ph AawBdvew, iva
by oKavdaricbao Kav KaTaB@ wAéov Tay-
Tw, TepiTeuvduevos Kal tvpdpevos, iva wr
brockeAicOG@or.. Hom. xxiii.); so fight
I, as not striking the air (and not my
adversary). The allusion is not to a
oxiopaxia or rehearsal of a fight with an
imaginary adversary, as Chrys. (€xw yap
bv tAhéw), Theophyl. al. m., but of a fight
with a veal adversary (viz. here, the body)
in which the boxer vainly hits into the
air, instead of striking his antagonist. So
Entellus in the pugilistic combat, Aun. v.
4.46, ‘ vires in ventum effudit,’ when Dares
“jctum venientem a vertice velox Praevidit,
ABCDF
KLNab
cedefg
hklm
nol7
pe
IIPOS KOPINOIOY®S A. 551
TaN Svrwmalw pov ro capa kal ‘ Sovlaywye, § Like xvii. 6
“un “awe adAae Knovéac avutoc * adoKimocg yévopat.
X. 1” Ov 620 yap vpac “
Symm. [Fischer, but not in Montf. or Bahrdt.]
Xxvii. 29 v. 1.) v Rom. i. 28 reff.
27. aAAa B m.
ayvoely, aded pol, Ort Ol the
(-rrcov,
Proy. xx.
30.)
re only t.
en. xiii. 18
uch. viii. 9 [Rom. xi. 21] al8, P. (exc. Acts
w Rom. xi. 25 reff.
umotie(w D3(utw7-) e 1! m 46. 113-marg Clem Naz, Chr-ms,
Thdrt, : vroma¢w FKL a b! ¢ f g? n o Eus Serap
Ephr Naz, Bas-2-mss Chr-ms Cyrajiq
Damasc,. [castigo vulg(and F-lat) G-lat(1st altern) Ambr Aug; lividwm facio D-lat
G-lat(2nd altern) Iren-int Paulin. |
Cuap. X. 1. ree (for yap) 5 (the connexion not being perceived or wrong word sup-
plied aft omn at beg of lection), with KLN? rel syrr Chr Thdrt: txt ABCDFRN! 17 latt
copt Clem Orig, Mcion-e Did Cyr Iren-int Cypr.
celerique elapsus corpore cessit.’ See ex-
amples both of what is really meant, and of
the criapaxia, in Wetst. Obs., in both
places ov« is used and not “4, as importing
the matter of fact, and joined closely with
the adverb in one case and the verb in the
other. 27.| But I bruise my body
(trwmalo, lit. to strike heavily in the
face so as to render black and blue,—“ é7-
émia,—tTa vd Tovs amas Tay TANyoV
tn, ut ait Pollux: sed latius dici sic
coepere ad’ oiasdnmrototy mAnyis Tpavuata,
ut ait Scholiastes ad Aristoph. Acharn.,
Cicero Tusc. 2, ‘Pugiles cestibus con-
tusi,’ i.e. vrwmaCduevo.” Grot. The
body is the adversary, considered as the
seat of the temptations of Satan, and espe-
cially of that self-indulgence which led the
Corinthians to forget their Christian com-
bat, and sit at meat in the idol’s temple.
The abuse of this expression to favour the
absurd practice of the Flagellants, or to
support ascetic views at all, need hardly be
pointed out to the rational, much less to
the Christian student. It is not even of
fasting or prayer that he is here speaking,
but as the context, vv. 19—23, shews, of
breaking down the pride and obstinacy and
self-seeking of the natural man by laying
himself entirely out for his great work—
the salvation of the greatest number: and
that, denying himself “ solatium” from
without : ‘* My hands have been worn away
[ef. xetpes atta, Acts xx. 34] with the
black tent-cloths, my frame has been bowed
down with this servile labour [ cf. €Aev@epos
. dovAwoa, ver. 19].” Stanley) and
enslave it (‘etiam SvvAcywyeivy a pyctis
desumptum est ; nam qui vicerat, victum
[vinetum ?] trahebat adversarium quasi
servumn.’ Grot. But this seems to want
confirmation. I can find no account of
such a practice in any of the ordinary
sources of information. Certainly Dares
is not made the slave of Entellus in An.
y.: and Virgil is generally accurate in such
matters. I had rather give a more general
meaning: that viz. of the necessary sub-
jection, for the time, of the worsted to
the prevailing combatant), lest perchance
having proclaimed (yp. absolute: as in
Asch. Eum. 566, xhpuoce, xijpvi, rab
atparoy Kateipyadov [Peile]. The sub-
ject of the proclamation might be the laws
of the combat, or the names of the victors
(An. v. 245), each by one in the capacity
of herald : probably here the former only,
as answering to the preaching of the
Apostles. The nature of the case shews,
that the Christian herald differs from the
agonistic herald, in being himself @ com-
batant as well, which the other was not:
and that this is so, is no objection to thus
understanding kyptéas. ‘* This introduces
indeed a new complication into the meta-
phor: but it is rendered less violent by the
fact, that .... sometimes the victor in the
games was also selected as the herald to
announce his success. So it was a few
years after the date of this Epistle, in the
ease of Nero. Suet. Nero, c. 24.” Stan-
ley) to others, I myself may prove re-
jected (from the prize: not, as some
Commentators, from the contest altogether,
for he was already 7m zt). An examination
of the victorious combatants took place
after the contest, and if it could be proved
that they had contended unlawfully, or un-
fairly, they were deprived of the prize and
driven with disgrace from the games. Such
a person was called éxxexpiwévos, and dro-
dedoxuacmévos, see Philo de Cherub., § 22,
vol. i. p. 152. So the Apostle, if he had
proclaimed the laws of the combat to
others, and not observed them himself,
however successful he might apparently be,
would be personally rejected as a5é«imos
in the great day. And this he says with a
view to shew them the necessity of more
self-denial, and less going to the extreme
limit of their Christian liberty ; as Chrys.
ei yap euol Td Kypdéai, Td SiddEcL, Td pupl-
552
IPOS KOPINOIOY= A.
p #4
xActsv.30 * raréoec * nuwy tavrec 7 UTo TH vepeArny % Hoav Kal Tav-
vinta. Tee 7Oa THC Aadacone * dijADov, 2 Kat wavrec * Etc TOV
Ga. 2 Mwvonv * eBamticavro ev ty vepeAy Kal ev ty Dadasoy,
“7 Skat wavrecg TO avo ° Bowua © rvEevpaTiKoV Epayov, 4 kal
5 vill.
reff. b Rom. xiv. 15 reff.
1 Pet. ii. 5 bist.
c Paul (here 3ce. Rom. i. 11. ch. ii. 13. xii. 1. xiv. J al.) only, exc.
2. eBarric8noav ACDFX 17 Dial Bas Did Chrajjq Cyr, Thdrt,j;, Thl: txt BKL rel
Orig, Chr, Thdrt, Damase Cie. (Notwithstanding the strong MS evidence, the passive
appears to have been a corrn to the more usual expression in the case of Christian
baptism.)
3. om avto A C!(appy) 46 eth: om To auto N'.
mvevnatixoy bef Bowua BC*R?!
93: mvevpatixoy epayoy bef Bpwua A17. 137 Mcion-e: txt (C!?)DFKLN? rel vss Orig
Dial Chr Thdrt Thl Iren-int(citing “ Seniores”) lat-ff.
ous Mposayayei ovK apkel cis owrTnplar,
ei wy Kal Ta Kat’ euavTdy TapacxXoiuny
®AnmtTa, TOAAG pmadAov bly.
X. 1—22.] He proceeds, in close con-
nexion with the warnings which have just
preceded, to set before them the great
danger of commerce with idolatry, and en-
forces this by the example of the rebellions
and rejections of God’s ancient people,
who were under a dispensation analogous
to and typical of ours (1—11); and by
the close resemblance of our sacrament
of the Lord’s Supper,—their eating of
meats sacrificed,—and the same act among
the heathen, in regard of the UNION in
each case of the partakers in one act of
participation. So that THEY COULD NoT
EAT THE IDOL’S FEASTS WITHOUT PAR-
TAKING OF IDOLATRY = VIRTUALLY AB-
JURING CHRIST (vv. 15—22). 1.]
yap joins to the preceding. He had bee
inculcating the necessity of self-subduing
(ch. ix. 24—27), and now enforces it in
the particular departments of abstaining
from fornication, idolatry, ¥e., by the
example of the Jews of old. ov Géhw
., see reff. ot twat. Hpav| He
uses this expression, not merely speaking
for himself and his Jewish converts, but
regarding the Christian church as a con-
tinuation of the Jewish, and the believer,
as the true descendant of Abraham.
Wavres... WavtTes... wavtes, each time
with strong emphasis, as opposed to ro?s
mAcloow, ver.5. Axtuhad these privileges,
as all of you have their counterparts under
the Gospel: but most of them failed from
rebellion and unbelief. md tH ved.
joav} The pillar of cloud, the abode of
the divine Presence, went before them,
and was to them a defence: hence it is
sometimes treated of as covering the camp,
e.g. Ps. ly. 39, Sierérace vepeAny eis
okéerny avtois: and thus they would be
under it. So also Wisd. x. 17, xix. 7,—
Thy mape“Borhy cxidCovoea vepérAn. See
Exod. xiii. 21,- xiv. 20. 2.] els
7. Move. éBamr., received baptism (lit.
baptized themselves: middle, not passive,
see var. read.) to Moses; entered by the
act of such immersion into a solemn cove-
nant with God, and became His church
under the law as given by Moses, God’s
servant,—just as we Christians by our
baptism are bound in a solemn covenant
with God, and enter His Church under the
Gospel as brought in by Christ, God’s
eternal Son; see Heb. iii. 5, 6. Others
(Syr., Beza) explain it ‘per Mosen,’ or
(Calv., al.) ‘auspicits Mosis, which eis
will not bear,—not to mention that the
formula Barri¢w eis was already fixed in
meaning, see reff. év TH v. kal év TH
@.] The cloud and the sea being both
aqueous, and this point of comparison
being obtained, serves the Apostle to indi-
cate the outward symbols of their initia-
tion into the church under the govern-
ment of Moses as the servant of God, and
to complete the analogy with our baptism.
The allegory is obviously not to be pressed
minutely : for neither did they enter the
cloud, nor were they wetted by the waters
of the sea; but they passed under both,
as the baptized passes under the water,
and it was said of them, Exod. xiv. 31,
“Then the people feared the Lord, and
believed the Lord and his servant Moses.”
To understand, as Olsh., the sea and
cloud, of water and the Spirit respec-
tively, is certainly carrying the allegory too
far: not to mention that thus the baptism
by the Spirit would precede that by water.
3.] They had what answered to the
one Christian sacrament, Baptism: now the
Apostle shews that they were not without a
symbolic correspondence to the other, the
Lord’s Supper. The two elements in this
Christian sacrament were anticipated in
their case by the manna and the miraculous
stream from the rock: these elements, in
their case, as well as ours, symbolizing THE
Bopy anv Bioop oF Curist. The whole
passage is a standing testimony, inciden-
weNLwy
e.
ABCDF
KLNab
edfgh
kimn
o17
2—4.
TIPO KOPIN@IOY®S A. 5d98
, ‘ oS s / d , i ‘ :
TavTéc TO avTO “mTvEVmaTLKOY ELOY “ TOMa’ ETIVOY yap 2h. fie
, c ~ > X ff) , , ec / Oe ef
eK TvEvpaTiKng akoAovUovoncg TETOUC, 1 TWETOA CE YY O
e = Matt. xxvi. 26. xiii. 37. John xv. 1.
4. om avto A 46 eth Orig, Promiss.
£ ely only.
Gen. xli. 26, 27. Exod. xii. 11. Ezek. xxxvii. 11.
rec moua bef mvevuatixov emov (to con-
Sorm with the preceding), with DFKL rel latt Dial Chr Thdrt Iren-int(as above) Orig-
int: txt ABCX 17. 1387 Orig, Cyr Epiph Jer (emwov 137 Orig,: emay D!).
rec
de bef werga (not observing the emphasis), with ACD?KL rel Orig, Eus Chr Thdrt :
txt BD'*& Orig, Eus.—7erpa de omg the 7 preceding F.
tally, but most providentially, given by the
great Apostle to the importance of the
Christian sacraments, as necessary to
membership of Christ, and not mere signs
or remembrances ; and an inspired protest
against those who, whether as individuals
or sects, would lower their dignity, or deny
their necessity. BpOpa arvevpatiKov
«.7.A.| The manna is thus called, from its
being no mere physical production, but
miraculously given by God—the work of
His Spirit. Thus Isaac is called, Gal. iv.
29, 6 kaTa Tvetpa yevynGels, in opposition
to Ishmael, 6 kata odpka yevyndels. Jose-
phus calls the manna @ciov BpGua kal mapd-
dotov, Antt. ili. 1. 6: and in Ps. Ixxviy 24,
it is said &prov ovpavod COwkey adTots.
We can scarcely avoid recognizing in these
words a tacit reference to our Lord’s dis-
course, or at all events to the substance of
it,—John vi. 31—58. “For the sense of
mvevmatikds, as ‘typical, ‘seen in the
light of the spirit,’ cf. Rev. xi. 8, #715 Kade?-
Tat TvevmaTiK@s Sddoua.” Stanley.
4.] It is hardly possible here, without doing
violence to, the words and construction,
to deny that the Apostle has adopted the
tradition current among the Jews, that the
rock followed the Israelites in their jour-
neyings, and gave forth water all the way.
Thus Rabbi Solomon on Num. xx. 2: ‘Per
omnes quadraginta annos erat iis puteus”
(Lightf.) : and Schéttgen cites from the
Bammidbar Rabba, ‘ Quomodo compa-
ratus fuit ille puteus (de quo Num. xxi.
16)? Resp. Fuit sicut petra, sicut alveus
apum, et globosus, et volutavit se, et ivit
cum ipsis in itineribus ipsorum. Cum
vexilla castra ponerent, et tabernaculum
staret, illa petra venit, et consedit in atrio
tentorii. Tune venerunt Principes, et juxta
illum steterunt, dicentes, ‘ Ascende, putee,
&e” (Num. xxi. 17) et ascendit.” See
other testimonies in Schéttgen. The
only ways of escaping this inference are,
(1) by setting aside the natural sense alto-
gether, as Chrys., Theophyl.—ov yap 4 ris
métpas puats TO Bdwp jdlet, GAN Erepa Tis
mMéTpa TvevuaTiKh To Tay eipyd(eTo, ToOUT-
éoty 6 xpiotés, 6 Tapdy avtots mavtaxod,
kal mdavta Oavuatoupyav* dia yap TodTo
elmev, axodovovcns,—or (2) by taking
métpa = Td ex THs TéTpas Hdwp, as Erasm.,
Beza, Grot., Estius, Lightf.:—and so
Calvin, who says: ‘ Quomodo, inquiunt,
rupes que suo loco fixa stetit, comitata
esset Israelitas? Quasi vero non palam
sit sub petre voce notari aque fluxum,
qui nunquam populum deseruit.” But
against both of these we have the plain
assertion, representing matter of physical
fact, Emwov ex mvevpatikis akoAovbovans
métpas, they drank from a (or, after a
preposition, the) miraculous rock which
followed them: and I cannot consent to
depart from what appears to me the only
admissible sense of these words. How ex-
tensively the traditionary reliques of un-
recorded Jewish history were adopted by
apostolic men under the inspiration of the
Holy Spirit, the apology of Stephen may
bear witness. 4 wétpa Sé Hv 6 xpt-
ods] But (distinction between what they
saw in the rock and what we see init: they
drank from it and knew not its dignity:
but) the rock was Christ. In these words
there appear to be three allusions : (1) to
the ideas of the Jews themselves: so the
Targum on Isa. xvi. 1: “Afferent dona
Messi Israelitarum, qui robustus erit,
propterea quod in deserto fuit RUPES EC-
CLESIA ZIONIS :” so alsoin Wisd. x. 15 ff.,
the copla Oot (see note on John i. 1) is said
to have been present in Moses, to have led
them through the wilderness, &c. That the
Messt1au, the ANGEL OF THE COVENANT,
was present with the church of the Fathers,
and that His upholding power was mani-
fested in miraculous interferences for their
welfare, was a truth acknowledged no less
by the Jew than by the Christian. (2) To
the frequent use of this appellation, A
Rock, for the God of Israel. See, inter
alia, Deut. xxxii. 4, 15, 18, 30, 31, 37;
1 Sam. ii. 2; 2 Sam. xxii. 2, and passim ;
xxiii. 3, &c.; Psalms passim, and especially
Ixxvili. 20, compared with ver. 35: see also
Rom. ix. 33; 1 Pet.ii.8. Henceit became
more natural to apply the term directly to
Christ, as the ever-present God of Israel.
(3) To the sacramental import of the water
which flowed from the rock, which is the
554
IIPOX KOPINOIOYS= A.
2.
ae ’ , > ’ ~ ’ : Say elm IS: Are:
TL §6‘Xelorus 5 arr ins ev = roc § m)etoow auTwy nvdo-
2 Cor. xii. 10. e , 2
(Them. il KNOEY Oo og, * kateato@Oncay yao év 7 -eonuy.
12.] Jer. xiv.
Be 6 ravra Oe
_— 19 TUTOL Tov
reff.
h here only. a
i xiv. oe 5
i — Rom. v. Bn é
14¢.
k plar., ver. 1] reff., but see note.
n absol., Rom. vii. 7 reff. och. vy. 10, 11 reff.
™exiuunrac Kakowv, Kaoc KaKkeivot
1 Rom. iv. 11 reff.
*éyevnOnoay, ‘ste TO py Etat
° exefouncay.
, -
7 e1owAoAaroat yiveoOe, kalwe TLVEC autor, wcmEo
m here only. Num. xi. 34 (only ?).
5. [qvdoxnoev, so AB'C Clem Mcion-e Chr. }
7. eSwrodatpas yweobar F ck 3. 116, 122 arm, effici aut efficiamini G-lat.
ins ef bef avrwy A.
txt ABD?LN rel Chr Thdrt Damase Thl.—om
Ka0ws ins ka D!,
Mcion-e, (ec: xa6ws 17 Mcion-e, :
point here immediately in the Apostle’s
mind. As well in sacramental import as in
upholding physical agency, that rock was
Christ. The miraculous (spiritual) food
was (sacramentally) the flesh of Christ :
the miraculous (spiritual) drink was the
blood of Christ : so that the Jews’ miracu-
lous supplies of food and drink were sacra-
mentally significant of the Body and
Blood of Christ, in kind analogous to the
two great parts of the Christian Supper of
the Lord. In the contents prefixed to
the chapters in the E. V., we read as the
import of these verses, “ The sacraments of
the Jews are types of ours,” which though
perhaps correctly meant, is liable to be
erroneously understood ; inasmuch as no
sacramental ordinance can be a type of
another, but all alike, though in different
degrees of approximation, and by different
representations, types of Him, who is the
fountain of all grace. The difference be-
tween their case and ours, is generally,
that they were unconscious of the sacra-
mental import, whereas we are conscious of
it: “they knew not that I healed them,”
lios. xi. 3: and in this particular case,
that Christ has come to us “not by water
only, but by water and blood,” 1 John v.
6: His Dearu having invested our sacra-
mental ordinance with another and more
deeply significant character. ‘To enter more
minutely into the import of the words, ‘the
rock was Christ, would be waste of time
and labour. The above reasons abundantly
justify the assertion, without either press-
ing the verb jv beyond its ordinary ac-
ceptation, or presuming to fix on the
Apostle a definiteness of meaning which
his argument does not require. See in
Meyer’s note an example of the proceeding
which I blame. 5.| Howbeit not
with the greater part of them (in fact
with Joshua and Caleb only) was God
pleased. Kateotp. yap...]| The
very words of the LXX, see ref.
6.] Now (5€ transitional; the contrast
being, between the events themselves,
aft
rec (for wsmep) ws, with CD'K dk
and their application to us) these things
happened as figures (not ‘types’ as we
now use the word, meaning by type and
antitype, the material representation, and
theultimate spiritual reality,—but figures,
as one imperfect ceremonial polity may
figure forth a higher spiritual polity, but
still this latter may not itself be the ulti-
mate antitype) of us (the spiritual Israel as
distinguished from the literal),—in order
that we might not be (God’s purpose in
the tumo.: of course an ulterior purpose,
for they had their own immediate purpose
as regards the literal Israel) lusters after
evil things (generally: no special reference
yet to the Corinthian feasters, as Grot.
supposes. So Theophyl. rightly: xa@oAr-
KOs wep maons Kaklas Acyel, eed) Kal
mwaoa Kaka e& émiOvulas. elta Kal Kat’
eldos TlOnoi Tas Kaxtas. Similarly Chrys.)
as they also (kal, i.e. supposing us to be
like them) lusted. The construction (tatra
.. eyevh@noav) may be a verb substantive
attracted into the plur. (or sing.) by the
predicate,—one often found : so Herod. i.
93, 7) Mev Teplodos, cio) oradion €€:
and ii. 15, ai @7Bar Atyumtos éxadéeTo:
so in Latin, Ter. Andr. iii. 3. 23, ‘ Aman-
tium ire amoris integratio est :? see many
other examples in Kiuhner, § 429: or,
which is perhaps better, as in ver. 11,
where see note. The rendering, ‘ Now
in these things they were figures of us’
(I know not by whom suggested, but I
findit in Dr. Peile’s notes on the Epistles),
is inconsistent both with the arrangement
of the words,—in which taita has the
primary emphasis,—and with eyev7Oncav,
which should be joar. 7.| Now, the
special instances of warning follow, coupled
to the general by pmSé in this negative
sentence, as so often by «af in an affirm-
ative one. Notice, that all four of these
were brought about by the émé@uuety
kar@v, not distinct from it. This first
instance is singularly appropriate. The
Israelites are recorded to have sat down
and eaten and drunken at the idol feast
SEP 0. 6) 6
5—9.
IIPOS KOPINOIOYS A.
555
9 , e N ~ \ ~ ‘ 5) i
yéypanra ”’Exafioey 6 adc paye kat meiv, Kal * ay- pExoD. xxxii
/ r ,
éoTynoav * waidew.
~ ’ , \ ld
TWV * eroovevoay Kal é7ecay
autwy
(xxxi.) 4. Hom. Od @. 251
9. Exon. xvii. 2,7.
kalws tives auTwy wsrep F,
8. exropvevwuey DIF.
9. exmeipagwper F.
8 8 s , , >
Bunce TOOVEVaMEY, KaXwWE TiVEC av-
> me , ~
[ev] pu nuepa ELKOGIT ELC
, 9 sirens , . , ,
XAracec. unoe EKTEIpaCwuEY TOY kvowov, Kabwe rivec
’ ’ \ cd ‘ ~
; ie eTMEIOaGAY Kal UTO TwYv
sch. vi. 18 reff. Num. xxv. 1—6.
Deut. vi. 16). x. 25 [John viii. 4] only. Ps. ixxvii. 18,
v Mark xvi. 18. Luke x. 19 al.
mwev D'F: ry.
eferopyevoay (see rxx) D'F 671 Chr,.
ABCD!FN 1 m 17 Chr-ms Thdrt Damase. ]
. abs., Acts
Xvi. 13
reff.
q Actsix.6
al. fr.
r here only,
l.c. = Jadg,
a 25, 6
vw > , 2 Kings vi.
opewy amtwdrovro, {chin
Jer. xxxviii.
t Luke iv. 12) Mt. (from
u = Acts v. 9. xv.1U. Heb. iii.
NvuM. xxi. 6.
aveotn FE,
€TETav, SO
om ev BD'FR), L yj
rec (for kupiov) xpioroy (see note), with DFKU rel latt syrr
copt-wilk sah arm-marg Thdrt Mcion(Epiph says: 6 8é Mapklov avt rod Kdpioy
xptordv érolnoev) Chr, Ee Thi Tren-int(citing “ Seniores ”) Ambr Aug Pelag Ambrst :
Geov A 2 Bede: txt BCR 17 copt-ms syr-marg eth arm Epiph Chr, Thdrt Damase
Sedul Cassiod. rec aft ka@ws ins Kat,
FN am n 17 vss Epiph Iren-int.
aTwAhuyTo BR. (A is doubtful.)
of the golden caif in Horeb: the very
temptation to which the Corinthians were
too apt to yield. And as the Israelites
were actually idolaters, doing this as an
act of worship to the image: so the Co-
rinthians were in danger of becoming
such, and the Apostle therefore puts the
case in the strongest way, neither be (be-
come) ye idolaters. mailer, pny,
‘choreas agere,’ ‘ saltare accinentibus tym-
panis vel cantoribus :’ see reff., where the
same word (or its cognate pM) occurs in
the Heb. The dance was an accompani-
ment of the idol feast: see Hor. ii. 12.19:
“Quam nec ferre pedem dedecuit choris
-++.sacro Diane celebris die.’ 8.
Another prominent point in the sins of the
Corinthian church. eikooutpets x. |
The number was twenty-four thousand,
Num. xxv. 9, and is probably set down
here from memory. The subtilties of Com-
mentators in order to escape the inference,
are discreditable alike to themselves and
the cause of sacred Truth. Of the prin-
cipal ancient Commentators, Chrysostom
and Theophyl. do not notice the discre-
pancy: (cum. notices it, and says that
some ancient copies eikoowréocapas eOccay
here, but passes it without comment.
Although the sin of Baal peor was strictly
speaking idolatry, yet the form which it
exhibited was that of fornication, as inci-
dent to idolatrous feasting, see Num. xxv.
1,2. Thus it becomes even more directly
applicable to the case of the Corinthians.
9. | éxretp.— tempt beyond endurance,
‘tempt thoroughly.’ Similarly eéapvetc da,
‘ to persist in denying,’ al., as Suidas, n yap
€ mpdbects, exitacw dndot. See Musegr.
on Eurip. Iph. Taur. 249, and cf. éx-
mAnpéw, Acts xiii. 32. So also in Latin,
with DKL rel Syr Chr Thdart: om ABCD!
om autwy X!,
efereipacay CD'EN am 17.
‘oro’ and ‘exoro,’ &e. TOV KUptov]
There may be two views taken of the in-
ternal evidence concerning the reading
here. On the one hand it may be said
that xpuorév being the original reading, it
was variously altered to ktpioy or Oedy by
those who found a difficulty in supposing
that the Jews of old tempted Christ, or
even by those who wished to obliterate this
assertion of His pra-existence: and so
De Wette, al. On the other it may be
said, that xvptov being the original, it was
variously explained in the margin xpioréy
and edy, as is often the case: and so
Meyer. On comparing these, it seems to
me that the latter alternative is the more
probable. The inference that tives adréy
érelpagoy requires tTby xpiotdy as an ob-
ject, is not a necessary one, and hardly
likely to have produced the alteration,
closely connected as +. xp.is with the verb
in the first person. I have therefore with
Meyer adopted the reading Kuvpior. The
tempting of the Lord was,—as on the other
occasions alluded to Num. xiv. 22, where
it is said that they tempted Good ten times,—
the daring Him, in trying His patience by
rebellious conduct and sin. Cf. the similar
use of meipd(w Acts v.9; xv.10. And he
warns the Corinthians, that they should not
in likemanner provoke God by their sins and
their partaking with idols. Chrys., Theo-
phyl., and ec. understand the temptation
of God to be the seeking Sor signs : Theo-
doret, to be in danger arising from
those who spoke with different tongues,
emelpaCov 5& K. of tals diapdpois Kexpy-
evo. yAdéTras, Kare pirotimtay parrov })
xpstay Tatras ex exxAnolas mposépoyTes.
tro Tdv Shewv, by the (well-
known) serpents. The art. is so often
556
IIPOS KOPINOIOY= A.
X.
r) \ w? la A
Mate u. ° unde * yoy yicere, KkaQwc tivec autwv eyoyyvoayv Kat
nke v. 30. >
ea dere amwAovro vTr0 Tov * ohoOpevrov. Ml Bee OE [ravra]
vi , 5
only. EXOD. ¥ pymixwe * cuvée(saivov exelvoic, Eyoadn o& *“mpooc ” vov-
xvi. 7 F. : b 5
NuM. xiv. 29. , pee ? a \c¢ BN = iC) eae id
x here only t. Oeoiay NMWY, ELC OVC TA TEAN TWY alWYwY KaTHYTHKEY,
(-everv, 12 ec 4 es f¢ , g i ’ ‘ f ,
Heb. xi. 28, 4 WCTE oO Sokwy eoTaval, B ETETW LY) TES).
xi. 23. (13h a tee ey ie a Ne Re i
Bante TELOaTMOg VUag OUK etAnpev el Uy avJowmwwoc
Josh. xvii. 13
F) aie y here only t. z Acts iii. 10 reff. plur., ver.6. Luke xxiv. 11. John xix. 31. James
Vi. 19. Rev. i. 19. iii. 2.
viii. 27 (23) Ald. (- TAs F. vat.)
xiii. 39. Heb. ix. 26.
g = Acts xiii. 40) reff.
16. Exod, xv. 15.
d Acts xxvi. 7 reff.
k Acts xvii. 25 reff.
10. for yoyyu ere, yoyyu(ouey D F-gr & 17 copt Chr,(txty,),) Aug,
a—ch. vii. 35 reff.
Wiad. xvi. 6 only. (- eee Acts xx. 31.)
h Luke xxii. 28. Acts xx. 19 al.
bEph.vi. 4. Tit. iii. lU onlyt. Judith
c here only. see Matt.
f Rom. xiv. 4 (reff.).
i = Luke v. 26. vii.
ch. iii. 18 reff.
neil iv. 34.
rec aft
ka0ws ins kat, With D°KL rel syr Chr Thdrt: om ACD'FX a d m 17 latt Epiph Iven-
int.—kabarep BX 93. amwAdvuvto A.
ovefpevtov D!: oAeOpou F-gr.
11. om zayra (as ver 6) AB 17 sah Mcion-e-t Orig, Dial Hippol Cyr-jer, Cyr Oros,
Pac:
wth Orig, Chr Iren-int-ms Aug, Idac.
coptt Thdrt.,(h.l. expressly :
suveBn) Thly.;, Ce:
Orig, Hippol Mac Cyr jer, Chr Cyrsepe-
Mcion-e Orig, Dial, Hippol Cyr-jer, (eyevero,) Chr-2-mss:
rec katnvtnoey (alteration of the perf into the
Thdrt,. for Sus es XN!
ins CKL rel vss Thdrt ic Thl Iren-int, Jer, and, but mayra 5¢ tavta, DEN d
rec Tumor (as ver 6), with DFL rel syr
avTt Tov ws Tuo, and elsw expl Tavta TumiKws exeLvols
txt ABCKN d 17 syr-marg latt Iren-int-from-Sen Mcion-e
auveBawey (see note) BCKR d 17
txt ADFL rel Dial, Chr
aor, so common with the copyists), with ACD3KL rel Orthod Orig, Dial Epiph Chr
Thdrt: txt BD'FX Orig, Bas, Cyr,.
13. for ov« e:Anpev, ov kaTadraBn F;
apnoe DE. meipacOnvat bef vuas B.
omitted after a preposition, that wherever
it is expressed, we may be sure there was
a reason for it. 10.] yoyyvere has
been by Kstius, Grot., al., and De Wette,
understood of murmuring against their
teachers, as the Israelites against Moses
and Aaron, Num. xiv. 2; xvi. 41. But
not to mention that this was in fact mz.
muring against God, such a reference
would require something more specific
than the mere word yoyyi¢ere. The
warning is substantially the same as the
last, but regards more the spirit, and its
index the tongue. Theophyl.: aivirrera
de avtovs Kal dia TovTov, OTL ey Tols Tet-
pacumots ovK eepoy yevrvatws, GAN eydy-
yuCov A€youtes dre ket Ta ayabd, ral
€ws mote ai Kak@oets; similarly Chrys.
The destruction referred to must be that
related Num. xvi. 41 ff. when the pesti-
lence (which though it is not so specified
there, was administered on another occa-
sion by a destroying angel, 2 Sam. xxiv.
16, 17, see also Exod. xii. 23) took off
14,700 of the people. The punishment of
the unbelieving congregation in Num. xiv.,
to which this is commonly referred, does
not seem to answer to the- expression
amédovto brd T. ddA0bpevTod, nor to the
tiwes, seeing that all except Joshua and
Caleb were involved in it. 11.]
TumMiK@s, see varr. readd., by way of
non apprehendat latt.
for ovk eacel, ovK
ins ov bef duvacde F 123? D-lat, adding
figure. Meyer cites from the Rabbis,
‘Quidquid evenit patribus, signum filiis.’
The plural cuvé8a:voy expresses the
plurality of events separately happening :
the singular eypaon, their union in the
common record of Scripture. Similarly 2
Pet. ili. 10, croryeta . .. . AVOHTovTaL....
TH ev AUTH epya Kataxcanoeta. See reff.
and Winer, edn. 6, § 58. 3. a. 8é con-
veys a slight opposition to cuvéBawov éxet-
vols. 7a TéEH T. aidv.| = 7 ovr-
TéAeia TOU ai@vos of ref. Matt., and 7d
éxxatov Tay jucpwov To’Twy of Heb. i. 1,
where see note: the ends of the ages of
this world’s lifetime. So Chrys.: ovSev
AAO A€yet 7) OTL epeoTHKE AoiTdY Td Si-
KaoTHpioy Td poBepov. The form vov-
Oeclia belongs to later Greek. The classi-
cal word is vov@érynois or vovOeria: see
Lobeck on Phrynichus, p. 512.
katyvtT.| have reached. The ages are
treated as occupying space, and their extent
as just coincident with our own time. See
a similar figure in ch. xiv. 36. 12. ]
éoravat, viz. in his place as a member of
Christ’s church, to be recognized by him at
His coming for one of His. ‘fo such an one
the example of the Israelites is a warning
to take heed that he fall not, as they did
from their place in God’s church.
13.] There are two ways of understanding
the former part of this verse. Chrys.,
ABCDF
KLNab
edfgh
kilmn
017
10—16.
IIPOS KOPINOIOY®S A.
5d7
‘ ue , coh ’ a7 o.= ~ ely :
} TtsTOC O& O ede, OC OUK EaoEL UjLac ™ tetoaaOnvar “UTED T= ch; 1. 9 reff,
a , > ‘ , ‘ Pe ‘ ‘
oO dvvacbe, aAdAa TOUJGEL GUV TW 5 TEOAGUM Kal TYV ° eK-
m ch. vii. 5 reff.
n= ch. iv. 6.
2 Cor. xii. 6.
, 0 Heb. xiii. 7
-~ , € - , , ’ .
Baow Prov dtvacBa ° vreveyKeiv. 14" Qtomeo, Sayamntol ynivt Wisd.
Lov, pevyere amo tne” etowAoAarpetac.
pote Néyw" Kpivate UMELC 0 pnt.
p Matt. xiii. 3. Acts iii. 2. xviii. 10. xxvi.18. Rom. xi. 8,10. Ps.cxlix. 7, 9.
Ps. liv. 12. Prov. vi. 33.
ll. 1 Pet.ii.19 only. Jobii. 10.
s Acts xv. 26 reff. t ch. vi. 18 reff.
ver. 7). v = Acts xvii. 22.
xiv. 17.
ureveyre FE Augaiig:
2 Cor. vi. 13.
x attr., Matt. xxi. 42 (from Ps, cxvii. 22) al.
ii. 17. viii.
l5v¢ Ww ! 8. xi. 14only.
we ppovi- 1 €xB. EK T.
16x _s , ~ moA€Mouy
TO TOTHOLOV THC Polyd. iii.'7.
2.
9 q 2 Tim. iii.
rch. viii. 13 (xiv. 13 v. r.) only.
u Gal. v. 20. Col. iii. 6. 1 Pet. iv.3only+. (-tpns,
w Matt. vii. 24. ch.iv. 10 al. Prov.
rec ins uuas bef vreveyrew, with KX? rel Thdrt, Damase
(ec Thl-ed: aft, D3: om ABCD!FLN! n 17 syrr sah Mac, Bas, Chr-comm-and-2-mss
Cyrsepe Thdrt, Thl-mss.
15. aft ppoviors ins vay D c sah.
vuas N!: txt X-corr!.
Theophyl., Grot., Est., Bengel, Olsh., De
Wette, al., take it as a continuation, and
urging of the warning of the verse pre-
ceding, by the consideration that no tempta-
tion had yet befallen them but such as was
avOpamivos, ‘within the power of human
endurance :’ but ‘major tentatio imminet,’
Beng. :—while Calvin, al., and Meyer regard
it as a consolation, tending to shew them
that BAewétw wh méon is within the limits
of their power, seeing that their temptation
to sin was nothing extraordinary or unheard
of, but only ‘ according to man :’ and they
might trust to God’s loving care, that no
temptation should ever befall them which
should surpass their power to resist. This
latter seems to me beyond doubt the correct
view. For (1) in the parallel which they
bring for the former sense, Heb. xii. 4,
ovtw is distinctly expressed,—and would
have been here also, had it been intended.
Besides, in that case, ow, as having the
primary emphasis, would have been pre-
jived, as in Heb. xii. 4: obw meiparuos
buds etAndeyv....- Then again (2) this
restricts the sense of reipacuds to persecu-
tion, which it here does not mean, but
solicitation to sin, in accordance with the
whole context. etAndev—has taken
you, not @AaBer, ‘took you,’ shews that the
temptation was still soliciting them.
avOpamuives] not, as Piscator, al., and
Olsh., originating with man, as opposed to
othertemptations originating with the devil,
or even with God’s Providence: but, as
Chrys.: dumetpos,—opposed to dep 6
ddvacde, adapted to man. motos | He
has entered into a covenant with youby call-
ing you: if He suffered temptation beyond
your power to overcome you, He would be
violating that covenant. Compare 1 Thess.
y. 24, miaros 6 rary buds, ds Kal moihoet.
és = br obTOos. Toujoel.. . kat
7Hv €xB.] Then God makes the temptation
too: arranges it in His Providence, and in
for Kpivare vuets o pyut, KpiveTe ovv pnut D!.
His mercy will ever set open a door for
escape. aTyv €kB.| the escape, i. e.
which belongs to the particular temp-
tation: thy a@madAayhy Tov TEpacuod,
Theophyl. tov Svyv.| in order that
you may be able to bear (it): obs., not,
‘will remove the temptation :’ but, ‘ will
make an escape simultaneously with the
temptation, to encourage you to bear up
against it? 14.] Conclusion from the
above warning examples : IDOLATRY IS BY
ALL MEANS TO BE SHUNNED; not tam-
pered with, but fled from. devyete
amd (‘fugiendo discedite a,’ Meyer) ex-
pressing even more strongly than the accus.
with devyw, the entire avoidance. This
verse of itself would by inference forbid
the Corinthians having any share in the
idol feasts; but he proceeds to ground
such prohibition on further special con-
siderations. 15—22.] By the analogy
of the Christian participation in the
Lord’s Supper, and the Jewish participa-
tion in the feasts after sacrifices, joined
to the fact that the heathens sacrifice to
devils, he shews that the partaker in the
idol feast is a PARTAKER WITH DEVILS;
which none can be, and yet be a Christian.
15.] An appeal to their own sense
of what is congruous and possible,—as in-
troducing what is to follow. Os ex-
presses an assumption on the Apostle’s part,
that they are Ppdvizot. De W. compares
Plut. Alcib. i. 104, @s axovropeve Aéyu.
A€yo and ype both refer to what follows,
vv. 16—21. tpets is emphatic—be
YE the judges of what I am saying.
16.] The analogy of the Lord’s
Supper, which, in both its parts, is a par-
ticipation in Christ. The stress through-
out to ver. 20, is on kowovia, and Kot-
vovot. 70 Totyptov is the accus.,
by attr. corresponding to tév apTov.
TOT. THS EVA.| i.e. 0 EVAOYoUYTES KaTa-
cxevd(ouey (CEe.), as explained imme-
558
Gal. iii. 14. s
reabi it 10. ” evoyiac oO nena auneD ovxt
Rev. v. 1% b
13. vii12, TOU Xetorov EOTW
Gen. xxviii. d
4.
Lei: Sry veovia Tov aoHoEDe Tou
26 || Mk. et
inkei.16. €¥ G@pa “ot © wOAAOL Eousv
xxiv. 30. ch.
xiv. 16 al. 1 Kings ix. 13. a 2 Cor. vi. 14 reff.
14. 1 Pet. i.2. 1Johni.7 al. c Acts ii. 46 reff.
e Rom. v. 15 reff. f Rom. xi. 32 reff,
16. for evAoyias, evxapiotias F 71. 80. 213 Syr.
vias N' (marked for correction by &-corr!).
TIPOS KOPINOIOY= A.
nroe aotov ov KA@mEY, ovxt
X.
’ ~ boo
* Kowwvia TOU zener
* KOI-
Migs
“xotorou ame 3 OTL Ec woroc,
f
ol yap f ravrec EK TOU EvOC
b (ch. xi. 25, 27.) Eph. ii.13. Heb. ix. (12)
d Rom. vii. 4. (ch. xi. 24, 27, 29.)
quaoyouueyv D!. Kolv@-
Ist eorw bef 7. aim. T. xp. (transposn
to avoid the harshness of eatw at the end) AB Syr coptt Cyr, Aug Bede: txt CDFK
LX rel latt goth Chr Thdrt Ambrst.
2nd eortw bef 7. cwu. T. xp. A Syr copt Cyr
Aug Bede (see above): om sah: txt BCDFKLN rel &e.
for 2nd xpiotou, kupiov
D'F 21 latt goth (Dial) Thdrt Aug Ambrst (goth Thdrt Ambrst syr-marg kvpiov
before) :
avuTovu n.
17. aft aprov ins ka tov [evos] motnpiov DF vulg-sixt(with demid harl tol, not am)
Ambrst Pelag Bede. (om evos D.)
diately by 6 cvAoyoduer,—over which we
speak a blessing, the Christian form of
the Jewish 7223 Dis, the cup in the Pass-
over over which thanks were offered after
the feast,—in blessing of which cup, our
Lord instituted this part of the ordinance :
see Lightfoot in loc.,and note on the history
in Matt. xxvi. The rendering of Olsh., al.,
the cup which brings a blessing, i is wrong,
as being against this analogy 6 evdo-
youper | which we bless, e. consecrate
with a prayer of thanksgiving: not, as
Erasmus, Beza, ‘ quod cum gratiarum ac-
tione sumimus’ (wep) 0&6 edxapiotoduer).
Observe, the first person plural is the same
throughout : the blessing of the cup, and
the breaking of the bread, the acts of con-
secration, were not the acts of the minister,
as by any authority peculiar to himself,
but only as the representative of the oi
mévres, the whole Christian congregation
(and so even Estius, but evading the legi-
timate inference). The figment of sacer-
dotal consecration of the elements by trans-
mitted power, is as alien from the apostolic
writings as it is from the spirit of the
Gospel. Ko.v@via | the participation
(i. e. that whereby the act of participation
takes place) of the blood of Christ? The
strong literal sense must here be held fast,
as constituting the very kernel of the
Apostle’s argument. The wine is the
Blood, the bread is the Body; of Christ.
(In what sense the Blood and the Body,
does not belong to the present argument.)
We receive into us, make by assimilation
parts of ourselves, that wine, that bread :
we become therefore, by participation of
that Bread, one Bread, i. e. ONE Bopy:
hence the close and literal participation in
and with Christ. If we are to render this
éorw, represents or symbolizes, the argu-
ment is made void. On the other hand it
is painful to allude to, though necessary to
reprobate, the caricature of this real union
with Christ which is found in the gross
materialism of transubstantiation. See
further on ch. xi. 26, 27. dv KAGpev |
probably already the breaking of the bread
in the communion was part of the act of
consecration, and done after the example
of our Lord in its institution. See ch.
xi. 24; Acts ii. 42, xx. 7, 11. For the
rest, see above. 17.| Because we, the
(assembled) many, are one bread (by the
assimilation of that one bread partaken :
not ‘one loaf’), one Body (by the rowwwvla
of the Body of Christ, of which that bread
is the vehicle) ; for the whole of us par-
take of that one bread. Meyer and De
Wette and many other Commentators take
eis &pros alone, ‘there is one bread ;’? and
impugn the interpretation given above by
saying that it is evidently not so, because
the following clause uses &prtos in its literal
sense. But it is for that very reason, that
I adhere to the interpretation given. By
partaking of that bread, we become, not
figuratively but literally, one bread: it
passes into the substance of onr bodies,
and there is in every one who partakes, a
portion of himself which is that bread.
The dread which was before, is now jes.
But that loaf, broken and blessed, is the
medium of kowwvia of the Body of Christ ;
we then, being that one bread, are one
Body; for we all partake of that one
bread. So that there is no logical inver-
sion, and no arguing (Meyer) from the
effect to the cause. The argument is a
very simple and direct one ;—the bread is
the Body of Christ ;—we partake of the
bread: therefore we partake of the Body
of Christ. Of these propositions, the con-
clusion is implied in the form of a question
in ver. 16: the minor stated in the latter
clause of ver. 17; its connexion with the
major producing the conclusion given in
ABCDF
KLNab
edfgh |}
klmu
olf
|
|
|
—
17—19. IIPOX KOPINOIOYS A. 559
q i Si aw. . :
aprov "pereyouev. !8" Bdewere tov Iopand | kata ‘oapKa’ & eh, ix-10, 12
ch. i. 26.
> Ono ' X ff) ' k \ - 1 rf) ' h
ovy ot ecbiovrec Tac voltagc, KOLYwYOL TOV UvolaoTyOLOU Phit iii. 2.
“Ae ya (SYR me Pe? mm? , Pig ERD nN 4 i Rom. i. 3 reff.
ELOLY 5 TL OUY Gyms, OTL eLowAo0urov ” ri EGTIVS YO OTEE Meese,
Rom. xi. 3 (from 3 Kings xix. 10) al.
1 Pet.v.1. Isa.i.23. I ch. ix. 13 bis.
Demosth. 582. 27.
7. Heb. x. 33.
n= Acts v. 36. ch. iii. 7. Gal. ii. 6. vi. 3, 15.
m ch, viii. 1 reff.
18. rec ovxt, with BD? KLN? rel Thdrt: txt ACD'FR! 17 Chr.
19. rec transp esdwAo#utov and e:dwAov, with KL rel syrr goth Chr Thdrt : t5wAobutoy
twice F; but G-lat has over the 1st idolis immolatum sit, and over the 2nd zdolum aut
idolothitum : e15wAcbvTov, omg from tt eotw to Tt eotiv, AC'X'(omg 7: also) Epiph :
e.dwAov, omg the other clause by homeeotel, 17. 71: txt BC*DX-corr! m vulg(and
F-lat) coptt «th Aug Ambrst Pelag Bede. (Zhe received reading seems to have been
adopted as the most natural order on the re-insertion of the omitted clause.
remarks of Epiph and Aug, see Tischdf.)
n ott, ovx ort DF (Tert) Aug-mss, Ambrst.
the former clause ét: .... éopnév. The
major itself, rodré é€otw 17d cud ov,
is suppressed, as axiomatic. The above
remarks shew also the untenableness of the
rendering of Calv., Beza, Bengel, al.,—
“because there is one bread (antecedent),
we being many are one body” (conse-
quent): for this would parenthesize ver.
17, and take it altogether out of the argu-
ment, giving it a sense which, as occurring
here, would be vapid—* obiter hoe dicit,
ut intelligant Corinthii, externa quoque
professione colendam esse illam unitatem
que nobis est cum Christo,” Calv. Meyer
objects to rendering é« tod €évds a&ptov
petéxopuer, we partake of that one bread :
saying rightly that weréxw is always found
with a gen. or an ace., never with éx. He
would render, for we all, by means of that
one bread, partake (viz. in the one Body:
so peréx. is absol. ver. 30). This is ex-
ceedingly harsh, besides as it seems to me
(see above) confusing the whole argument :
and we may safely say would not have
been thus expressed by the Apostle, leaving
the most important words to be supplied
from the context,—but would have been
of yap mavtes ev TG Ev) Bptw TOD Evds
Tépmatos metéxouev. The usage of ek,
too, would, though perhaps barely allow-
able, be very harsh, especially when it is
remembered that the &épros is not (by the
hypothesis) the ultimate, but only the me-
diate object of participation. None of the
examples given in Bernhardy, Syntax,
p- 230, which Meyer quotes for his sense
of éx, seem to justify it. They apply
mostly to the subjective source, €« mpo-
volas, or the circumstances originating,
@s ék TrovTwy,—not to the medial instru-
ment, which it appears to me would re-
quire did. 18.] Another example of
kowwvla, from the Jewish feasts after
sacrifice. T. "lop. Kata odpka |
T. lop. Tov KaT& odpka: so we have
tois kuplois Kata odpka, Eph. vi. 5), the
For the
eotw bef tz (twice) D!F latt. for
(for 1st 671, ovx ort Chr-mss.)
actual material Israel, as distinguished
from 6 "lop. kara mvedua, see Rom. ii. 29;
Gal. iv.29; and 6*Iop. Tov @cov, Gal. vi. 16.
ot éo8. T. Ova. | viz. those parts of
the sacrifices which were not offered ; sec
on ch. viii. 1. The parts to be offered are
specified, Levit. iii. 3; the practice of eat-
ing the remainder of the meat sanctioned
and regulated, ib. vu. 15—18. KOL-
vevol Tov Ovo.| partakers with the altar
(in a strict and peculiar sense,—the altar
having part of the animal, the partaker
another part; and by the fact of the
religious consecration of the offered pari,
this connexion becomes a religious con-
nexion. 'The question has been raised, and
with reason, why the Apostle did not say
Kowwvol tod Geov ? Meyer answers,—be-
cause the Jew was already in covenant
with God,and the Apostle wished to express
a closer connexion, brought about by the
sacrifice in question: —De Wette,— because
he was unwilling to ascribe so much to the
mere act of sacrifice, see Heb. x. 1 ff: and
to this latter view I incline, because, as De
W. remarks, 0cod would have suited the
analogy . better than @uvo.acrnptov, but
Paul avoids it, and evidently is reluctant to
useit. But to carry this view further, and
suppose with Riickert that he would not
concede to the “Iop. kaTt& odpka any Kol-
vevia Oeod, is [Meyer] contradicted by
Rom. ix. 4, 5. Still the inference lies
open, to which our Saviour’s saying points,
Matt. xxiii. 20, 21. The altar is Gop’s
altar). 19, 20.] The inference from
the preceding analogies would naturally be,
that Paul was then representing the idols
as being in reality what the heathen sup-
posed them to be—and the eater of meats
otfered to them, as partaking with the idol.
This objection he meets,—but with the
introduction of a new fact to their con-
sideration — that the things which the hea-
then sacrifice, they sacrifice really to devils.
19.| ri ovv dypt; what am I then
560
o Acts vii. 14.
IIPOS KOPINOIOY®S A.
*eidwrov "ti éotw; %aAX’ Ori a
mS
, ,
P Mbovow 4 Samoviore
xv. 20. ch.
iii. 4, 7. \ ? = , > t Ap se Gi k ‘ -
xii-2.' 2 cor. Kal ov Dew *° bovow, ov OéXw SE mac * Kotwwvode TaYV
vi. 16. 2 , ’ > , , ’
1 Thess. i.9 1 Saumoviwy yiveoPar. 21 od Sbivacbe “goTnowov * Kuplov
xxv.2. ' \ , ' ? , s ’
P abso» Act TiWvELY Kal ToTnotoy Tdamoviwy, ov dvvacbe TpatéCne
Exod axii. upton § meréxew Kal “ toanélng “ cammovioy, 72" 7
18. w. dates Pe xX ? 4
Acts xiv. 18. V
q DEUT. xxxii.
17. Paul, here »
(4 times) and EOMEV 3
1 Tim. iv.1
only. gospp- passim. Acts xvii. 18. James ii.19. Rev. ix. 20. xvi. 14 only.
xi.9. Ps. Ixxvii. 20.
XEXii. 21). xi. 11, 14 only.
t see Isa. Ixy. 11.
20. for aAA oti a,a de D:
w ch. i. 25 reff.
ad\Aa a F latt lat-ff.
= ‘ , A ‘ w ? , > ~
mapaCnAoupey TOV KUOLOV , Ln to\ VOOTEOOL auTou
rch. xi. 27. s = Rom.
u=ch, xi, 22. v Rom. x. 19 (from Deut.
rec (for @vove.v, twice) Over
(occasioned by the insn of €0vn below), with KL rel Chr Thdrt Damase: txt ABCDFX
17 Mcion-e Epiph Eus.
rec aft Ist @v. ins ta €8yn, with ACKX rel vulg(and F-lat)
G-lat syrr coptt goth Chr Thdrt Orig-int Aug, Bede: aft o71, L: om BDF Mcion-e
Epiph Eus Tert Aug,(expr,) Aug-cit(qui sacrificant) Ambrst.
ov Oew, with DFKL rel: txt ABCX m 17 Eus Orig-int Aug.
vous (omg twv) DIF,
assuming ? so Xen. Anab. i. 4. 14, ti obv
KeAeUW ToLnoal; Sti cidwdrd0. rh
éottv| that a thing sacrificed to an
idol is any (real) thing (so sacrificed) ?
(i. e. has any real existence as a thing
sacrificed? The accentuation tt éotwv;
would come nearer to the sense of ch. viii.
4, Ott ovdev etdwrov ev Kkéouw,—‘ that
there is any (such thing as an) offering to
an idol?’ and in a matter so ambiguous
it is impossible to decide between the two)
or that an idol is any thing (rea/? e. g.
that Jupiter 7s Jupiter in the sense of a
living power) !—(Wot so :—this ellipsis of
the negative, taken up by &AAd, is found in
classical Greek: e. g. Xen. Mem. i. 2. 2,
T@s ovv avTds &y Towvtos &AAovs by
aoeBets emoinoeyv ; GAN Emavoe mev
ToUTwY moAAOUs, GpeTHS moihoas emidv-
peiv, &e. See Hartung, Partikellehre, ii.
37.) But (I say) that the things which
they (i. e. the Gentiles) sacrifice, they
sacrifice to devils, and not to God (darm.,
not ‘false-gods,’ nor in the sense in which
it is used in the mouth of idolaters them-
selves, Acts xvii. 18, and Xen. Mem.i. 1.1,
deities | see Stanley’s note, in which this idea
is ingeniously combined with the Christian
sense given below |,—but, as always in LX X
and N. 'T. when used by worshippers of the
true God,’ ‘prvits,’ ‘evil spirits The
words are from Deut. [ref.], see also Ps.
xev. 5 [Baruch iv. 7, @icavres Samovlors
k. ov Oe |. Heathendom being under the
dominion of Satan [6 &pxwyv rod Kécmou
tovrov |, he and his angels are in fact the
powers honoured and worshipped by the
heathen, however little they may be aware
of it): but (the inference being suppressed
rec 2nd 6v. bef rac
Samoviwy bef koww-
yeveoba: B*(sic: see table): eva: F (syrr copt).
‘and ye therefore by partaking in their
sacrifices would be partakers with devils:
but’) I would not have you become par-
takers with devils (réy generic).
21.| Reason of the ob 0éAw,—sententiously
expressed without ydp. ov Sivacbe ap-
plies of course to the real spiritual parti-
cipation of the table of the Lord so as to
profit by it: to moral possibility. The
ToTyptov Satpoviwy is said as correspond-
ing to the cup of which mention has been
already made, not as Grot., al., and De
Wette fancy, referring to the lébation at an
idol feast. tpateLa is said by Pollux vi.
12 (Suicer) to be used in the sense of r&
oitla Ta er adTay Tov Tpamwe(Gv TiOEMEVa.
Compare the description in Herod. iii. 18,
of the “HAlov todme(a,—Polyb. iv. 35. 4,
ste wept Tov Bayoy k. Thy tpare(ay Tis
Geod Katachayijvat Tobs ’Eddpovs &ravtas,
and ref. Isa. From this passage pro-
bably, the tpdme(a xupiov became an ex-
pression current in all ages of the Christian
Church: see Suicer in voc. 22.] Or
are we provoking (is it our wish to pro-
voke, that He may assert His power) the
Lord (Christ) to jealousy (by dividing our
participation between Him and devils) ?—
see ref. Deut., which evidently is before
the Apostle’s ind :— are we stronger than
He (are we then such, that we can afford
to defy His power to punish) ?
23—XI. 1.] Now that he has fully
handled the whole question of partaking in
idol feasts, and prepared the way for
specific directions as about a matter no
longer to be supposed indifferent, he pro-
ceeds to give those directions, accompany-
ing them with their reasons, as regards
€ vacbe
20 —27.
, - ? > > ,
23 Tlavra * t&eorw, add’ ov wavra
oS > » > ,
*efeorw, aAA ov warra %
* Cnretrw, adda *
IIPOS KOPINOIOYS A.
> ~
OlKOOOMEL.
b ~ e ,
0 TOU ETEOOU.
561
x B , s
Gs x ch. vi. 12
; del i ag 2 eth
t
unodeic * TO gauToU y Acts ix
~ Na cS , 2 see Matt. xvi.
25 pay TO év © paKkéA- 2.
a ver. 33.
d , ’ ’ \ e? f ‘\ bs 5.
Nw wwAovpevoy ecblete pndey Peo ers ua THY 3 Gor xii, 14.
fguveidnow' 298 Tui acu see
OUVELOHOIY’ ~ ou KUO (ov veh, ii. 1
yn is K t yap n yn Kal TO na nowLa bRom ta
aurne. EL i ‘eal upac TWY ariotwv Kal OéX ere Bes only t¢.
TO eveobat Tav TO ‘tra rie EVOV U i tole E oe ; only. Matt
a L Vv ontly. att.
e 4 4 B 4 pent x.2¥al. Gen,
xli. 56. e = Acts iv. 9 reff. f= ch. viii. 7. 2 Cor. i. 12. g PSA. xxiii.
1. xlix. 12, h = Mark viii. 20. Ps. xcv. 11. i= Matt. xxii.3,&c. Johnii.2al. Esth.
Ve 125 k = ch. vi. 6 reff. 1 = Mark vi. 41. Acts xvi. 34al. Gen. xliii. 31, 32.
28. rec (twice) ins woe bef efeor. (from ch vi. 12), with C3(1st time) HKLN% rel
(demid goth, 1st time) syir Chr Thdrt Orig-int Aug, :
txt ABC!DN'(F 17, once) am
(with fuld harl! lux tol) copt Clem Ath Damase Iren-int Tert.—om 1st clause (passing
from mayra to mayra) F 17.
24. for to (twice), ta A 47 Antch (Tert).
rec aft erepov ins exaoros (supple-
mentary : perhaps, as Mey, a reminiscence of Phil ii. 4), with D?3KL rel syrr goth
Chr Thdrt : om ABCD'FHR 17 latt coptt arm Clem lat-ff.
26. rec yap bef xupiov (transposn to more usual order, not observing the emphasis),
with AHKL rel Chr Thdrt: txt BCDFX a 17.
27. rec aft ec ins Se (for connexion; but thus perplexing the sense), with CDSHKL
rel (Syr) syr sah goth Thdrt, Damase Thl Cc:
aft amotwy ins es Serrvoy DF fuld! Ambrst
TavTa TA TapaTibeueva, A coptt.
Thdrt, Jacob-nisib Aug Ambrst.
Pelag Bede.
mutual offence or edification. 23. ]
He recurs to the plea of ch. vi. 12 ;—re-
asserts his modification of it, with a view,
after what has passed since, to shew its
reasonableness, and to introduce the fol-
lowing directions. oikodopet | viz. the
Christian body: tend to build up the
whole, or the individual parts, of that
spiritual temple, God’s oixodoun.
24.| Further following out of oixodope?.
This ought to be our object: the bringing
on one another to perfection, not the
pleasing ourselves, see Rom. xv. 2,3. In
the second clause, €xactos must be sup-
plied from pndeis (hence it has found its
way into the rec.): so Plat. Rep. ii. p. 366
D, ovdels Exay Sikatos, GAN .... Weyer
Td &iKov,—i. e. ExaoTos Weyer. See Bern-
hardy, Syntax, p. 458. 25.| The key
to understanding this and the following
verse is, to remember that ovvelSynots is
used in each case of the conscience of the
person spoken of, i.e. in the two first cases,
that of the reader,—in the third, as ex-
plained by the Apostle, that of the weak
brother: see there. Every thing which
is being sold (offered for sale) in the
flesh-market (paxedXov is adopted from
the Latin. It was also used by the Rabbis,
in the form pon. See Stanley, and ex-
amples in Wetst.), eat, making no enquiry
(whether it is meat offered to idols or not),
on account of your conscience (to be joined
Vou. II.
om ABD'FN latt copt Antch Chr
with éo@lere und. avak., not with dvarpl-
voytes only,—as is shewn by the parallel
below, ver. 28,—where the reason given is
joined to éo@iere). The meaning being,—
‘eat without enquiry, that your conscience
may not be offended. If you made enquiry,
and heard in reply, that the meat had been
offered to idols, your conscience would be
offended, and you would eat 5:4 mpos-
Kkéupmatos to yourselves. De Wette, al.,
understand thy ovy., all through, of the
conscience of another, and apply to all the
explanation of ver. 29. But as Meyer
well observes, no reader could possibly
refer thy cuveld. to any one but himself,
no other person having been mentioned,
until ver. 28, where éxefvoy toy pnvv-
cavta is introduced, and thy ouveldnow
is to be referred (but even then not with-
out special explanation given) to the new
subject. 26.| The principle on which
such an eating ought to rest: that all is
Gop’s, and for our use: and where no
subjective scruple is cast in, all to be freely
partaken of : see 1 Tim. iv. 4. 27. |
The same maxim applied to their conduct
at a banquet given by a heathen. A mis-
cellaneous banquet, and not a sacrificial
feast, is meant. At such, there might be
meat which had been offered to idols.
Grot. says. well on 6éAeTe mopever Gat,
« Admonet tacite, melius forte facturos, si
non eant:; ire tamen non es pag supra,
fe)
562 IIPOX KOPINOIOY®= A. X. 28—33.
? , nN N f I> ys , Ate
m here only +. r avakolvovTec dia thy * cuvetOnow 28 tay Oé Tic) Up shag
e 5 .
; ” me e 4 , > ‘ , , , , - ‘
john -97- glen Touro “tepoburov tori, pn eoOiere ou Eketvoy Tov bedef
. d ghkl
30 only t. n , \ ‘ f is 99 f id 8s o X , mnol
2 Macc.iti.7. MNVUTAVTA Kal TIVY GuVElonaiy. TUVELONALY OF Eyw
37 Fog ov S ~ pis = 2 rAX ‘ . b oop, Ris q%,, <: 4
6m AS xi tnv Peavtov, adda thy “tov Erepou. “iva TL yao
reff. ’ ' ' ERS ” f , f
2nd persis n "eAevOepia frou Kolverae u7o * adAne ‘ cuvednoewe } es
2 Cor. vn. 1a .
reff. BO pene at Ae u : i y W oqre y ABCDF
ais el eyo ‘yapite “pweréyw, th“ BAagdnnovpat “ UTEP ov ABCD
only. Matt. » sS x 9 ee aS Ny pF es ? 01 a / 7 Nida fg
ix.d. xxvii, EYW ~ EVXAPLOTH 5 eite ouv eoUleTe ELTE TLVETE ELTE TL
46. Luke ; hkim
xiii.7. Acts iv. 26. vii. 26only. Gen. iv. 6. r= Gal. ii. 4. v. 1, 13 al. s = Job xix.27 vat. no 17
t — Rom. vi. 17 reff. dat., Rom. iv. 19. see note. u ch. ix. 10, 12 reff. v = Rom. iii.
w ellips., ch, vii. 1 al. x = Rom. xiv. 6. i. 8 al. absol., ch. xi. 24 reff.
8 reff.
y so ch. iii. 22 reff.
28. om vuw F latt goth Tert Aug). rec (for tepo8.) etSwAobuTor (see notes),
with CDFKL rel Chr Thdrt: tmmolaticium D-lat F-lat [in ver 19 simulacro immolatuin
D-lat, idolis immolatum F-lat vulg]: txt ABHN sah Eus (Clem). om eke.vov Toy
pnvucavta ka F Ambrst. rec at end ins Tov yap kuptov 7 yn Kat TO TWANPwLaA avTnS
(repetition from ver 26: see also on ver 31), with H?KL rel syr goth Chr Thdrt Phot
(Ee Thl: om ABCDFH!'N 17 latt Syr coptt arm Damase Aug Ambrst Pelag Bede.
29. for ovx, ov D'. for eavtov, euavtrov H m: ceavtov D!: tuam att.
for adAns, amiorou F D-lat G-lat Ambr Jer Sedul Primas (txt Aug Ambrst Pelag Bede).
30. rec aft e:-ins 5 (supplementary, but disturbing the sense), with (none of our mss)
Cc: om ABCDFKLX rel vss Clem Cyr.
cap.v.10.” On 81a. 7. cvvetd., see above,
ver. 25. 28.| Who is the person sup-
posed to say this? not, as Grot., al., think,
the host, of whom tts could hardly be said,
but it would stand éay S€ buty e%m): nor,
as Chrys., Theophyl., al., and De Wette,
—some heathen guest, by whom De W.
imagines it said maliciously, or to put the
Christian to the proof,—for his cuvelSnots.
would hardly be so much taken into ac-
count in the matter; but, as Neander, Pfl.
u. Leit. p. 399, and Meyer,—some weak
Christian, wishing to warn his brother.
iepdOvrov is apparently placed advisedly, to
represent what would be said at a heathen’s
table. De W. supposes it on this very
account to bea correction: but surely this
is giving a corrector credit for more fine-
ness of discrimination than they ordinarily
shew. Much more probable is it, that the
unusual and apparently incorrect tepddurov
should give place to the ordinary and more
exact term. Sv dk. T. pyv....] On
account of the man who informed you,
and (kal specifying the particular point or
points to which the more general preceding
clause applies: as, T@vde elveka, Kal vijs
iuépw ... kal pddiwora TH xpnoTnplw ml-
guvos eav, kal tloacOa OéAwy.....
Herod. i.73. See Hartung, Partikellehre,
i. 145) conscience: i.e. to spare the in-
former being wounded in his conscience.
29.] Explanation of the last 5a thy
cuveldnoiw, as meaning not your own, but
that of the informer. 'True to his inter-
pretation (see above), De W. supposes rob
érépov not to refer to roy unrvicayra, but
to ‘your weak Christian brother ;? but then
how very harsh and clumsy are the various
references to understood persons ; — and
how simple, on the other interpretation, is
the reference in each case of Thy cvv. to the
subject of the clause. _ Wa th yap |
For why is my freedom judged by a
conscience not mine own?—i.e. ‘ Why
should I be so treated (hazard by my
actions such treatment) that the exercise of
my Christian freedom, eating as I do and
giving thanks, should become matter of
condemnation to another, who conscien-
tiously disapproves of it? If (no copula)
I partake thankfully (dat. of the manner,
cf. Soph. Antig. 616, codla yap &« Tov
kAewov ros mépavrat,—and Bernhardy,
Syntax, p. 101), why am I to be spoken
ill of for that for which I give thanks?
These words have been misunderstood. It
has been generally supposed that the Apos-
tle is impressing a duty, not to give occa-
sion for the condemnation of their liberty
by another’s conscience. But the ground on
which he is here arguing, is the unfitness,
absurdity, injustice to oneself and the cause
of God, ver. 31, of so acting as to be con-
demned for that in which a man not only
allows himself, but for which he gives
thanks to God. Thesentiment is the same
as in Rom. xiv. 16, wh BAarpnuclobw
buady 7d ayabdr. The emphasis is each
time on eyo. 31—XI. 1.] General
conclusion of this part of the Epistle,
—enforced by the example of himself.
31.] This ere ody . . . ., passing
from the special to the general, is not with-
=
XI. 1—3.
- ,
TOLELTE, TAaVTAa
, , ~ ~
2 sic Ookav Oeov outers.
IIPOZ KOPINOIOYS A. 563
19) ’ ,
32 a amoocKkorrot 7 Rom: ¥.7-
~ Eph.i.6al.
ed ~
Kat Tovdaiore yiveabe kat” EAXnow Kat TY * exkAnota TOU a Acts xxiv. 16.
b are ‘ ? ‘ , ~
Meou 33 KkaQwe kayw . TAaAVTa TAGLV
~ >
TO EuavTou ‘obupopoy, a\Xa ro
Ooow. XI. ih mupenral fie ae Kkaboc kaye Xptarov. °
2'’Eraweo bo: tuac Ore
‘ l , eres A
eat mapeduka vu = Tac
° édw SE U vpac ° etdévat Ort Tavroc avdoog 7 Kepadn
h ch. iv. 16 reff.
8. 2 Pet. ii. 21. Jude 3
(xxxxii.) 4. xii, (xxxiv.) 2 only.
14, x. 23f. o Col. ii
31. Ist morerre bef ts DF.
Tov yap kuptov n yn Ke (as in ver 28) C3.
5 tw
“qavra pov
: Tapadocete
om 2nd moere F Ambrst (Gaud).
il. i. 10
only +. P.
Sir, xxxv.
(xxxii.) 21
only.
Dich. 1. 2 reff.
Fels xx. 35
* Cntwy
S Todor, wa ow-
F: a ee) N
apeoKW, {12}
ff) \d eee viii. 8
* neuro re KQl reff.
e ver, 24,
f ch. vii. 35
onlyt. Eccl.
¢ ii. 3Symm.
O g— Rom. v.15
= Karey Ete.
i Luke xvi. 8. Rom. xv. 11. vy. 17,22 only. w. ot, Eccles. viii. 15.
k=2Tim.i.4. Heb. xiii.3. Prov. xxxi. (xxiv.) 7
-m = Matt. xv.2. Gal.i.14. 2 Thess. ii. 15. iii. 6al.t Jer. XXxix,
l= Luke i. 2. Acts xvi. 4, ver. 23. ch. xv.
n = Luke viii. 15, ch. xy. 2, 1 Thess, v.21. Heb. iii. 6,
at end add
82. rec yiveode bef Kar covdators, with DK LN? rel: yiv. covd. re F: txt ABCR! m 17
Orig Cyr Did.
33. for mavtra traci, maow Kata maytTa F.
om 2nd To F.
DFKLN? rel Orig: txt ABCR?.
rec guupepov (more usual), with
Cuap. XI. 2. rec aft vuas ins adeApo (addition at beginning of a new section), with
DFKL rel vss (add jov Syr al) Thdrt: om ABCN a coptt wth arm Ath Cyr-jer Bas
Chr Thl-comm Oros.
om ca A! 0 57.
ins mavtaxov bef mapedwxa EF D-lat
Ambrst.(In F, whique is not written in the Latin column but inserted over the Greek
word.) mapadcdwia &.
mapadooes ins wov D'¥F Jatt lat-ff.
out reference to the last verse, in which
the hypothesis is, that the Christian and
thankful act of the believer is marred by
the condemnatory judgment of his weak
brother. All such hindrances to God’s
glory they are to avoid; and in all things,
eating or drinking, or any other particular
of conduct (r1, any thing, the stress being
on wovetre,—Wwhether ye eat or drink, or
do any thing; not as E. V. whatever ye
do,—étwovv), the glory of God is to be
the aim, self-regard being set aside: and
so,— 82. | all offence is to be avoided
(it being understood that this refers to
adidpopa, for in other things, both Jews
and Greeks must be offended, see ch. i. 23),
whether to Jews or Heathens (both these
out of the Church), 07 to the Church of
God (their own brethren). 33.] His
own course of conduct :—As TI in all things
(aceus. of that on which the subject acts,
or over which the quality predicated ex-
tends, as in @Ay@ Ty Kepadhy ;—so Tov
mdvr evdaluovos vABov, Soph. Gd. Tyr.
1197. See Kiihner, ii. 222.4) please (‘am
pleasing :’ as Meyer well remarks, not the
result, but the practice on Paul’s part;
for maow apécxew tov cuuBovaAcvoyTa kK.
Ta KoWa mpatrovTa advvaroy, Demosth.
1481. 4). €pavTov and tav 7roAd@y are
opposed : see ver. 24. tva owd., his
om vuw F(and G-lat, not F-lat) Ambrst. aft
ins ovtws bef «arexete C eth Ath, Chr.
great aim and end ;—so ch. ix. 22.
XI. 1.] Kayo, scil. wyuunths yéyova. » Com-
pare on the sense, Phil. ii. 4, 5.
XI. 2—34.] REPROOFS AND DIREC-
TIONS REGARDING CERTAIN DISORDERS
WHICH HAD ARISEN IN THEIR ASSEM-
BLIES: viz. (1) THE NOT VEILING OF
THEIR WOMEN IN PUBLIC PRAYER (vy.
2—16): (2) THE ABUSE OF THE a@yatrat
(17—34). 2—16.| The law of
subjection of the woman to the man (2—
12), and natural decency itself (13—16),
teach that women should be veiled in
public religious assemblies. 2.] 8é,
implying a distinction from the spirit of
the last passage, which was one of blame,
and exhortation to imitate him. He praises
them for the degree in which they did this
already, and expresses it by the slighter
word péurnobe. mavta, see above,
on ch. x. 33. And ye keep (continue
to believe and practise) the traditions
(apostolic maxims of faith and practice,
delivered either orally or in writing,
2 Thess. ii. 15), according as (according
to the words in which) I delivered (them)
to you. This was their general practice :
the exceptions to it, or departures at all
events from the spirit of those wapadécets,
now follow. 8.] “It appears, that
the Christian women at Corinth claimed
O02
564
p absol., Matt.
vi. 5, &c.
Luke iii. 21,
Acts vi. 6.
~ -~ ¢ ‘eo 4
TOU YotoTOU O ede.
q = Acts xix.
6. ch. xiii. 9. xiv. 1, &c.
8. om Ist Se F(and G-lat, not F-lat) syr Ambrst.
rec om tov bef xpiorov, with CFKL rel Chr,
(In B “6 superadditur” Vere.)
IIPOX KOPINOIOYS A.
r (Mark xiy. 3 rec.) and ellips., Esth. vi. 12.
XI.
, e ’ , ‘ ‘
Xoloroc EOTLV, kepada) Oe yuvatkoc o avno, kepadn Oe
~ ‘ *
Tac avip P T POCEVYOMEVOS n ‘meo-
¢ r <r ~ a s , ‘ x
gutevwy Kata Kepadne EX@V KaTaloyuver THY Kepadnv
8s = ch. i. 27. ver. 22.
om o bef xpioros B'D'F.
Thdrt Damase Th], Ec,: ins ABDX m 17 Clem Chr, Thl, Ec.
for their sex an equality with the other,
taking occasion by the doctrine of Chris-
tian freedom and abolition of sexual dis-
tinctions in Christ (Gal. ii, 28). The
gospel unquestionably did much for the
emancipation of women, who in the East
and among the Ionian Greeks (not among
the Dorians and the Romans) were kept
in unworthy dependence. Still this was
effected in a quiet and gradual manner ;
whereas in Corinth they seem to have
taken up the cause of female independence
somewhat too eagerly. The women over-
stepped the bounds of their sex, in coming
forward to pray and to prophesy in the
assembled church with uncovered heads.
Both of these the Apostle disapproved,—
as well their coming forward to pray and
to prophesy, as their removing the veil:
here however he blames the latter practice
only, and reserves the former till ch. xiv.
34. In order to confine the women to
their true limits, he reminds them of their
subjection to the man, to whom again he
assigns his place in the spiritual order of
creation, and traces this precedence up to
God Himself.’ De Wette. TOVTOS
avipdés}] ‘of every Christian man’ (as
Chrys., al., Meyer, De W.), certainly, —
and for such the Apostle was writing: but
not only of every Christian man: the Head-
ship of Christ is over all things to His
Church, Eph. i. 22, and thus He is Head
of every man, The word kepadh in
each case means the head next above. This
must be borne in mind, for Christ is THE
Heap of the Christian woman, as well as of
the Christian man. God is the Head of
Christ, not only according te His human
Nature: the Son is, in his Sonship, neces-
sarily subordinate to the Father: see ch.
iii. 23, note, and ch. xv. 28. From xpiortds,
the order descends first: then, in order
to complete the whole, ascends up to God.
Observe that though (Gal. iii. 28) the
distinction of the sexes is abolished in
Christ, as far as the offer of and standing
in grace is concerned, yet for practical
purposes, and for order and seemliness, it
subsists and must be observed. a5)
The case of the man here treated, was
regarded by the ancient Commentators,
Chrys., Theodoret, Theophyl., Ce., and
Grot., Mosh., al., as an actually occurring
one among the Corinthians: —but by recent
ones, since Storr and Bengel, as hypotheti-
cally put, to bring out that other abuse
which really had occurred. Had it been
real, more would have been said on it be-
low: but from ver. 5 onwards, attention is
confined to the woman. Tposevx. pray-
ing in public: ampod. discoursing
in the spirit; see on ch. xii. 10.
Kata Ked. €xwv]| scil.t1. The Jews when
praying in public put over their heads a veil,
called the Tallith, to shew their reverence
before God and their unworthiness to look
on Him: Lightf., Hor. Heb. in loc. Gro-
tius’s note on the Greek and Roman cus-
toms is important :—‘t Apud Grecos mos
fuit sacra facere capite aperto. _ Legendum
enim apud Macrob. i. Saturn. 8. Jilie
Greco ritu capite aperto res divina fit,
apparet ex loco ejusdem libri c. 10, ubi
itidem de Saturno agitur, et sacrum ei fieri
dicitur aperto capite ritu peregrino; et
ex loco iii. 6, ubi Varronem ait dicere,
Greeci hoc esse moris, aperto capite sacri-
ficare. dmapakad’mTw Kepadh ait de
ejusdem Saturni sacris agens Plutarchus
in Romanis questionibus. Lucem facere
id dici solitum Festus testatur. Eodem
modo, id est aperto capite, etiam Herculi
in ara maxima sacrum fieri solere testa-
tur, preter Macrobium dicto libro iii. 6,
Dion. Hal. lib. i., nimirum quia id sacrum
institutum erat ab Evandro homine Greco.
Sed Auneas (?) contrarium morem in Ita-
liam intulit sacra faciendi velato capite, ne
quod malum omen oculis aut auribus obve-
niret: ut Virg. nos docet Ain. iii. et ad
eum Servius, et in Breviario Aurelius Vic-
tor: sed et Plutarchus in Romanis ques-
tionibus. Et ejus moris etiam Plautus
meminit in comeediis quibusdam: ut solet
admiscere Romana Grecis. Paulus Greecis
Corinthiis scribens Gracum prefert mo-
rem, et causas adfert quales ferebat negotii
natura. Ex Pauli prescripto perpetuo
hune morem tenuere Christiani veteres.
Tertul. Apologetico: ‘Illue suspicientes
Christiani manibus expansis, quia innocui :
capite nudo, quia non erubescimus : deni-
que sine monitore, quia de pectore oramus,’
ABCDF
KLNab
edefg
hkim
nol7
7 Es TIIPOS KOPINOIOYS A. 565
> ~ 5 ~ \ ‘ , ba ,
avrov. ° maca o& yurn ? ToOCEVYOMEVY 1) 7 TPOPNTEVOVGA tT. 13 only.
i , “as , ‘ 3 ‘ F (there also
axatakaXtTTw Ty kepady Katatoyuve. THY kega WY w.Key.)
im i , > a \ x SPS ry ae , 6. cules Polyb.
, A owe
nite : tv yao oo Kal TO ee ™ EQuonuevy. et da. Winer,
w 4 : is
yao ov “ katakaXvarerat yurn, Kat * Keipacdw" a Ce ee
uch. xii. (9) 11
, ‘ \ \ x , n ~
alsxpov yuvatkt *r0 * KsioasBa 7 * Evoacba, “ Karaxa-
woperher ANutrécOw. 7 aviio ev yap ovk “ogethe “ katakaXvare- &
: « v here bis.
ofa thy Kepadny, Peikwv Kat °doca Oeav * UTapywv" My Acts xxi 24
Acts viii. 32. xviii. 18
y only. constr.,
here only.
see 1 Pet. v.
+ Kata-
Kah. thy
fb vi. 9. w here (3ce) only. Gen. xxxviii. 15 al. x here bis. L.
ABCDF only. 2 Kings xiv. 26. ych. xiv.35. Eph.y.12. Tit.i,ll only. P. Gen, xli. 3, &c. only.
KLNac zZ constr., Phil. i. 21. a= Acts xvii. 29. Rom xv. 1. b Rom. viii, 2Y reff. GEN. i.
26, 27. c = Ps, xviii. 1, d Acts viii. 16 reff.
defgh
klmo
5. for maca de, cat 7. A Syr.
om Ty
D'F. rec for avrns, eautns (see note),
with BD°KL rel Orig: txt ACDFLN a b! d g? h 0 17 Chr Thdrt.
6. aft KeipacOw ins n tvpacéw B.
7. ree om 7 (conforming to the preceding and following), with CD3KLN! rel Chr
&ce. Nihil hue pertinet mos Septentrionis
in reverentiz signum caput velandi, qui
quanquam per Germanicas nationes late
manavit, et Judzis tamen et Grecis, et ve-
teri Italie fuit incognitus.” KaTaLoX.
7. keh. avtov| dishonours his Head,
i. e. Christ : not, his own head literally, —
except in so far as the literal and meta-
phorical senses are both included,—the
(literal) head of the man being regarded as
the representative of his spiritual Head.
See this brought out in Stanley’s note:
for the head of the man in this respect of
honouring or dishonouring, has been, ver.
3, explained to be Curist. Him he dis-
honours, by appearing veiled before men,
thus recognizing subjection to them in an
assembly which ought to be conformed to
Christian order. 5.] The case of the
woman is just the converse. She, if she
uncovers herself (on the manner of cover-
ing, see below ver. 15, note) in such an
assembly, dishonours her head (the man ;
not, as Meyer and many others, literally,
her own head [but see above]: of this
kind of dishonour there is no mention at
all in our passage, and ver. 3 has expressly
guarded us against making the mistake)
by apparently casting off his headship:
and if this is to be so, the Apostle pro-
ceeds, why not go further and cut off her
hair, which of itself is a token of this sub-
jection ? Butif this be acknowledged to be
shameful (it was a punishment of adulter-
esses, see Wetst. in loc. and Tacit. Germ.
19), let the further decency of the addi-
tional covering be conceded likewise.
The reading éauvt7js may have arisen from
faneying that her own head is meant.
ev... éoTw kK. TO aid] she: not it, rd
a&katakdAumtTov eivat. The neut. is used
because the identity is generic, not indivi-
dual: cf. Eur. Med. 928,—-yuvy 5€ @7Au
kam) Saxpvors pv, and other examples in
Kihner, ii. 45 (§ 421). 6.] the ar-
gument see above. ov kat.,—is to be
unveiled, the pres. indicating the normal
habit. kal Ketp., let her axso, besides
being unveiled, &ce. ketp. 4 Eup. |
‘plus est radi quam tonderi,’ Grot.
7—9.| A second reason for the same,—
Srom the dependence of the man on God
only, but of the woman on the man.
7.] ydp refers back to and gives a reason
for karaxadurtéoOw, the difference be-
tween the sexes being assumed,—that one
should be and the other should not be
veiled. The emphasis is accordingly on
avip. ov« Odetder, should not,
ought not: see reff. eixav Oeod, ref.
Gen. This the man is, having been created
first,—directly, and in a special manner :
the woman indirectly, only through the
man. x. Sd€a @.] And the (repre-
sentative of the) glory of God: on account
of his superiority and godlike attributes
among other created beings. This is ob-
viously the point here brought out, as in
Ps. viii. 6: not, that he is set to shew
forth God’s glory («is yap Sdtav @eob
opelre: 6 avip broreTaxOar TS OeG, Phot.
in cum.), however true that may be: nor,
as Estius, from Augustin, ‘quia in illo
Deus gloriatur: nor is 5ééa the repre-
sentative of the Heb. mia, Gen. i. 26
(duotwors), as Riickert, al., suppose, be-
cause the LX X have rendered myOA, Num.
xil. 8; Ps. xvii. 15, by 5déa: for, as Meyer
observes, in so well-known a passage as
Gen. i. 26, the Apostle could hardly fail
to have used the LXX word épolwors.
Man is God’s glory: He has put in
him His Majesty, and he represents God on
earth : woman is man’s glory : taken (ver.
8) from the man, shining (to follow out
Grotius’s similitude, “minus aliquid vero,
566
urn de © Oda avopoc tot.
IIPOS KOPINOIOYS A.
GH
8 > ip) ’ > oe ’
ov yap soTlv avnp EK
. > > \ x > ,
{arb yuvatkoc, artda yun 2 avdooc’ 9 kal yao ovK * exriaOn
f = as ordi- > 8 nN x - ’ 4 N N ny ” 8 10 § ‘
marily; e.g. VIP Ola THY yuvatka, aAXa yury Sta TOV avepa. 1a
pe
al. ir.
£ see note.
Damase: ins ABD!FX3 Dial Isid Thdrt.
10. » yuvn bef opetAce H m 17.
ut luna lumen minus sole”’) not with light
direct from God, but with light derived
from man, “7d OjAv, Bppev aredrés, phi-
losophis. Imperat materfamilias suze fa-
miliz, sed viri nomine.” Grot. This of
course is true only as regards her place
in creation, and her providential subor-
dination, not in respect of the depen-
dence of every woman’s individual soul
directly on God, noé on man, for supplies
of grace and preparations for glory. The
Apostle omits eicéy, because anthropologi-
cally the woman is not the image of the
man, on account of the difference of the
sexes: and also perhaps because thus he
would seem to deny to the woman the being
created in the divine image, which she is
as well as the man, Gen. i. 26, 27. The
former reason appears the more probable :
and so De W. and Meyer. “It may be
observed that, whereas in Genesis the gene-
ral character of man under the Hebrew
name answering to &@pw7os is the only
one brought forward, here it is merged in
the word éavfp, which only expresses his
relation to the woman.” Stanley. 8.]
yap gives the reason of the former assertion
yuvh dé&a avdpds,—yviz. that the man is
not (emphasis on éotiv, which prevents the
ex having a figurative sense, of dependence:
—‘takes not his being,’ in the fact of his
original creation. The propagation of the
species is not here in view) out of the
woman, but the woman out of the man
(compare Gen. ii. 23, KAnO@qoera yun, ort
€k TOU avdpos avTys éAypOn).
9.) For also (parallel with ver. 8—another
reason: not subordinate to it,as Meyer,
who renders éx in ver. 8, ‘dependent on,’
and regards this verse as giving the reason)
the man was not created (emphasis on
extioOn, as before on eotw) on account of
the woman, &c. In this verse, besides
the manner of creation, é« 70d avdpds, the
occasion of creation, 81a Toy &vdpa, is in-
sisted on; see Gen. ii. 18 ff. 10. |
Sia TovTO, on account of what has just
been said, by which the subordination of
the woman has been proved :—refers to vy.
7—9, not as Meyer, to ver. 9 only: for vy.
8, 9, give two parallel reasons for yur}
ddfa avdpés, the inference from which pro-
~ {2 yo Ou - ~
TUUTO * opeine n yun eCovatav © exe “emt TNC Kepadne
ins Tou bef avdpos IF.
position has not yet been given, but now
follows, with égetder answering to ovK
édetder above. od. 7 y. eovctav ey.
él tis Kep.| The woman ought te have
power (the sign of power or subjection ;
shewn by the context to mean @ veil). So
Diodor. Sic. 1. 47: eixéva.... etkoot m7y-
xa, pwovdAbov, éxovoay Tpeis BactActas
én) Tis Kepadys, &s Siaonuaivew éti Kab
Ouyarnp Kal yury Kal pntnp Baciréws
Smnpie, where BaotrAcrar evidently are
crowns, the tokens of kingdom. And as
there from the context it is plain that they
indicated participation in the glory of the
kingdoms, so here it is as evident from the
context that the token of efovcia indi-
cates being under power: and such token
is the covering. So Chrys. (7d kaddmre-
0a, brotayys Kk. ekovoias), Theodoret,
Theophyl. (7d rod etovordecOar otuBo-
Aov), Gicum., Beza, Grot., Est., Bengel,
Wolf, al., Billroth, Rickert, Olsh., Meyer,
De Wette. To enumerate the various
renderings would be impossible. Some of
the principal are, (1) a sign of power to
pray and prophesy in public, bestowed on
her by her husband. So Schrader, iv. 158:
but this would be quite irrelevant to the con-
text. (2) Some suppose éefovalay actually
to mean a veil, because the Heb. TT, fa
veil,’ comes from the root 71), ‘subjecit.
So Hammond, Le Clere. al. But (see
Lexx.) “ subjecit’ is not the primary, only
a tropical meaning: the primary meaning,
‘ extendit, diduxit,’ is much more likely to
have given rise to the substantive. It is
certainly a curious coincidence that the
Heb. terms should be thus allied,—and
that alliance may have been present to
the Apostle’s thoughts : but this does not
shew that he used etovola for a veil.
(8) Kypke would put a comma after éfouc.,
and render ‘propterea mulier potestati
obnoxia est, ita ut velamen (see ver. 4)
in capite habeat.’ But the sense of dget-
Aew 71 would require (see Lexx.) traxojy,
not éfovolay. (4) Pott renders, ‘mulie-
rem oportet servare jus (sive potestatem)
im caput suum, se. eo, quod illud velo
obtegat.’ But this, though philologically
allowable (see Rev. xi. 6; xx. 6; xiv. 18;
and with erdyw, Luke xix. 17), is entirely
H avnp
ABCDF
HKLNa
cdefg
hkim
017
8—11.
IIPOS KOPINOIOYS A. 567
ova Touc : ayyéXoue. il Any OUTE yun Xwoic avdooc Bim Asi ote:
i= Matt. Luke passim (not Mark, John, nor Luke in Acts).
only. Rey. ii. 25. Lam. iii. 5.
against the context, in which the woman
has no power over her own head, and on
that very account is to be covered. (5)
Hagenbach (in the Stud. und Krit. 1828,
p- 401) supposes efovcia here to mean her
origin, eé-ovcia from éé-eiut, as map-ovcla
from map-efus:—to shew that she (ver.
8) eotw e& avSpés. But apart from other
objections to this, it must thus be, thv
ef. or THv ef. ad’t7s. Other renderings
and conjectures may be seen in Meyer’s
note, from which the above is mainly taken :
and in Stanley’s. 81a. Tods ayyéovs |
n account of the angels: i.e. because in
the Christian assemblies the holy angels of
God are present, and delighting in the due
order and subordination of the ranks of
God’s servants,—and by a violation of that
order we should be giving offence to them.
See ref. So Chrys. (ob oldas Ott per” ay-
yéAwy Eatnkas; meT exelvwy des, met’
exelvay duvets, Kal EoTynKkas yeA@v; cited
by Hammond, but from what work of Chrys.
1 have not been able to find. In his com-
mentary on this passage he is not clear, but
seems to take this view,—e« yap Tov av-
dpbs Katadpovets, Pyal, Tovs ayyéAous ai-
décOnTt. In the Hom. on the Ascension,
vol. ii. pt. ii. p. 443 (Migne), he says, «é
BovaAc idety k. udptupas K. ayyéAous &vo.tov
THS wiaTews TovS OPOaruods, kK. BWer Td
Géatpov éxeivo’ ei yap mOs 6 ahp ayyeAwy
€umeTANTTAL, TWOAAG maAAov 7 eKKAnola
....67t yap Gras 6 ayp ayyéAwy eure-
TAnTTaL, &kovoov TL dnow 6 amdaTodAos,
evTpemwy Tas yuvaikas SsTe Exe KdAvLUG
em) THs Kepadrs “opetAovow K.T.A.”),
Grot. (whose note see in Pool), Estius,
Wolf, Riickert, Meyer, De Wette. (1)
Others, with a modification of this render-
ing, take tovs ayyéAous as the guardian
angels, appointed, one to take charge of
each Christian. So Theophyl. (7d ava-
KekKaArvpbat avaioxvyTiav eudaiverr hy Kab
oi Tois mioTOts Tapendmevor Byyedor Bde-
AvooovTa), Jerome (not Aug. de Trin. xii.
7, as Meyer, see below), Theodoret. But,
though such angels certainly do minister
to the heirs of salyation,—see Matt. xviii.
10, and note,—there does not appear to be
any immediate allusion to them here. (2
thers again understand ‘ bad angels,’ who
might themselves be lustfully excited; so
Tertull. de Virg. Vel. 7, vol. ii. p. 899,
“ propter angelos: scilicet quos legimus a
Deo et celo excidisse ob concupiscentiam
feeminarum.” See also cont. Marcion. v.
8, p. 488,—or might tempt men so to be,
narily; so Ps.
Cxxxvii. Ll.
Paul, Eph. v.33. Phil. i. 18. iii.16. iv.14
—Schéttgen, Mosh., al.,—or might in-
Jure the unveiled themselves: so, after Rab-
binical notions, Wetst. But of ayyedo.,
absol., never means any thing in the N. T.
except the holy angels of God. See, in
Stanley’s note, a modification of this view,
which is consistent with that meaning.
(3) Clem. Alex. fragm. ix. érorum. lib. iii.
(p. 1004 P.) says, a&yyéAous nal Tobds
ducaious x. evapérovs. (4) Beza, the
Christian prophets, “in ccetu loquentes
ut Dei nuncios et legatos.” (5) Ambrose,
the presidents of the assemblies. (6)
Lightf., the angeli or nuntii desponsatio-
num, persons deputed to bring about be-
trothals. (7) Rosenm., Schrader, and many
others, — exploratores vel speculatores :
“ Poterat nempe novee consuetudinis notitia
per amiocrovs speculatores in publicum
emanare, christianasque uxores tum Judzis,
de isto mulierum habitu pessime existiman-
tibus, tum Grecis quoque in suspicionem
rei christiane probrosissimam adducere.”
Rosenm. Against all these ingenious
interpretations is the plain sense of of &y-
yeAo: (Matt. xiii. 49. Mark i. 13. Luke
xvi. 22. chap. xiii. 1. Col. ii. 18. Heb. i.
4, 5, 7, 18, al.), which appears to me irre-
fragable. But still a question remains,
Wuy should the Apostle have here named
the angels, and adduced them as furnishing
a reason for women being veiled in the
Christian assemblies? Bengel has given
an acute, but not I believe the correct
answer: “mulier se tega¢ propter angelos,
i.e. quia etiam angeli teguntur. Sicut
ad Deum se habent angeli: sic ad virum
se habet mulier. Dei facies patet : velan-
tur angeli: Esa. vi. 2. Viri facies patet:
velatur mulier.” Surely this lies too far
off for any reader to supply without fur-
ther specification. Aug. de Trin. xii. 7
[10], vol. viii. p. 1004, gives an ingenious
reason: ‘“Grata est enim sanctis angelis
sacrata et pia significatio. Nam Deus non
ad tempus videt, nec aliquid novi fit in
Ejus visione atque scientia, cum aliquid
temporaliter aut transitorie geritur, sicut
inde afficiuntur sensus vel carnales anima-
lium et hominum, vel etiam ccelestes an-
gelorum.” (He makes no mention,—see
above,—of guardian angels.) I believe
the account given above to be the true
one, and the reason of adducing it to be,
that the Apostle has before his mind the
order of the universal church, and prefers
when speaking of the assemblies of Chris-
tians, to adduce those beings who, as not
568
k ver. 8 =f DS : nite fan
Ich rie: 4 OUTE AVIO Xwoelc Bee Ev poke
om, xi, 36, sata
ee xe K eK TOU avepoc Cy ourwe Kal
. Acts iv.
t = ete
oe Ps. tvii. 1 -arra EK TOU Ocov. 13} 2
n Matt. iii. 15 \ a
only. 1 Macc. anrey yuvaika
xii. 11 only.
(-7ex, Eph.
v.3. 1 Tim.
ii.10, Tit. ii
i Henin, TKOMG, “aTtwia avtw eotiy, }
Bees Yn Cte Sn ane Cavs ,
s. xiv
eeEnie: aut?) EOTLVY , OTL YY Kon)
Pp — Rom. i. 26
(reff.). ii. 27. xi. 21, 24. see James iii. 7.
only. Num. vi. 5. t = Luke xi. 11.
xxvi.6. Ps. ciii. 6.
IIPOS KOPIN@OIOY®S A.
q here bis only t.
XI.
9
12 wemep yep n yeen
O ap ova Tc yuvakoc, rd Oe
Ev vpy avroic ™ Kolvate’ mT peTov
° akatakaAumroy TW Dew moocedxeabat 5
14 odds 7 * pbare aura Sroeaice vac ort anne wey éav
TKoua, doka
¥ meo1[S0Aatou O<oorau
5 yuna) Oe Eav
CL De)
avTe
r Rom. i, 26 reff. s here
u Heb. i, 12 (from Ps. ci. 26) only. Exod. xxii. 27. Job
11. rec avnp xwpis yur. ovte yuvn xwpis avd. (appy more natural order), with D?KL
rel vulg syrr Chr Thdrt Pelag: txt ABCD! “FHS d m 17 coptt eth arm Clem Bas-sel
Damasce Sing-cler Ambrst Aug.
13. for ev viv avtois, vues avtot D vulg(not tol) lat-ff.
14. rec ins 7 bef ovde (addition to mark the interrogation), with D’KL rel syr-marg:
om ABCD'FHR 17 latt syrr coptt arm Tert Ambr Ambrst.
rec avtn bef n ducts,
with D?KL rel Chr Thdrt: om avtn Farm Tert: txt ABCD!"HX am 17 eth Damase.
aft wey ins yap &! (but marked for erasure).
15. avtn ded0Ta: CH ad m vulg(with F-lat) syr Damasc Ambr: om avty DFKL ef
h 1 al,,(Tischdf) Chr, Thdrt Gc Tert, :
entering into the gradation which he has
here described, are conceived as spectators
of the whole, delighted with the decency
and order of the servants of God. Stan-
ley thinks the most natural explanation of
the reference to be, that the Apostle was
led to it by a train of association familiar to
his readers, but lost to us: and compares
the intimations of a similar familiarity on
their part with the subjects of which he
was treating in 2 Thess. ii. 5—7.
11.] Yet is neither sex insulated and inde-
pendent of the other in the Christian life.
év kupt» is not the predicate (as Grot.,
&c.), — ‘neque viri exclusis mulieribus . .
participes sunt beneficiorum per Christum
partorum:’ nor does it mean according
to the ordinance of God, as Chrys., Beza,
Olsh.,—for the phrase év xupfw is well
known as applying to the Christian state,
in the Lord. See e.g. Rom. xvi. 2, 8, 11,
12 (bis), &e. 12.| And in this,
the Christian life accords with the ori-
ginal ordinance of God. For (proof of
ver. 11) as the woman is (was taken, Gen.
ii. 21 f.) out of the man, so the man is (is
born, in the propagation of the human race)
by means of the woman; but all things
(both man and woman and all things else:
a general maxim, see 2 Cor. v. 18) are of
(as their source,—thus uniting in one great
head both sexes and all creation) Ged.
They are dependent on one another, but
both on Him: the Christian life therefore,
which unites them in Christ, is agreeable to
God’s ordinance. 13.| Appeal to their
own sense of propriety : cf. ch. x. 15.
év tpiv avr. | Each man within himself, in
dedoTat avtn ABN cg k 017 G-lat Syr copit.
his own judgment. 14.| 4 ovots
avty, nature herself: i. e. re mere
fact of one sex being by nature unveiled,
i. e. having short hair,—the other, veiled,
i.e. having long hair. ‘This plainly de-
clares that man was intended to be wn-
covered,—woman, covered. When there-
fore we deal with the proprieties of the
artificial state, of clothing the body, we
must be regulated by nature’s suggestion :
that which she has indicated to be left
uncovered, we must so leave: that which
she has covered, when we clothe the body,
we must cover likewise. This is the argu-
ment. vous is not sense of natural pro-
priety, but NavTURE,—the law of creation.
kop.a | So Eustathius, ll. y. P- 288,
in Wetst., «duny d€ exew, Kal evKouov
elva, DS eiciaccetenty éotiv. 51d kal 6 Tapis
ovediCerat ws Kédunv éxwv. On ovois
and «oud Pool observes, ‘locus est vexa-
tissimus doctorum sententiis ;’ and gives a
note of four folio columns; and Bengel
has a long discussion on the lawfulness of
wigs. The Apostle (see above) makes
no allusion to the customs of nations in the
matter, nor is even the mention of them re-
levant. 15. | See on ver. 14: compare
Milton, Par. Lost, iv. 304 ff. qTrept-
Bédatov, properly a wrapper, or envelop-
ing garment: see reff., and Eurip. Here.
fur. 549, and in a metaphorical sense,
1269. ‘In this passage,” says Stanley,
‘the Apostle would refer to the ‘ peplum,’
which the Grecian women used ordinarily
as a shawl, but on public occasions as a
hood also, especially at funerals and mar-
riages.” See a woodcut in Smith’s Dict.
ABCDF
HKLNa
edefg
hkim
017
-.Jeov H.
ABCDF
KLNac
defgh
kIimo
Ny
12—18.
IPOS KOPINOIOYS A.
569
> =F, >a , ~ , 3
[avry | 16 ct O€ tec * SoKet ” piAovetkog Eval, mpieic ro.wauTny v = Lake xxii,
x , > of >O\
cuvnferav ovK EXomEY, VCE at
7 Totro be *
e ’ ,
Y7 exkAnotat TOU
mapayyéAAw ov ” émawwwv, Ore ovK *
yey ?
Gal. ii.
2 Ocov. e Prov. ii.
w here only.
gic Ezek. iii. 7
only. (-Kéa,
18s
\d = aAAX Ne 'C)8? Se CUS f t f)
TO KpéloooVv a a é¢ TO YWOoov OUVEP YEG &. TOW- Luke xxii.
24. -KELV;
Prov. x. 12.) x John xviii. 39. ch, viii. 7 v.r, onlyt. Proy. xvii. 9 Symm. (-Ons, 2 Mace.
iii. 31.) y plor., Rom. ave 16 reff. z ch. i, 2 reff. a Acts i. 4 reff.
ver, 2. c see Rom, xiii. d ch. vii. O reff. e = here (2 Cor. xii. 15)
onlyt. (Isa. xxiii. 8.) ey ‘Acts i. 6 reff. g [Rom. iii. 2.]
17. rec mapayyeAAwy ovk emaivw (see vv. 2 and 22), with C3(appy) D3(and lat) KL
di:
rel copt Chr Thdrt:
syrr eth arm Ambrst Aug Pelag Bede.
[adaAa, so ABCD 8 m!.]
of Antt. art. ‘peplum.’ 16.] Cuts off
the subject, already abundantly decided,
with asettlement of any possible difference,
by appeal to universal apostolic and eccle-
silastic custom. But if any man seems to
be contentious (i. e. ‘if any arises who ap-
pears to dispute the matter, who seems not
satisfied with the reasons I have given, but
is still disputatious ;’—this is the only ad-
missible sense of doxe7 in this construction :
see reff.:—for the meaning, ‘if 2 pleases
any one,’ &c. would require ti doxet: and
“if any one thinks that he may, &c. would
not agree with p:Aoveiketv, which is in itself
wrong). jets | declarative: let him
know that...; so, ef d€ KaTaxavxyaoat,
ov ov Ty pilav Baord ers, AAN 7 pila oe,
Rom. xi. 18. We,—the Apostles and their
immediate company,—including the women
who assembled in prayer and supplication
with them at their various stations, see
Acts xvi. 13. ToLvavTHy ovyyGerav | The
best modern Commentators, e. g. Meyer
and De Wette, agree with Chrys. in
understanding this, towavr. ovv7d., dst
pidovenceiv x. epiCew x. avTiTdtTecOa.
And so Ambrose, Beza, Calvin, Estius,
Calov., al. But surely it would be very
unlikely, that after so long a treatment
of a particular subject, the Apostle should
wind up all by merely a censure of a
fault common to their behaviour on this
and all the other matters of dispute. Such
a rendering seems to me almost to stultify
the conclusion :—‘If any will dispute about
it still, remember that it is neither our
practice, nor that of the Churches, fo dis-
pute. It would seem to me, but for the
weighty names on the other side, hardly
to admit of a question, that the cuv7@ea
alludes to the practice (see ref. John) of
women praying uncovered. So Theodoret,
Grot., Michaelis, Rosenm., Billroth, Olsh.,
al., and Theophyl.altern. He thus cuts off
all further disputation on the matter by
appealing to universal Christian usage :
and to make the appeal more solemn, adds
-Aw ovk -vw LD! 137 sah:
[nooov, so ABCDRN:
-Awy OVK -VwV txt AC'F 17 latt
[kperaoov, so ABCD!'FN 17.]
eAattoy F Thdrt: toov 17.]
Tov Oe00 to af €xxA.,—the assemblies which
are held in honour of and for prayer to
God, and are His own Churches. Obs. at
exkAnolar, not H exkAnala. The plurality
of independent testimonies to the absence
of the custom, is that on which the stress
islaid. This appeal, ‘to THE CHURCHES,’
was much heard again at the Reformation :
but has since been too much forgotten.
See, on the influence of this passage on
the Christian church, the general remarks
of Stanley, edn. 2, pp. 198—200.
17—34.| Correction of abuses regarding
the Agape and the partaking of the
Supper of the Lord. 17.| Refers
back to what has been said since ver. 2,
and forms a transition to what is yet to
be said. But this (viz. what has gone
before, respecting the veiling of women ;
not, as Chrys., Theophyl., Grot., Bengel,
al., that which follows : see below) I com-
mand you (not ‘announce to you, nor
‘declare to you from report,’ which are
senses of mapayy. unknown to the N. T.,
where it only means ‘¢o command, —
‘to deliver by way of precept :’ see reff.,
and ch. vil. 10; 1 Thess. iv. 11; 2 Thess.
ili. 4, 6, 10, 12. This makes it hardly
possible to refer tovrto to what follows ;
for if so, some definite command should
immediately succeed) not praising (refers
to the éraivé of ver. 2, and excepts what
has been said since from that category) ;
because you come together not for the
better (so that edification results) but
for the worse (so that propriety is
violated, and the result is to the hinder-
ing of the faith). These last words 67:
. guvépx. are introduced with a mani-
fest view to include more than the subject
hitherto treated, and to prepare the way
for other abuses of their assemblies to be
noticed. 18.] mpatov—where is the
second particular found, answering to this
mp@tov ? Ordinarily, it is assumed that
the oxiouara are the first abuse, the dis-
orders in the Agape (beginning with ver.
570
h =ch.v. 3.
2 Cor. ix. 1.
ich. i. 10 reff.
j Acts viii. 16
i ’ » Ci, easy
oKXlouaTa év UEly
reff.
k = here only.
Thucyd. ii.
64. iv. 30. = €k plépous, ch. xiii. 9, &c.
iv. 12 reff. n Acts v. 17 reff.
IIPOS KOPINOIOYS A.
1 = Matt. xxiv. 23, 26 al. fr. Job xxix. 24,
o Rom. xiv. 18 reff.
AE
gh \ bh ‘ f , ) ’ > nM ’ BLP
TOV ev yap OUVEPYOMEVWY urine’ Ev EKK We arkouw
Cole \ , is
uTaoyey, Kal MEOOC TL TLOTEVW,
19 m 3 ioe ‘ Nt: c.g ’ Capes hy A \ OM | s
él yap Kal alpeoelc €v UulY Etval, LWwa [xa] ou Oo-
m = Acts
18. rec ins ty bef exxAnoi (the meaning being mistaken: see note), with g h Ee
Thl: om ABCDFKLNW rel Chr Damase.
umapxew bef ev yaw D'SF vulg-ed arm:
om ev vay am(with demid fuld harl) Orig Ambrst Bede.
19. om Ist ev vu D!F latt Orig-int lat-ff (not Orig Archel Jer Primas): ins aft ewas
D3 Archel.
aft wa ins ka B D'(and lat) m 17 vulg sah Ambrst Pelag Bede: kat
wa katm!: om ACD3FKLN rel syrr copt «eth Orig Epiph Chr Thdrt Damasce Cypr.
20), the second. But I am convinced,
with Meyer, that this view is wrong. For
(1) neither special blame, nor correction of
abuse, is conveyed in vv. 18, 19: nor is it
so much as intimated, on the ordinary
hypothesis, what the character of these
oxlopata was. And (2) the words of ver.
22, emaiwéow buas ev TOUT; OK emaLVa,
plainly refer back to ver. 17, and shew that
the whole is continuous. Again (3) the
ovv of ver. 20, as so frequently,—see ch.
viii. 4, and Hartung, Partikellehre, ii. 22,
—resumes the subject broken off by kat
mépos...yev. ev duiv. The oxiopara
before the Apostle’s mind are, specifically,
those occurring at the Agapee,—but on the
mention of them, he breaks off to shew
that such divisions were to be no matters
of surprise, but were ordained to test
them,—and in ver. 20 he returns with the
very words, cuvepxouevwy tua@v,—to the
immediate matter in hand, and treats it at
length. See more on vy. 21 ff. But the
question still remains, where is the second
point, answering to this mp@toy? Again
with Meyer (and Macknight) I answer,—
at ch. xii. 1. The ABUSE OF SPIRITUAL
GiFts, which also created disorder in their
assemblies, ch. xiv. 23 al., and concerning
which he concludes, xiv. 40, mdvra evoxy-
pdvws kK. Kath Taki yiwéoOw,—was the
other point before his mind, when he
wrote this mpdrov. That he takes no
notice in ch. xii. 1, by any ére:ra dé or the
like, of what has gone before, will be no
objection to the above view to any one
but the merest tiro in our Apostle’s style.
There is a trajection of the drove,
which, in the sense, precedes cuvepx., ke.
éx éxxA.| in assembly; not local,
as E. V., ‘in the church, but = én) 7d
avd, ver. 20. cxiopata] of what
sort, is specified below ; viz. that he does
not here refer to the party dissensions of
ch. i. 10, nor could he say of them jépos
Tt tmorevw, but strictly to oxiouata
which took place at their meetings toge-
ther, viz. that each takes before other his
own supper, &c. So Chrys.: od Aéye,
akolw yap my Kowh buds ouvdermveiy
akovw Kat idlay buas éoTiacOa, Kal ph
peta TGV TeVATwY’ GAN 90 pdAtoTa ikaydy
qv avtey diaccioar Thy Sidvowav, TovTo
TéOeike, TH TOU TXiguaTos byoua, 0 Kal
tovtov jv altiovy and Theophyl., Cc.,
Kst., Pise., Grot., which last remarks,
‘Accidebat jam illis temporibus, quod
nostris multo magis evenit, ut res in-
stituta ad concorporandos fideles in vex-
illum schismatis verteretur.’ K. .€pos
7m. mot.| Said in gentleness: q.d. “<I
am unwilling to believe a// I hear con-
cerning the point, but some (hardly
‘much, ‘in great part,’ as Stanley: nor
do his testimonies from Thucyd. i. 23 ;
vil. 30, bear out this meaning. It might,
of course, lie beneath the surface, but is
not given by mépos te) I cannot help
believing.” 19.] Sez, in the divine
appointment, the fa which follows ex-
pressing G'od’s purpose thereby. Our
Lord had said avaynn éAdety TH okdvdadra,
Matt. xviii, 7:—and Justin Martyr,
Tryph. 385, p. 182, quotes among His say-
ings prophetic of division in the church,
€covTa: oXiouaTa K. aipécets. From the
pointed manner in which de? yap Kat
aipégets ... is said, I should be inclined
to think that the Apostle tacitly referred
to the same saying of our Lord : for there
must be (not only dissensions, but) even
heresies (not in the ecclesiastical or doc-
trinal sense,— as Pelag., Est., Calv., Beza,
—see reff, but indicating a further and
more matured separation, where not only
is there present dissension, as in the
Agape, but a deliberate choice and main-
tenance of party distinction. It does not
appear, in spite of all that has been written
in Germany on the supposed parties of ch.
i. 10, that such separations had yet taken
place among the Corinthians. Nor even
in Clement’s Epistle, forty years after
this, do we find any allusion to such, but
only, as here, to a general spirit of dis-
sension and variance, see chaps. iii. and
xiv., pp. 213, 257. Chrys. would refer
aip. only to the Agape: ov Tavtas Aé€yet
ABCDF
KLRac
defgh
klmo
17
19—22. IIPOS KOPINOIOY®S A. 571
Pp ong py ’ ro 20 f4 , * Mack vila
Ktuol paveoot 3 yévwvTat ev upulv. GUVEDY OMEVWY Ovuvy P Lake vii. 7.
Laat qr 2 \ “ aN ? Da s ‘ t 8 - ~ . ~ Aets vii. 13.
ULWwY ETL TO AUTO OUVUK EGTLV Kuplakov ELT VOV payev ch. iii. 13.
Q¢ ‘ Sy asf ta7 u , v? ~ xiv. 25. Phil.
ékaoToc ‘yap TO ioLov OetmVvov mpoXauBave ev TW ee
ii. 16.
- \ “a \ = a AC Wg , ) ‘ A
payely, Kal “ oc pev * weiva, “ o¢ 88 peObe. 77? uA yee” G2 me
; ’ q ch. xiv. 23.
, CA eee) a ar 2? ye \ ' Prey ~ c
OLKLAC ~ OWK EXETE ELC TO coOlav Kal Tivetv; > N TNE © EK- r Acts i. 15
rel.
s Rev.i. 10 only t.
xiy. 8. Gal. vi. lonly+. Wisd. xvii. 17 only.
8. Acts xxvii.44. Rom. xiv. 5. 2 Cor. ii. 16 al.
Xxv. 21) al.
y Acts ii. 15 reff.
iv. 11 reff.
b = ch. x. 22.
t John xiii. 2, 4. xxi. 20 al. Dan.i. 16 (v. 1 Theod.) only.
u Mark
y Acts ix. 3 reff. w = Matt. xiii.
x Matt. iv. 2. Rom. xii. 20 (from Prov.
z Rom. x. 18, 19. ch. ix. 4, 5 only. P. a Rom.
ce ch. i. 2 reff.
om 2nd ev vu C(Orig ?) Chr Epiph Damasc-comm Jer.
20. om ovy D}(and lat) F Clem Chr: 5¢ 17.
om D-lat: jam non est vulg(and F-lat) lat-ff.
al(Tischdf) Zonar.
21. mposdapBaver A 46. 106-8-222
for eorw, ett D! F(and G-lat) :
gaye: Rt.
for ev Tw, emt Tw DF:
ad vulg(and F-lat) E-lat: es tw (= 70) 17, in manducandum G-lat : in manducando
D-lat.
Tas T&V SoyudTwv, GAAG Tas TOV TXITME-
twv TovtTwy,—and so Theophyl., ec. But
this hardly justifies the climax, Se? yap
kal aip.) among you, that the approved
[also| (i.e. as well as the other party,
who would become manifest by their very
conduct) may be made manifest among
you; viz. through a better and nobler
spirit being shewn by them, than by the
contentious and separatists. 20. |
The same subject—resumed from the
cuvepx. of yer. 18: see notes on mp@Tor.
When then ye come together (are as-
sembling, pres. and perhaps here, where
he deals with particulars, to be pressed, —
as their intention in thus assembling is
blamed) to one place (reff. Acts) it is not
to eat (with any idea of eating. But
Meyer, Bengel, and many others, render
ove tory here, ‘non licet, as in ok oTw
cimety and the like: De Wette, after
Hstius, al., as E. V., ‘this is not, ‘ cannot
be called,’—‘id quod agitis, non est,
But the greediness which is blamed, seems
to refer ovx aT to the cvvépxecOa, and
gayeiv to the motive =iva payijre) the
Supper of the Lord (emphasis on kupiardy,
as opposed to Y:ov below). Kup.
Seimv.| ‘the Supper instituted by the
Lord’ This was an inseparable adjunct,
in the apostolic times, to their agape or
feasts of love. Chrys. on ver. 17, and
Tertull. Apol. § 39, vol. i. pp. 474 ff., give
an ample description of these feasts, which
were of the nature of épavo:, or mutual
contributions, where each who was able
brought his own portion,—and the rich,
additional portions for the poor. See Xen.
Mem. iii. 14, in which the circumstances
bear a remarkable similarity to those in
the Corinthian church. Not before this
feast, as Chrys. (uwet& thy TOv pvoTypiwy
Kowwrlay ém Koh Waves Hegav EVwxIay),
al.,—but during and after it, as shewn by
the institution, by the custom at the Pass-
over, by the context here, and by the rem-
nants of the ancient custom and its abuse
until forbidden by the council of Carthage,
—the ancient Christians partook of the
Supper of the Lord. The best account of
this matter is to be found in the note in
Pool’s Synopsis on Matt. xxvi. 26. It
was necessary for the celebration of the
Lord’s Supper that all should eat of the
same bread and drink of the same cup ; and
in all probability, that a prayer should be
offered, and words of consecration said, by
the appointed ministers. Hence cessation
of the feast itself, and solemn order and
silence, would be necessitated even by the
outward requirements of the ordinance.
These could not be obtained, where each
man was greedily devouring that which he
had brought with him : where the extremes
were seen, of one craving, and another being
drunken. ‘This being their practice, there
could be no intention of celebrating the
Lord’s Supper,—no discernment of the
solemnity of it. On the whole subject,
see Stanley’s note. 21.| mpoX., as in
E. V., takes before another; viz. during the
feast (ev 76 o.), not, at home, before coming.
Obviously the €kac70s must be limited to
the rich : the poor had no Yé:ov detrvoy to
take, and were the losers by the selfishness
of the rich. mewvg | one is craving
(the poor), another is drunken (the rich.
There is no need to soften the meaning of
weve: as Meyer says, “ Paul draws the
picture in strong colours, and who can say
that the reality was less strong ?”’).
22.| For (a reason for the blame in the
foregoing: this should not be: for) have
you no houses, to eat, &c.: meaning, ‘at
home is the place to satiate the appetite,
not the assembly of the brethren’ Or
XI.
572 IIPOS KOPINOIOY®S A.
rc , “ce ~ d = Ve , Q
d Matt. xviii. KAnotac tov ° Beou kaTapoovelre, Kal KQTALOYUVETE TOUC
’
al Rom f , 7 BS fel, el Nana ae , ces 5 :
iii, un EyovTa TL ELTW VULY ETALVEOW UVELAC EV TOUTW
xiii. 13. py x ’ u b) we?
ech. i, 27 ’ g? - 6) Te eS Ny h ZN > ‘ ~ ’
Abs. 1), OUK © ETatvW. gy yao ~ mTavtAapov amo Tov Kuplou
aes ‘ ~ "A ven , cc - e € , > ~ > ~ \
Neh. vii O Kal rapéowka uml, OTL O KUOLOC Incove ev TY VUKTL
10 (2). @k Ny 7 ” 94 VOD ’ mv
ee | TapeolorTo eAaPev apToyv, ~~ Kal oo ees ekAa
< \ a - n? X sy ‘ CO} ite
8, ett Gey Kal elmevy Touro pov “éoritvy TO cwa TO UTEO
e ~ * ~ - P 2 4 ’ “ q ? , 95 res
UMWVY TOUTO TOLELTE ELC TYV EMNV § AVAMIN OLY. WC-
labsol., LUKE xxii. 19. Rom.i. (8 reff.) 21. ch. xiv. 17 al.t Wisd. xviii. 2 only.
n=||M.L. Matt. xiii. 37. John xv.1. ch.x.4. Gen. xii. 26,27. Exod. xii.
0 ellips., here only? p = Matt. viii. 34. Marki. 4. xiv. 9.
r||L. Matt. xxi. 30. Luke xx.31, Rom. yiii.26. Proy.
k= Rom. iv.
25 reff.
Gospp. passim.
m Acts ii. 46 reff.
11. Ezek. xxxvii. 11. .
q here bis. | L. Heb. x. 3only. Lev. xxiv. 7.
XXvii. 15.
22. for eis To eoO. k. Tiv., paryery Kot Tey F'. rec vay bef ew, with KL rel syr
Thdrt: txt ABCDFN m 17 Syr coptt goth Damase lat-ff. for emaweow, emaivw
(conformation to the pres follg) BF latt lat-ff: txt ACDKLN rel vss Chr Thdrt Damase.
23. for amo, mapa D. om tov DF. for kuptov, Oeov F(with G-lat, but not
F-lat). om inoous B 44. ev n vukt. maped. D!F, in qua nocte latt lat-ff.
rec mapedi5o70, with BL rel Chr Thdrt al: txt AB!'CDFKX Damasc. ins Toy
bef aprov DF.
24. rec aft e:wev adds AaBere haryete (interpoln from Matt xxvi. 26), with C3KL rel
syrr [Cyr-jer] Chr Thdrt Damase (ec Thl Ambrst, A. kat ¢. vulg arm Ambrst ; AaBere
(alone) 17 wth Sedul: om ABC!DFX 17 am(with fuld al) coptt arm(ed-is05) Bas Cyr
(Ath) Cypr Bede. rec aft uvrep vuwy ins KAwmevoy, With C'D3 FKLN3 rel syrr goth
Thdrty). (elsw, d:50mevoy y KAwmevoy Kata tov amoot.) Damase Cc Thl; @pumro-
Hevov D'; did0uevoy coptt arm; quod pro vobis tradetur vulg Cypr Ambrst-ed: om
ABC'!N! 17. 672 Cyr Ath Fulg.
do ye shew your contempt for (pres.) the
congregation of God (#cod to express, as
Bengel, ‘dignitatem ecclesiz.’ This con-
tempt was expressed by their not sharing
with the congregation the portion which
they brought), and put to shame those
who have not (houses to eat and to drink
in, and therefore come to the daily aydaat
to be fed. There is no reason for rendering
with the majority of Commentators robs wh
éxovtas, ‘ the poor ;? the uh €xorras has a
distinct reference to the €yere before.
Meyer refers in support of the meaning,
‘the poor,’,to Wetst. on 2 Cor. viii. 13,
where nothing on the subject is found:
De Wette, to Luke iii. 11, where the case
is as here, the preceding €yy being re-
ferred to. ‘The meaning is allowable, e. g.
mpos yap Tov €xovO 6 POdvos Epwet, Soph.
Aj. 157: mpbs tay exdyTwy, BoiBe, Toy
vouoy 7l0ns, Kurip. Ale. 57: mére wev em”
jjuap eixoyv, eit’ ov elyov av, where how-
ever it is qualified by em’ #uap)t? What
must I say to you? Shall I praise you
in this matter? I praise you not. (Sce
ver. 17.) 23—25.] To shew them
the solemnity of the ordinance which they
thus set at nought, he reminds them of
the account which he had before given
them, of its INSTITUTION BY THE LORD.
Matt. xxvi. 26—29. Marx xiv. 22—
25. LUKE xxii. 19, 20. 23.| For I
(see ch. vii. 28; Phil. iv. 11) received
om tH F.
from the Lord (dy special revelation, see
Gal. i. 12. Meyer attempts to deny that
this revelation was made to Paul himself,
on the strength of aaé meaning ‘indirect,’
mapa ‘ direct’ reception from any one: but
this distinction is fallacious: e. g. 1 John
i. 5, attn eotly y emayyeAla hy axnkd-
auev am avrov. He supposes that it was
made to Ananias or some other, and com-
municated to Paul. But the sole reason
for this somewhat clumsy hypothesis is the
supposed force of the preposition, which
has no existence. If the Apostle had re-
ferred only to the Evangelic tradition or
writings(?) he would not have used the first
person singular, but mapeAdBouer. I may
remark, that the similarity between this
account of the Institution and that in
Luke’s Gospel, is only what might be ex-
pected on the supposition of a special
revelation made to Paul, of which that
Evangelist, being Paul’s companion, in
certain parts of his history availed him-
self) that which I also delivered (in
my apostolic testimony) to you, (viz.)
that the Lord Jesus, &c. qTapedt-
Seto] the imperf.: He was being be-
trayed, “There is an appearance of fixed
order, especially in these opening words,
which indicates that this had already
become a familiar formula.” Stanley.
Gprov| not, as Meyer, ‘a loaf,’
but bread: cf. the common -expression,
ABCDF
KLN ac
defgh
klmo
17
b evoxos
ABCDF
KLNab
edef¢
hklm
017
23—27.
IIPOX KOPINOIOY® A.
573
abroc kau TO moripio sta * ro Seumvinaat, Reyer Touro Pitas emake
TO _ToThptov ‘a ‘kaw ‘Btabnen ae
TOUTO mousire,
26 v
" oodxec gay TnTE,
OL.
‘ , ~ ,
TO T OTT PLOV TIVNTE, TOV Oavarov Poe Kuplou
o7 e
J Kupiou
Agere, * axyotc ov EAOn.
’ x , -
TlVy TO cL TOTHOLOY TOU
vhere bis. Rey. xi. Gonly+t. Ken. Mem. iii. 4. 3.
a 25. ae iii. 19 al.
c vi.
21, 22 fee) only. (Deut. xix. 10.)
25. for euw amar, aati wou ACm17: txt BDFKLN rel.
rec (for eav) av, with DFKL rel Chr Cyr:
here and at beg of next ver.
ooaKuc yao Eav éolinre Tov aorov TouTov, Kat
on Oc av cab Tov
y ch. x. 21.
a = and constr., Mark iii. 29. xiv. 64 Mt.
ey. ti. 20
only. Prov.
po ome IS
° etc Ty Euny 4 avg Tobit Viii. 1
n
t ||. 2 Cor. iii. 6.
Heb. viii. 8
(trom Jer.
XXXviii.
" ev TW enw aipare’
w
karayyéd-
” nN pee. T81)s
1x,
ees n u = Heb. ix.
Dp ip Fige cal tte
1 john v. 6.
Zech. ix. 11.
w = Acts xiii. 5 reff. x constr., Rom.
z here onlyt. 2 Mace. xiv. 42 only. (-cos,
Heb. ii. 15. Jamesii. 10. (Matt. v.
7 avaswwe, * evo oc toTal
5]
homeceotel in A, ovaxis
txt BCR
17 Thdrt Euthal-ms. (om ogakis av mivnte & d m.)
26. om yap (ef homeotel above) A 238 goth eth.
for Tovtroy, Tovto &}.
ABCN a 17 Orig.
rec av, with DFKL rel: txt
ree aft motnpiov ins Touto (for
uniformity), with D2-3K LX? rel tol syrr copt Chr Thdrt Damase, Cypr, : om ABCD'FR!
e 17 latt sah arm Cyr Damasce, Cypr,
Ambrst Pelag Bede.
axpt BIN?. rec
aft axpis ov ins ay (to fill up the constr), with D3K LN? rel Thdrt : om ABCD!FN! 17
Ath Bas Chr-ms Cyr Damase.
27. oroPernrar and myntar F.
as above), with KL rel copt Chr:
syr sah arm Clem Bas Ps-Ath Thdrt Damase Orig-int Cypr.
rec aft Toy aprov ins Toutoy (supplementary, or
om ABCDEX o 17 am(with demid fuld harl tol mar)
for yn, ka A 39. 46.
109 lect-1 vulg-ms syrr sah Clem Ps-Ath Orig-int (Jer) Pelag Cassiod: txt BCDFKLX
gpayeiy &prov. 24.| On evx. ekha-
oev, see note, Matt. xxvi. 26. Meyer
well remarks, that ‘the filling up of 7d
imp vuav is to be sought in the foregoing
éxAaoev.” Hence the insertion of rAdme-
vov. TOUTO To. . ..| See note on
Matt. ut supra. 25.] See Luke xxii.
20. OsavtT. Kat T. 7.] “viz. @Aa-
Bev nal evx. eSwxev abtots. These last
words are implied in écAasev above.”
Meyer. H Kav. 8. éotiv év To Eu
aip.] is the new covenant in (ratified
by the shedding of, and therefore stand-
ing in, as its conditioning element) my
blood: = éorly 7 kaw. 5. 7 ev TS Cue alu.
The position of éoriy is no objection to this,
nor the omission of the art. Meyer would
render it, ‘2s the N. C. by means of my
blood : i.e. by virtue of its contents, which
are my blood: and this solely on account
of the position of éorw. But the meaning
is as harsh, as the rendering is unrequired.
édodKis éav miv.]| Not a general
rule for all common meals of Christians ;
but a precept that as often as that cup is
drunk, it should be im remembrance of
Him : on these last words is the emphasis :
see below. 26.] yap gives an ex-
planatory reason for eis T. euiy avdur.,
viz. that the act of eating and drinking isa
proclamation of the death of the Lord till
His coming. ‘The rendering of katayyéA-
Aete imperative, as Theophyl.?, Luth.,
Grot., Riickert, is evidently wrong. He is
substantiating the application of the Lord’s
words by the acknowledged nature of the
rite. It isa proclamation of His death:
and thus is a remembrance of Him. It is
so, by our making mention of in it, and
seeing visibly before us and partaking of,
His body broken, and His blood shed.
&xpts ov €AOy | The carayy. is ad-
dressed directly .to the Corinthians, not
to them and all succeeding Christians ;
the Apostle regarding the coming of the
Lord as near at hand, in hzs own time,
see notes on 2 Cor. v. 1—10. Thdrt.
remarks, peta yap THv avtovd mapov-
clay, ovKeTL xXpeia TOY TUUBAwWY TOU
chuatos, avtTod gawouevov Tov cHma-
Tos’ 51a TovTo elmev, &xpis ov [av] EAC.
The &y has been inserted from not
being aware that its absence implies the
certainty of the event. See examples in Lo-
beck on Phrynichus, pp. 15, 16, note.
27.] A consequence, from the nature of the
ordinance being, to proclaim the death of
the Lord : the guilt of the unworthy par-
ticipation of either of the elements. The
death of the Lord was brought about by
the breaking of His body and shedding His
blood: this Death we proclaim in the ordi-
nance by the bread broken—the wine poured
out, of which we partake: whoever there-
fore shall either eat the bread or drink the
cup of the Lord unworthily (see below ver.
29) shall be guilty of the body and blood of
the Lord: i.e. “ crimini et pene corporis
~~
574
IIPOS KOPINOIOY®S A.
XI. 28—34.
~ , \ - b / - b /
b seech. x.16. TOU oWuaToge Kal TOU aluatoc TOU Kv@Lov. aie ookma- oe
c= Cn, ll
Cec le e , \ ’ £9
aetniva, Cétw O& “avOpwmoc eavtdv, Kal “ouTwe Ek TOV apToU a
Gal. vi. 1. Ae = —! t 5 € \ ’ ' \ a
e = Rom. v.12 eoférw Kal EK TOU TOTNOLOU TLVETW 6 yao eoOiwy Kat 017
f € “ ? / \ U ‘ Ig ‘
f= Kom.i.2, cripwy ‘koima eautw eoOier Kal iver py cones TO
g Acts xy. 9. ~ 30 N - ? Oe AX VD 60 - ware
James iid. OWUG. dia TouTO €v vuly TwoAAOL aabeveic Kat ” appw-
Job xii. 11.
h Matt. xiv. 14.
2 Kings xii. 15.
-Tna, Sir. x. 10. -Tla, Ps, xl. 3.)
rel latt syr-marg Chr Thdrt Damase Cypr.
D° LX e al,)(Tischdf) syr goth.
dhk Thi:
A 17 exth-rom Jer.
28. cavtov bef avOpwros CDF latt goth Damasce :
txt ABKL rel syrr Clem Orig Cyr.—ins o bef av@p. D'.
Mark vi. 5, 13. xvi. 18 only. 3 Kings xiv. 5 F. Ald. &c.
Mal.i. 8. Sir. vii. 35 only. (-vetv,
aft Tov kupiov avatiws add Tov Kuptov
rec om Tov bef amatos (as unnecessary ?), with a!
ins ABCDFKLNW rel Clem Ps-Ath Bas Chr Thdrt.
for kupiov, xpiaTou
eavtoy exaotos 17, simly 4 Orig:
aft eavt. ins tpwroy N3.
29. rec aft muvwy ins avatvees (gloss from ver 27), with C3DFKLN% rel vulg Syr gr-
lat-ff: om ABC!N€! 17 sah eth.
rec aft To cwua ins Tov Kuptouv (gloss from ver 27),
with C3DFKLN3 rel vss Chr Thdrt Ambrst: om ABC!N? 17. 67? am}(with fuld harl’)
sah.
et sanguinis Christi violati obnoxius erit :”
Meyer. Such an one proclaims the death
of Christ, and yet in an unworthy spirit—
with no regard to that Death as Ais atone-
ment, or a proof of Christ’s love: he pro-
_ Claims that Death as an indifferent person:
he therefore partakes of the guilt of it.
Chrysostom strikingly says, opayiyv Td
Tpayua amépnvev, ovKéti Ovotay. But
the idea @s kal adtos éxxéas 7d aipa,
Theophyl. (and Chrys., ti dnmote; 671
etéxeev avTd, kal opay., &c., as above), is
irrelevant here, see ver. 29. The Roman-
ists absurdly enough defend by this # (the
meaning of which is not to be changed
to «al, as is most unfairly done in our
K. V., and the completeness of the ar-
gument thereby destroyed) their prac-
tice of communicating only in one kind.
Translated into common language, and
applied to the ordinary sustenance of the
body, their reasoning stands thus : ‘ Who-
ever eats to excess, or drinks to excess,
is guilty of sin: therefore eating, with-
out drinking, will sustain life.’
28.] The 8€ implies an opposition to, and
wish to escape from, the @voyas éorat.
Soxup. éavt.| prove himself —
examine t}yv Sidvo.ay €avtov, as Theodor.-
mops., in loc.: ascertain by sufficient
tests, what his state of feeling is with
regard to the death of Christ, and how far
this feeling is evinced in his daily life—
which are the best guarantees for aw forully
participation. Kal ovTws | i.e. ‘after
examination of himself? The case in
which the self-examination ends in an wn-
favourable verdict, does not come under
consideration, because it is assumed that
such a verdict will lead to repentance and
amendment. 29.| For he who eats
and drinks (scil. of the bread and of the
cup: certainly not, as Meyer,‘the mere eater
and drinker, he who partakes as a mere
act of eating and drinking,’ which is harsh
to the last degree, and refuted by the
parallel, ver. 27. dvatiws is spurious, see
var. readd.) eats and drinks judgment to
himself (i. e. brings on himself judgment
by eating and drinking. kpiua, as
evident by vv. 30—82, is not ‘ damnation’
[xaraxpiua], as rendered in our E. V., a
mis-translation, which has done infinite
mischief), not appreciating (dijudicans,
Vulg. uh eked (wy, wh evvomy ws xpn,
To pméyebos THY mpoKemevwv, yy Aoyib-
beevos Tov Bykov THs Swpeas. Chrys.) the
body (scil. of the Lord: here standing for
the whole of that which is symbolized by
the Bread and the Cup, the Body and
Blood. The mystery of these, spiritually
present in the elements, he, not being spi-
ritual, does not appreciate : and therefore,
as in ver. 27, falls under the divine judg-
ment, as triflmg with the death of Christ.
The interpretation of Stanley, “not dis-
cerning that the body of the Lord is in
himself and in the Christian society, and
that it is as the body of the Lord, or as
a member of that body, that he partakes
of the bread,” is surely somewhat far-
fetched, after tovTé mov éotlvy Td cama,
ver. 24). 30.| Experimental proof
of the kptua €avTg, from the present sick-
nesses and frequent deaths among the
Corinthian _ believers. Meyer distin-
guishes ao@evets, weaklings, persons whose
powers have failed spontaneously, from
a&ppworor, invalids, persons whose powers
are enfeebled by sickness; and cites Titt-
mann, Synon. p. 76. éo8. and app.
refer to physical, not (as Olsh., altern.)
is
XII. 1.
Nie Fees ~ ke ’
GTOl, Kal " KOWLWYTAL tkavol.
5 nN m? , 7) A 32 m
VOREVY, OUK AV EKOLVOLE a
IIPOS KOPINOIOY®S A.
575
ey Sh SARs ‘ ' -
31 el Ok tavTouc : dtexol- ot lee 89
, st ee SS ~
K plvopevoe oe UTo [ Tov |
- A
k = Acts xii. 12
reff.
, n , ed nN N oO ~ Ist pers., Rom.
Kvplou mavoevoneba, iva HY ouUv TW KOoLW Karakpibw- shou tlat
m= Ac
33 Pp AEA DOL q Te S = sor Reve
eV. were, adeA Pol mov, GUVEOKOMEVOL ELC TO Haye xviii Sal,
> , s? dé Q 34 7 t Salesian ay aT, > ? n Luke xxiii.
aAAnAove EK EX EO €. el te TEVA, év OLKY) ealtéTw, Por eae:
ae iia w = i) ‘ ‘ \ ‘ e n Bits edt
wa pn “etc “ kptua ST ouvépynabe. ra Oe ora “we av SE° Rev ni
ae y 8 Tae 4 x Prove
EAUw taTtasonat, xix. is,
tt. xxvii.
1 See ms % im > Ue apenas 4 aa Jobn viii
XII. Tlepi OF TWY ~ TVYEVMATIKWY, acer pol, ov b2Aw ar ha
Ries ReSth it, te p=ch.v. 8 réff. q ver. 17. r ver. 22. s Acts
xvii. 16 reff. t t ver. 21. uw anarth., ch. xiv. 35. Deut. xi. 19. see Mark ii. }.
v ver. 17 reff. w ver. 29. x = Rom. xv. 24. Phil. ii. 23. y=ch.
aye reff, z=ch. x. 3, 4 reff. a Rom. i. 13. Xi. 25. ch. x. 1. 2Cor.i. 8. 1 Thess.
iv. 13. . :
31. rec (for Ee) yap, with CKLN® rel syrr coptt Chr Thdrt Aug,: txt ABDFN! 17
goth Clem Aug).
$2. for vo, amo F.
Ces Chr Thdrt Damase, ec Thl.
ins Tov bef kuptov BCX m 17 Clem Damasc-txt : om ADFKI
aft Tw koouw ins TovTw F, simly latt lat-ff.
34. rec aft «c ins de, with D?-3KLN3 rel demid syrr Clem Thdrt Damase Bede: om
ABCD!FN! 17 latt coptt Chr-comm Cypr Ambrst Pelag.
Siatatwmuwor ADF m.
for Kpiywa, kpiow K,
Cuap. XII. 1. ayvoew bef adeApo: ov 6. v. DF latt wth lat-ff.
moral weaknesses. 31.] 8€ contrasts
with this state of sicknesses and deaths :
it might be otherwise. This Srexprvdpeba
(parallel with doxiua¢érw before) should be
rendered by the same word as Siaxpivwy
before, the idea being the same. ‘ Appre-
ciate, if etymologically understood, is the
nearest to the meaning: in Latin dijudico,
which the Vulg. has, is an excellent render-
ing,—preserving also the ‘judico,’ so essen-
tial to the following clause. In the E. V.
‘If we would judge ourselves, we should
not be judged,’ the tenses are wrong: it
should be, ‘ Jf we had judged ourselves, we
should not have been judged: ‘no such
punishments would have befallen us.’
Thus I wrote in some former editions: and
so also Stanley. But this collocation of the
(imperfect) tenses may be rendered either
way. Donaldson, Gr. Gr., p. 204, renders
ef Ti elxev, eSl50v ay, ‘si quid haberet,
daret and so we have it in Aschyl.
Suppl. 244, nal tT&AAa WEAN erreiKdoa
Sikarov av, ef wi. mapdyts POdyyos jy 6
onuavav: Mschin. Ctes. p. 86, ef & iy
avaykatoy pnOjvat, ov Anpocbévovs iv
6 Adyos: and other places (Bernhardy,
p- 376). But as certainly, we find the
other sense: e. g. Herod. iii. 25, of Cam-
byses, ef... amnye omlow Thy otpatdy
....%v dv codds avhp. So that the
EK. V. may here be kept, if thought de-
sirable. In John y. 46, our translators
have adopted the other rendering : * Had
ye believed Moses, ye would have be-
lieved me:’ but in ib. viii. 39, 42, have
rendered as here. 82.| But now
that we are judged, it is by the Lord
(emph.) that we are being chastised (to
bring us to repentance), that we may .
not be (eternally) condemned with the
(unbelieving) world. 33.] General
conclusion respecting this disorder. So
then (‘que cum ita sint’), my brethren
(milder persuasive: as has been the as-
sumption of the first person, vv. 31,
32), when ye are coming together to
eat, wait for one another (contrast to
ExaoTos ... . MpodauBdaver, ver. 21: as
Theophyl.: ov« elrev, AAATAOLS peTadoTE,
GAN, exdéxeo0e Seixviwy bri Kowd Eiot
Ta exeice eispepducva. Kal Set dvapevew
Thy Kowyy ouvedevow). 34.| The
aydarat were not meals to satiate the bodily
appetites, but for a higher and holier pur-
pose: let the hungry take off the edge of
his hunger at home: see ver. 22.
7a. 5€ Nowra | viz. things omitted (probably
matters of detail) in the above directions.
Perhaps they had asked him questions
respecting the mast convenient time or
manner of celebration of the Lord’s sup-
per: points on which primitive practice
widely differed. @s av Oa, see reff.,
whenever I shail have come. ds, dv, as
é7° dy, implies uncertainty as to the event
anticipated : see Kiihner, vol. ii. p. 535,
§ 807. Cuapp. XII.—XIV.] On THE
ABUSE OF SPIRITUAL GIFTS: espe-
cially PROPHESYING, and SPEAKING WITH
TONGUES. The second particular requir-
ing correction in their assemblies, see ch.
576
bch. x.19ref. 4° ,.7 a> 7
ey Vili. 32 vpuac ayvoe,
Te bo» \ cw €
d=Makvi, "glowAra Ta “apwva we
56. Acts ii.
45. iv. 35. Gen. ii. 19. e Matt. xxvi. 67 al.
2. rec om ote (either a mistake, or a corrn to help the constr :
IiPO> |KOPINGIOY=S A.
XII.
Ds ¢ ¢ ff) CoS ‘ S
oleate OTL OTE EVYNH TE, Tpae Ta
nn Yj ’ XN
“av nyse © arayouevot. 3 800
Epp., here only. Deut. xxviii. 37.
the same of the omn
of ort), with F b d 1 D-lat Syr copt Ambrst: om o7s K m Thdrt Damase Gic-comm
for apwrva, anoppa
Aug,: txt ABCDLRX rel vulg G-lat syr (sah) eth arm gr-lat-ff.
F. [avhyeode B2G m: ascendebatis Aug. |
xi. 18, note. Chrys. well says: tovro
Gamay To xwplov opddpa early acapes* Thy
5 dodpeayv 7 TaY TpayyaTwy wyvoid TE
kal @AAenfis moet Tay TOTE wey TUL_-
Bawdvtwy, vov 6& ov ywouévwv. Hom.
XXxix. init. XII.] ON THE NATURE,
INTENT, AND WORTH OF SPIRITUAL GIFTS
IN GENERAL. 1—3. | The foundation of
all spiritual utterance is the confession of
Jesus as the Lord: and without the Spirit,
no such confession can be made. 1.]
dé transitional. Some have thought that
the Corinthians had referred this question
to the Apostle’s decision: but from the
ov OéAw bu. ayvoety, it rather looks as
if, like the last, it had been an abuse
which he had heard of, and of his own
instance corrects. T. TVEVLATLKOY |
Most likely neuter, as ch. xiv. 1, spiritual
gifts: so Chrys., Theophyl., (ec., Beza,
Calov. -, Est., al., De Wette, and Meyer:
—not masec., as ch. xiv. 37: so Grot.,
Hammond, al., and Locke, who maintains
that the subject of this section is not the
things, but the persons, quoting ch. xiv.
-But surely the ¢hings are the main
subject, enounced here, vv. 4—I11, and
treated of through the rest of the chapter ;
the inspired persons being mentioned only
incidentally to them. Others, as Storr,
Billroth, Wieseler cited by Meyer, and De
W., limit ra mv. to the speaking with
tongues, which indeed is mainly treated
of in the latter part of the section (see
ch. xiv. 1): but ere the gifts of the Spirit
generally are the subject. ov @éA.
wp. ayv.| Theodor.-mops. cited by Meyer :
OéAw buas Kal TY TVEUMATLKOY Xapt-
opatav eidévar Thy Takw, ste BovaAo-
Mat Tt Kal wept ToUTwY cimety. See reff.
2.| Reason why they wanted instruction
concerning spiritual gifts—because they
once were heathen, and could not therefore
have any experience in spiritual things.
Thus Meyer, and so far rightly: but the
stress of this reason lies in the words &pwva
and as av #yecbe, which he has not suf-
ficiently noticed :—Ye know (that) when
ye were Gentiles (the construction is an
anacoluthon, beginning with ofdate dr,
and then as if ofdare 671 had been merely a
formula for ‘ye know,’ passing into the
construction so common, that of placing ére
after such verbs as péeuyynmat, oda, axovw,
and the like, an ellipsis taking place of tod ~
xpsvov, as _Lysias actually fills it up in one
place, éxeivov Tot xpdévov mynabévtas, b OTe
... . in Poliuch. (wep) Snuevoews k.7.A.),
p- 151, 34. Thus Il. & 71, #dea mév yap
ote mpdppwv Aavaoiow auvvev: Plato,
Menon. p. 79, wéuvnoa or eye oor apre
amexpwdunv. See more examples in
Kiihner’s Gr. Gramm. ii. 480) led about
(amay. not necessarily, ‘led wrong ;’ and
the context seems rather to favour the idea
of being ‘led at will,’ blindly transported
hither and thither,—and so De W., and
Estius, “ qualivercungne, temere, pro nutu
ducentium, et hue illue illos cireumagen-
tium, abductos fuisse’’) to idols which were
without utterance (‘the God in whom you
now believe is a living and speaking God—
speaking by his Spirit in every believer :
how should you know any thing of such spi-
ritual speech or gifts at all, who have been
accustomed to dumb idols ?), just as ye
happened to be led (scil., on each ocea-
sion: the force of & being to indicate the
indefiniteness, i. e. in this case, the repe-
tition of the act: so Xen. Anab. i. 5. 2: of
peev vol, eel Tis Sidor | whenever any
followed them] mpodpaudvres bv etoth-
ketoav,—and Eurip. Pheen. 401: more wey
es Huap eixov, eit ovx elxoy av. See other
examples in Kihner, ii. 938, 94). These
last words seem to me to imply the absence
of all fixed principle in the oracles of Hea-
thendom, such as he is about to announce
as regulating and furnishing the criterion
of the spiritual gifts of Christendom. This
as dy hryeo0e might take a man to contra-
dictory oracles, the whole system being an
imposture—their idols being void of all
power of utterance, and they being there-
fore imposed on by the fictions of men, or
evil spirits, who led them. Chrys., Gic.,
Theophyl., make this refer to the difference
between the heathen wayris, who was pos-
sessed by an evil spirit, and therefore «fA-
KETO bad Tov mvevuatos Sedeuevos, ovdev
eldus wy Aێye1, and the Christian rpophrns,
—which however is entirely unwarranted
by the context. 8.|] The negative and
positive criteria of inspiration by the Spirit
of God : viz. the rejection, or confession, of
Jesus as the Lord. Sud, ‘ because ye
ABCDF
KLNab
cedefg
hkim
017
2-—6. IIPOS KOPINOIOY®S A. 577
, ~ ’ ~ ~ 4
* yowpilw Duiv OTe ovdeic § ev © rvevmare Deov AaAwy Neyer seared 1b.
h? , > eee \ > \ , us ~ , Acts ii. 28. 5
Avabena ‘Incovce’ Kat ovdsic Stvarat etre Kvotoc Rom. ix. 22,
Sal. Ezek.
? - , ‘ ’ , (a7 i , \k A
g g 4i - liv. 23.
Inoovc, Et ladle an saan aylw. ' Oratpeoetc os x4 g Matt xxi.43.
te ~ a , ii. 27.
PlomaTwy ELOLY, TO Oe auto TvEevua 5 Kal "Statpéaetc dtaKko- igs oREGTE:
10 al. Mic.
~ Rey) af .¢ > \ , A 6 Nit , m? atid
ViWV ELOLY, KAL O AUTOC KuUploc Kal dtatpécetc EvEO yy - eos eae
1 Chron. xxvi. 1. 2 Chron. viii. 14. Ezra vi.18. (-petv, ver. 11.)
i here (3ce) only.
1 Acts i. 17. vi. Lal.t m ver. 10 only t.
reff.
k = Rom. (v. 15, vi. 23. xi. 29) xii. 6 al.
3. om AaAwy DF lat-ff. (insd by F-lat Aug &c.) rec inoovv (corrn to bring it
into government by revel, whereas it is an oratio directa), with DFKL rel sah Orig,
Chr Thdrt Damase Novat Hil-ed: moov F vulg Cyr, lat-ff: txt ABCR 17 syrr copt
wth Orig, Cyr. rec Kupiov ingovy (see above), with DFKL rel syr Ath Mac Chr
Thdrt Did-int Ruf: txt ABCN 17 vulg(and F-lat) Syr coptt «th Orig, Cyr Did-gr Bas
Epiph Gennad lat-tf.
have been hitherto in ignorance of the
matter. év mv. Qeov—év trv. ay. |
The Spirit of God, or the Holy Spirit, is
the Power pervading the speaker, the Ele-
ment in which he speaks. So Schéttgen,
on Matt. xxii. 48, quotes from the Rabbis,
‘ David saw wapA Na, in the Holy Spirit.’
Aadav A€yer] On the difference of
meaning between Aada, ‘to discourse,’ ‘to
speak,’ and A€éyew, ‘to say,’ the former of
the act of utterance absolutely, the latter
having for its object that which is uttered,
see note on John viii. 25. In all the
seeming exceptions to this, AaA@ may be
justified as keeping its own meaning of ‘ to
discourse :’ we may safely deny that it isever
‘to say’ simply. ava). Ino.| Jesus
(not Christ, the Name of office, itself in
some measure the object of faith,—but
Jesus, the personal Name,—the historical
Person whose life was matter of fact : the
curse, and the confession, are in this way
far deeper) is accursed (see ref. Rom.
note). So «vp. "Ino., Jesus is Lord (all
that is implied in «¥ptos, being here also
implied : and we must not forget that it
is the LXX verbum solenne for the Heb.
JEHOVAH). By these last words the in-
fluence of the Holy Spirit is widened by the
Apostle from thesupernatural gifts to which
perhaps it had been improperly confined, to
the faith and confession of every Christian.
It is remarkable that in 1 John iv. 1, 2,
where a test to try the spirits is given, the
human side of this confession is brought
out,—*Inooty xpiotby ev capri eAnAvO6Ta,
—John having to deal with those who de-
nied the reality of the Incarnation. Or
also, as Bengel: “ Paulus preebet criterium
veri contra gentes : Johannes, contra falsos
prophetas.” 4—6.| But (as con-
trasted to this absolute unity, in ground
and principle, of all spiritual influence)
there are varieties (in reff. 2 Chron. and
Ezra, used of the courses or divisions of the
Vot. II.
priests) of gifts (yaptopatra = eminent
endowments of individuals, in and by which
the Spirit indwelling in them manifested
Himself,—the gavépwois tod mvevuaros
in each man:—and these either directly
bestowed by the Holy Ghost Himself, as in
the case of healing, miracles, tongues, and
prophesying, or previously granted them by
God in their unconverted state, and now
inspired, hallowed, and potentiated tor the
work of building up the church,—as in the
case of teaching, exhortation, knowledge.
Of all these gifts, faith working by love
was the necessary substratum and con-
dition. See Neander, Pil. u. Leit. pp. 232
ff.), but the same Spirit (as their Bestower,
—see the sense filled up in ver. 11):
5.] and there are varieties of ministries
(appointed services in the church, in which
as their channels of manifestation the xa-
pisuata would work), but the same Lord
(Christ, the Lord of the church, whose it
is to appoint all ministrations init. These
diaxovtac must not be narrowed to the ec-
clesiastical orders, but kept commensurate
in extent with the gifts which are to find
scope by their means, see vv. 7—10): and
varieties of operations (effects of divine
évépyerat: not to be limited to mzraculous
effects, but understood again commensu-
rately with the gifts of whose working they
are the results), and the same Gop, Who
works all of them in all persons (all the
xapicuara in all who are gifted). Thus
we have Gop THE FaTHER, the First
Source and Operator of all spiritual influ-
ence in all: Gop THE Son, the Ordainer
in His Church of all ministries by which
this influenee may be legitimately brought
out for edification: Gop THE Hoty GuHost,
dwelling and working in the church, and
effectuating in each man such measure
of His gifts as He sees fit. ;
7—ll.| These operations specified in their
variety, but again asserted i be the work
Ue
XII.
ye cy ABCDF
TavTa Ev KLM alb
578 TIPO KOPINOIOY= A.
n ver. 11. Rom.
, ena 9), *€ 9a 0 ‘ CF in 2 - oO a
vii. 6 reff. MaTWY ELOLY, Kal O auToce €0c 0 EvEepywv Ta
= ch. Viii. od € awk \ , € , = ,
an’ Paraow. ‘exaotp de Sidorae 4 i paviowotcg TOU mvEvMaTOS Ae fB
p ch. xv. 26 r cis Sos / (ah ire \ . ‘ ~ , ,
Eph. i. 23 = 017
(Gol.iii11.) «70S TO ovuupeoov. @ ev yao dia TOU TVEVMATOC OL
q 2 Cor. iv. 2
only t.
¥= ch, vi. 5; ie
Vii, 35. X>)) Lal. s Acts xx. 20 reff. t usage, here only. see Matt. xiii. 4 || Mk. Ch. iii. 4. ver. 28.
u = and constr., Acts xiii. 26 reff. v =ch. ii. 6 al. w Prov. xxx. (xXiv.) 3. x = 2 Cor.
xi. Gal. y =kabws f., ver. 11.
Sf . \
Sorat “oye *’ gopiac, ‘addy be “oyoc “Xv VOGEWC Yeata
6. rec 0 Se autos (corrn to express contrast. It can hardly have been altered to nat
o to conform to the precedg clause, the first remaining ro Se), with AKLN rel latt syrr
sah Eus Epiph, Cyr Iren-int Hil, deus hie idem est copt; o avtos 8¢ DF: txt BC m
Orig. (In ver 5, 17. 41. 73. 115-9 vulg D-lat Syr arm Eus Ath Epiph, Cyr Iren-int Jer
al have o de avros: txt is supported by the follg fathers,—Orig Thdrt, Damase Gc
Tren-int-mss Aug.) rec ins eote bef Geos, with KLN® rel (syr) Orig Cyr Thdrt
Damase (Ke ; aft evepywy B; ins xpioros bef Geos c: om ACDFN! m 17 latt Syr sah
Eus Ath Bas Chr Thl Iren-int Hil.
of one and the same Spirit. 7.| To
each individual, however (the emphasis
on ékdoT@, asshewing the character of what
is to follow, viz. individual distinction of
gifts. Sé again contrasted with the 6
aitds of the last verse; though the work-
ings of One God, One Lord, One Spirit, they
are bestowed variously on each man), is
given the manifestation of the Spirit (not,
as Meyer, al., the means of manifesting the
Spirit which dwells in him [gen. obj. |:
but, as De W., the manifestation by which
the Spirit acts { gen. subj. |; it is a general
term including xapiocuata, Siacovia, and
évepynuata) With a view to profit (with
the profit of the whole body as the aim:
see reff). 8—10.] It has been dis-
puted, whether or not any studied arrange-
ment of the gifts of the Spirit is here found.
The most recent and best advocates of the
two views are Meyer and De Wette. Meyer
gives the following arrangement : ground-
ing it mainly on what he believes to be the
intentional use of érépw 8€ as distinguished
from @\A® 8¢, and pointing out a new cate-
gory :—I. gifts having reference to zntel-
lectual power : (1) Adyos coplas. (2) Adyos
yvooews. II. (Erp 5€) gifts, whose con-
dition is an exalted faith (glaubens-herois-
mus) : (1) faith itself. (2) practical work-
ings of the same, viz. (a) iduara. (b) du-
vdues. (3) oral working of the same, viz.
mpopntela. (4) critical working of the
same, the didcpiots mvevuatwy. III. gifts
having reference to the yAéooa: (1)
speaking with tongues: (2) interpretation
of tongues. To this De Wette objects,
(1) that 6 pév, érépw dé, Erépw dé, do not
stand with any reference to one another,
but érépw dé is in each case opposed to the
#AAw S€ which immediately precedes it, and
followed by an %AAw 6 similarly opposed
to it: therefore neither can the one betoken
the genus, nor the other the species. (2) If
om ta D!,
any thing could be relied on as marking a
division, it would be the repeated kata 7d
avTd my., ev TH avT. my., andthe con-
cluding wdyra 5€ tavra ver. 11: but even
thus we get no satisfactory partition, for in
ver. 10 dissimilar gifts are classed together.
(3) We must not look for a classification,
for the catalogue is incomplete, see ver. 28.
(4) The classification given is objectionable.
Speaking with tongues is plainly more
nearly allied to mpopntefa than mpod. to
gifts of healing : and the two, tongues and
prophesying, are subsequently treated of
together. Besides which, Kling (Stud. u.
Krit. 1839, p. 482) rightly remarks, that
both Sidkpiois wv. and épunveta yA. have re-
ference to the understanding. Tam in-
clined to think that De W.’s objections are
valid, as applied to a rigorous arrangement
like Meyer’s; but that at the same time
there is a sort of arrangement, brought
about not so much designedly, as by the
falling together of similar terms,—Adyos
gop., Adyos yv..—yévn yAwooay, Epu.
yAwooav. Unquestionably, any arrange-
ment must be at fault, which proceeding on
psychological grounds, classes together the
speaking with tongues and the interpreta-
tion of tongues: the working of miracles,
and the discernment of spirits. I believe
too that Meyer’s distinction between érépw
d€ and &%Aw b¢ is imaginary: see Matt.
xvi. 14; Heb. xi. 35, 36. 8.] yap
appeals to matter of fact, as the ground of
the assertion in ver. 7, both as to the d{5e-
Trac and as to the mpbs Td cuudéepov.
@ pev... GAA S¢, a loose construction,
as in ver. 28. Adyos codias ...
Asyos yvaoews | What is the distinction ?
According to Neander, codia is the skill,
which is able to reduce the whole practical
Christian life into its due order in accord-
ance with its foundation principles (see Pfl.
u. Leit. p. 247) ;—yvaets, the theoretical
7—11.
‘ 258 ~ Ot
TO QauToO TVSEULA,
,
featt, arhy oe?
10%
~ y e - =
OW), arw Os ' Eounvesta * yiwoowv’ 11 TavVTa
6. ch. xiii. 2 al.
h = ch. xiv. 32. 1 Tim.iv.1. 1 Johniv. 1.
28. ch. xiv. 10 only. (Acts iv. 6 al.)
TIPO KOPINOIOY®S A.
579
e , A\ , > oe , ~ ,
ETEOW [8 | moti “Ev Tw * autw * mvev- 2 ser 3.
a see ver. 11].
ver. 4.
co , ze au NZ ,
aolovaTa (auaTWY EV TW EVL TVEVLATI, c vv. 28, 30
NC dies , e , ” vot U
7 Ary o gl alah Cuvapewy, adhy oe A ed alk
, ,
arXw oe ® Otakpicetc TVEVUMATWY, éeTEOW Os ‘-yevn yAwo-
only. Jer.
xl. (x xxiii.)
6. (acts,
Acts iv. 22.)
d ver. 6 only +.
e = Acts viii.
13 reff.
f = Rom. xii.
,
Oe Trauta
g Rom. xiv.1. Heb. v.14only. Job xxxvii.16 only. (-Kpévecv, ch. vi. 5.)
3 Kings xxii. 21.
Gen. i. 11, &c.
26 onlyt. Sir. prol, & xlvii. 17 only. (-evecv, Heb. vii. 2.
i = Matt. xiii. 47. xvii. 21} Mk. ver.
_ K Acts ii. 4 reff. 1 ch. xiv.
-€uTNs, ch. xiv. 28 y. r.)
9. om Ist de BD!FN? latt Syr Clem Orig, lat-ff: ins ACD?3KLN3 rel syr coptt Orig,
Ces Cyr-jer, Chr Thdrt, Damase Did, Thl, Aug,.
lat-ff.
om 2nd de DF latt Syr Eus
rec for ev, avtw (conformation to foregoing), with DFKLN rel syrr copt
Clem Chr Thdrt: txt AB a 17 vulg(and F-lat, but over F-gr eodem is written) D-lat
Did, lat-ff.—om ev tw ev mv. C Tert, Cassiod.
10. om Ist de D'F latt.
Aug, al).
Orig Bas, lat-ff.
(homeotel) Bak.
evepyeia for evepynuata DF, operatio latt lat-ff(not
: om 6e (2nd, 3rd, and 4th) BDF latt Clem lat-ff: om 4th 5¢ 8! 1 Ces:
ins ACKLN3 rel syrr copt Chr Thdrt Damasce.
om 5th de D! latt lat-ff.
Stepunvera (mistake occasioned by Be ?
diakpiots CDF! 17 latt Clem
om aAAw de epunveta yAwoowy
Tischdf says “cf xii.
30; wiv. 5, 13, 27, 28”) AD!: txt CDF KER rel Clem Ces Cyr-jer Chr Tadrt Damase.
insight into divine things: and similarly
Olsh. and Billroth. But Bengel, al., take
them conversely, yvéo. for the practical,
ood. for the theoretical. Both, as De W.
remarks, have their grounds in usage:
copia is practical Col. i. 9, as is yya@ous
Rom. xv. 14, but they are theoretical re-
spectively in ch. i. 17 ff. and viii. 1. Es-
tius explains Adyos codias, ‘gratiam de
lis que ad doctrinam religionis ac pietatis
spectant disserendi ex causis supremis,’—
as ch. ii. 6 f.:—and Ady. yvdaews, he says,
“ oratia est disserendi de rebus Christianze
religionis, ex iis quee sunt humane scien-
tie vel experientiz.” Meyer says, “copia
is the higher Christian wisdom (see on ch.
ii. 6) in and of itself;—so that discourse
which expresses its truths, makes them
clear, applies them, Ke. is Adyos codias.
But this does not necessarily imply the
speculative penetration of these truths,—
the philosophical treatment of them by
deeper and more scientific investigation, in
other words, yv@ors: and discourse which
aims at this is Adyos yvdoews.” This last
view is most in accordance with the sub-
sequently recognized meaning of yvaors
and yvworikds, and with the Apostle’s own
use of copia in the passage referred to, ch.
ii. 6. kata T. av. mv. | according to
the disposition (see ver. 11) of the same
spirit. 9.] miotis, as Chrys. : riot
od TavTnY A€ywy Thy Ta SoyuaTwY, GAA
THY TY ONUElwy, Tep) is now "Eav éxnte
miatw &s KéKiov ow. K.7.A. (Matt. xvii.
20) kal of aréotoAo 5é wep) adtis Htlouy
A€yovres Tpdsbes Quiv riot (Luke xvii.5).
aitn yap unTnp Tav onueiwy eotiv. This
seems to be the meaning here; a faith,
enabling a man to place himself beyond the
region of mere moral certainty, in the actual
realization of things believed, in a high and
unusual manner. év Tt. avT. mv.] in,
i.e. by and through, as the effective cause
and the medium. xXapiopara iapatwy |
gifts of (miraculous) healings; plur., to
indicate the different kinds of diseases, re-
quiring different sorts of healing. —_év, see
above. 10. évepy. Suv. | operations of
miraculous powers (in general).
wpodytcia] speaking in the Spirit.
Meyer gives an excellent definition of it :
“discourse flowing from the revelation
and impulse of the Holy Spirit, which, not
being attached to any particular office in
the church, but improvised,—disclosed the
depths of the human heart and of the
divine counsel, and thus was exceedingly
effectual for the enlightening, exhortation,
and consolation of believers, and the win-
ning of unbelievers. The prophet differs
from the speaker with tongues... .inthat
he speaks with the understanding, not
ecstatically: from the S:dacKcados, thus:
—6 wev mpopytevwy mavta ard TOD mvEv-
Matos pbéyyerat 6 Se diddoKwy eorly brov
kal et oikelas diadéyerou, as Chrys. on ver.
28.” Staxpicets mv.| discernings
of spirits: i.e. the power of distinguish-
ing between the operation of the Spirit of
God and the evil spirit, or the unassisted
human spirit : see 1 John iv. 1, and compare
mposexovtes Tvevuaciv mAdvos, 1 Tim. iv.
1. The exercise of this power is alluded
to ch. xiv. 29. yévn yAwoody | kinds
of tongues, i. e. the power of uttering, in
ecstasy, as the mouthpiece of the Spirit,
prayer and praise in languages unknown
eA) Bi ey
580
TIPOS KOPINOIOY®S A.
XII.
m? ~ Sona \ “ n Cea. = oO o 7A?
eee ae evEyet TO €Y Kat TO auTO TvEUMG, Searpoun Pda
n ch. xi. 5only. ¢ q ff) ‘ r 4 | 19%s A
see ver. 9. eKaaTY kaUwe OVAETaL. KavaTweo ee TO wpa
enue xy ie
only ash.
Se ge ev EoTLY, Kal ‘Hedy moAXa Exel, mwavta 6& Ta ‘Hedy TOU
a5, 6) yy: owparoc, moAXa O purty ev tori oma, ovTin¢ Kal oO xe
p here only. ,
cue eae oTOoc. WB cay yap "ey evt TvEevpaTe macic TAVTEC * gle ev
yr. Vi. 2. 54, a u Ww
geval 33, cma “Y eBartioOnuey, cire ‘Toveatoe eirs “EXXAnvec, “ ire
Acts xi. 2% wx = , x? , \ s ON - 2 ,
_ Numasvi 54. SovAa * etre “eA svbepot, kat wavrec ev mvevpa » ezorioOn-
of God, Heb.
aera Kak yao TO awpta OvK Eat Ev ‘pédoc, ara TOAXA.
iii. Y only.
1 Kings ii. 25, s Rom. iv. 6 reff. t Rom. vi. 13 ref. u Matt. iii. 11. Actsi 6. xi. 16.
v Acts viii. 16 reff. w Eph. vi. 8. x as above(w). Gal. iii. 28. Col. ui. 11. Rev. vi. 15. xiii.
16. xix. 18. Rom. xii. 20 reff. ace., see Mark x. 38. Luke xii. 47. 2 Thess. ii. 15. Heb. vi.9. Rev.
ML
xvi. 9. Ps. )xviii. 21. Winer, edn. 6, § 32.5.
11. tavta Se mayta DF latt goth copt Arm Orig Hil).
Chr.
81a, Siepovweva D'.
12. om yap K a;
Tich.
m 17 Thdrt, Jer.
Ambrst Tich.
d has it in red.
meAnAn(sic) RN.
kuptos C.
om 7o bef €v D!F Orig
om 61a (D')F latt Syr copt (Orig) Epiph Orig-int Did-int Hil.—for S:a:pouy
for kat weAn, meAn Se D!(and lat) F goth Hil
rec exer bef roAAa, with DFKL rel latt Chr Thdrt, Hil Ambrst: txt ABCN
ins ex bef tov cau. D'(and lat) goth Hil
rec aft cwuatos ins Tov evos (gloss), with DX% rel goth Chr, Thdrt,
Damase (ic Hil: om ABCFKLN! d vulg syrr eth gr-lat-ff. (17 def.)
for xp.,
13. ree ins ess bef év mvevya (appy to conform to the first member of the sentence),
with D?KL rel vulg(and F-lat) Thdrt Vig: om BCD!FX d 17 am(with demid harl tol)
D-lat Syr copt goth xth Ps-Ign Ath, Did; Chr Thl-comm lat-ff.
eroTic@nuer, copa ecuev A: for mvevpa, toua af g 1 al,,(or more) :
39. 116,
to the utterer,—or even in a spiritual lan-
guage unknown to man. See this subject
dealt with in the note on Acts i. 4, and
ch. xiv. 2 ff. Eppnveta yAwooav | the
power of giving a meaning to what was
thus ecstatically spoken. This was not
always resident in the speaker himself: see
ch. xiv. 13. 11.] The Spirit is the
universal worker in men of all these powers,
and that according to His own pleasure:
see above on vv. 4—6. idia, ‘seorsim,’
respectively, or ‘ severally, as E. V. This
unity of the source of all spiritual gifts,
in the midst of their variety, he presses
as against those who valued some and
undervalued others, or who depreciated
them all. 12—30.] As the many
members of the body compose an organic
whole, and all belong to the body, none
being needless, none to be despised ; so
also those who are variously gifted by
the Spirit compose a spiritual organic
whole, the mystical body of Christ. First,
however, vv. 12, 18, this likeness of the
mystical Christ to a body is enounced, and
justified by the facts of our Baptism.
12.| The organic unity of the various
members in one body, is predicated also of
CHRIST, i. e. the Church as united in
Him, see ch. vi. 15. The yap confirms
the preceding €v x. Td adrd mvedua, by an
analogy. By the repetition,—7 caua,
for mvevua
edoticbnuey L 21.
..T0D cdmatos..., coma, the unity
of the members as an organic whole is
more strongly set forth. 13.] This
shewn from our being baptized into one
body, and recetving one Spirit. For in
(see on ver. 9) one Spirit also (the empha-
sis on év} mv., to which words «af belongs)
we all were baptized into one Body,
whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves
or freemen; and we all were made to
drink of one Spirit (or, ‘ all watered by
one Spirit, viz. the water of Baptism,
here taken as identical with the Spirit
whose influence accompanied it). So (un-
derstanding the whole verse of baptism)
Chrys., Theophyl., He., Riickert, Meyer,
De Wette. Luther, Beza, Calv., Estius,
Grot., al., refer the latter half to the Lord’s
Supper: and this is mentioned by Chrys.
and Theophyl. :—Billroth and Olsh. to the
abiding influence of the Spirit in strength -
ening and refreshing. But the aor. émo-
ric Onpev, referring to a fact gone by, is
fatal to both these latter interpretations :
besides that it would be harsh to under-
stand even eis €v mv. erotic@. (see var.
readd.) and impossible to understand €v trv.
emot., of the cup in the Lord’s Supper.
14.| Analogy, by which this mul-
tiplicity in unity is justified : it is even so
in the natural body,—which, though one,
consists of many members. ‘The object of
ABCDF
KLNab
cdeftg
hklm
017
12—21.
15 24
, iia ‘ ~ ’ ze z? , ‘
owuaTtoc, OU Taoa TOUTO OUK EoTLV EK TOU OWMUaATOC ,
IIPOS KOPINOIOYS A.
581
a e ‘ ed > AEN , > rot. | , ~ snore. as
av eimy 0 Tovcg Ore ovk eipe Yelp, OvK * Erp * EK FOU ei
only. of pers.,
Matt. xxvi.
73. Jobn i.
RE EN 7 aire eee ef > Fer , > PEN. : =
16 cat gay elmn TO Ovg’ Ort ovk emt opPadrpoc, ovw * etme FAGAGTE
z? - , >a N ~ > z z? - e a= here bis
EK TOV GWLATOC, OV “Tapa TOUTO OUK “ EGTLY “EK TOU GW- aly. Polyd.
¥ AG? ‘ ~ > , ~ ¢ > , > ue oon Siac
maroc 3 7 et OXov TO cwua opfarpoc, Srov n akon; El Te Ti viv
° d? s c = Se) ev ‘ 18 f ~ 8s Ls rf) ‘ g 20 opahec-
OAov akon, Tov nH Oodpnstc 3 vUV OF -O VEOE ~ EVETO “Nene
Q aN ha he > - > ~ , i . baw 645. 22,
Ta wéAn, ‘Ev EKAOTOY AUTWY EV TW TWLATL ka0we nOeAn- 242.2?
2 Ao k ‘ k ‘ \ , us = \ me 5 eons
ov, let 88 Hv [ ra | mavra ev péAoc, ‘Tou TO owLa 3 keke
0G 2 = a \ \ 1 A \ - ‘ o) ’ AA fers
Of yoy d& moAAa pEv uéAdn, ev Of owma. 21 yy Svuvarat 6& AWIEE elie
” 6,§ 492.
; 0 x in Leer x tg x { J y : : m. xi. 8
é b Rom. xi.
Oo op a foc él Et U1) etal péttar Gov OUK eX fi of b,
m
= 2 Pet.ii.8. Xen. Mem. i.4. 6.
g = Acts xx. 28. ver. 28. Gen. xvii. 5.
I Matt. vi. 8. Luke y.31 |. Prov. xviii. 2.
15. for cori, exui(?) NX! (but corrd).
h Acts xvii. 27 reff.
, G ‘ - \ l ’ C= > 17 :
madiv n Kepadn Tulg Toow Xpetav ULtwY OUK EXW. Ger eh
20.
f = Luke xi. 39 al.
e here only t,
iver. 11 reff, k ver. 6.
m = 2 Cor. x. 7.
18. rec vu, with CD°KLN rel Chr, Thdrt Damase (Ee: txt ABD!F 1 Thl.
19. om ta BE 17: ins ACDKLX rel.
20. vu F 32. 47. 67. 80. 114 Chr, Thl.
om wey BD! 73. 114 D-lat goth Aug.
21. om de (as being in the way? but it brings out a contrast to the unity just in-
sisted on) ACF dm fuld(and demid) Syr copt (Orig) Bas (Thdrt,) Jer: ins BDKLN
rel syr goth Chr Thdrt Damase Thl (He Aug, Pelag Ambrst.
rec om 6 (absorbed
in the opOadruos follg ?), with K e h o: ins ACDLX rel Orig Bas Chr Thdrt Damase
Ce Thl-comm.
the continuation of the simile seems to be,
to convince them that their various gifts
had been bestowed by God on them as
members of the Christian body, and that
they must not, because they did not happen
to possess the gifts. of another, consider
theinselves excluded from the body, —in
which the weaker as well as the stronger,
the less comely as well as the more comely
members were necessary. The student
will remember the fable spoken by Mene-
nius Agrippa to the mutinous plebs in
Livy ii. 32. The passage is also illustrated
by Seneca de Ira, ii. 31, ‘Quid si nocere
velint manus pedibus, manibus oculi? Ut
omnia inter se membra consentiunt, quia
singula servari totius interest : ita homines
singulis parcent, quia ad cclum geniti
sumus: salva autem esse societas
amore et custodia partium non potest :’—
and by Mare. Antonin. ii. 1, where in his
morning meditations on the duty of re-
pressing anger through the day, he says,
vyeydvapev yap mpds auvepylay, as mdbes,
Os xelpes, @s BAehapa, ws of TTOLxXOL TOY
&vw Kat Tov KdTw GddyTwy’ Th ody ayTI-
mpdooew adAhAos, mapa piaw. See also
id. vii. 13: Clem. ad Cor. ¢. xxxvii. p.
284: and other examples in Wetstein.
15.] The 6rt is rightly rendered in E. V.
because. ov Tapa T. x.7T.A.| These
words are best taken as a question, appeal-
nisi -
(In ver 17, D' ins 6 bef op@adApos.)
ing to the sense of the reader: they thus
have more of the vigour of the Apostle’s
style, than taken affirmatively. Tapa,
see reff. é« tT. o., belonging to
the body as an aggregate; so eis éx Tay
dddeKa,—joav ex Tav Papicaiwy. The
double negation strengthens,—see Winer,
edn. 6, § 55. 9 +b (he takes the two, én this
case, as destroying one another [?], see
ib. a). 17.] The necessity of the
members to one another, and to the body.
Understand #v in each clause, which is
indeed expressed in ver. 19. 18.]
vov 8é, but as the case really stands:
see Hartung, Partikellehre, ii. 25. TO
pedn, generally, — év €xactov avTa@v, seve-
rally. KaQas WOE. answers to Kadws
BovAerar, ver. 11. 19.] The same
‘reductio ad absurdum’ which has been
made in the concrete twice in ver. 17, is
now made in the abstract: if the whole
were one member, where would be the
body (which by its very idea wéAn éxee
moAAd: see vy. 12, 14) ? 20.| Brings
out the fact in contrast to ver. 19, as ver.
18 in contrast to ver. 17. 21—26. |
And the spiritual gifts are also necessary
to one another. This is spoken in reproof
of the highly endowed, who imagined they
could do without those less gifted than
themselves, as the preceding to those of
small endowment, who were discontented
582
IIPOS KOPINOIOYS A.
XII.
99? ‘ bd v \ ~ , - ,
aon es, Se Adda *ToAdw : padXov Ta ° dokourTa pern TOU GWLLATOC
o = (1) Matt. ? , e , > ~, » \ Xo ~
xvi 2b al. asleviotepa PumTaoye avaykala EoTLV, 23 kat a OKOU-
(2) ch. iv. Y al. ’
Acts ii. 30
e reff,
q Acts xiii. 46
reff.
rch. iv. 10 reff.
s Esth. i. 20.
t Mark xii. 40
Luke xii. 4 fF.
Dan. iv. 33
(36) Theod.
u = here (Matt.
xxi. 33 || Mk.
XXvii. 28
| Mk. 48 |}
Mk. J.) only,
(Rath. iii. 3.)
(-Weous,
1 Pet. iii. 3.)
v here only.
; KEpLVvOow Ta pédy.
xiii. 50 reff. (-uoves, ch. xiv. 40.)
39 only. a ch. i. 7 reff.
only t. 1 Kings xxii. 8 Symm.
17, 18 only. L.P. Gen. xxi. 6 only.
Wah ¢ ae t wi 8 ‘\ ,
VOTEOQUMEVY) TEOLOGOTEOAV OUc TIM,
yabs., Acts ii. 45 reff.
b ch. i. 10 reff.
ch. x. 11 reff. constr. ace., ch. vii. 32, &c. reff. w.t7ép, hereonly. Ps. xxxvii. 18.
e = here only.
> , v - , , x t
ev "G@TiMOTEpA ELYAL TOV GWpLATOC, TOUTOLC © TLL TEPLo-
1 , AMEN , C= b)
corépav * reoitiOeuer, Kal Ta \ doynmova NuwY “ evo NLO-
, t t f
GUINY TEOLGOOTEOAY EXEL.
; \ Nis) , cms >
“tra be * EVTXKNLOVA NLWY OV
y , y a - aAAa ¢ (} ‘ Zz , ‘ = =
XpPttav EXEL a a o €0Cc OUVEKENAGEV TO OWMAa, Tw
95 or ‘ &
iva pn Y
~ ? > ,
oxlopa év TW owuart, adXa TO auto vITEp aAdAnAwy
Nivenoy , A iN d
KQL ELTE TAGN EL Ev uWEAOC, ouv-
, , S / Ate ae!) e 5 raw A 0 f
TAGV El TaAVTa Ta per €lTE ogacerat [ev] péAog, auy-
Deut. xxiv. 1. (-woveiv, ch. vii. 36. -pootvn, Rom. i. 27.)
w here only t. Polyb. x. 18. 7.
Zz Heb. iv. 2 only tf.
c Matt. vi. 26 al. fr.
x Acts
2 Mace. xv.
2 Kings vii. 10. plur.,
d Rom. viii. 17
f Luke i. 58. xv. 6, 9. ch. xiii. 6. Phil. ii.
23. ins weAn bef tov cwpatos DF latt Damasce lat-ff; bef ecva: 17.
24. aft exe: ins tyuns D F-gr Syr.
ovverepacey bef o Geos A eth: om o @. syr.
[aadAa, so ABCDLN b e g m o.]
om To N!. rec voTepouvte (appy
corrn to more usual N. T. expression), with DFKLX? rel Orig Dial Chr Thdrt Ge
Thl: txt ABCR! 17 Melet(in Epiph) Damasce.
mepiaaotepov Sous B(see table).
for mwepiccotepay Sous Tiny, TL
25. ox.owata D'FLX rel fuldarm Bas Antch Damase Th] Aug, Sedul: txt ABCD?°Ix
fhlmo 17 vulg(and F-lat) D-lat syrr copt Orig Aug, Ambrst.
auta D'F., wepyuva DEF Thl-marg.
for To avTo, Ta
26. for Ist evre, ec tT. BF latt syr Ambrst Pelag Cassiod Bede: txt ACDKLX rel vss
Chr Thdrt Damase Thl ic lat-ff.
with their gifts. 22, 23.] Nay, the
relation between the members is so entirely
different from this, that the very dis-
paragement, conventionally, of any mem-
ber, isthe reason why more eare should be
taken of it. J understand by the 7a do-
kotvTa meAn Tod aduaTos aobevéaTepa
tmapxew, those members which in each
man’s case appear to be inheritors of
disease, or to have incurred weakness.
By this very fact, their necessity to him
is brought out much more than that of
the others. 23.] So also in the case
of the parts & Soxotmev atiydtepa civai—
on which usage has set the stamp of dis-
honour. Perhaps he alludes (as distin-
guished from 7a aox7u. below) to those
limbs which we conceal from sight in
accordance with custom, but in the ex-
posure of which there would be no ab-
solute indecency.. So Chrys., raA@s eime
74 SoKodvrTa, kal & Soxotpev (but I should
draw a distinction between the two, in
accordance with the above explanation of
acQevéor., and render Ta Soxotvra, which
appear to be, and & Soxotuev, which we
think: notice also trdpxew and elvar, on
which see Acts xvi. 20, note) Seucvis ori
od Tis ovcews TOY TpayuaTwr, GAAG THs
TaY TOAAGY Umovolas 7 Wipos.
Ti. wepioo. mepittO.] viz. by clothing :
om Ist év A Origy.
om 2nd €& ABN!.
honouring them more than the face, the
noblest part, which we do not clothe.
Kal Ta aox.| Here there is xo & Soxotpev,
and no ambiguity. Chrys. says: .. aA
buws wAelovos amoAaver Tits’ Kal of
opedpa méevntes, Kay To Aoimdy yumvdy
EXWTL TGua, ovK ay avdoxoWTO eKEtva TO
MéAn Setkor yuurd. 24.| The comely
parts are in some measure neglected, not
needing to be covered or adorned : but (op-
posed to xpelay €xer) God (at the creation)
tempered the body together (compounded
it of members on a principle of mutual com-
pensation),—to the deficient part giving
more abundant honour, 25.| that
there be no disunion (sce ver. 21) in the
body, but that the members may have
the same care (viz. that for mutual well-
being) for one another. The verb is plur.,
on account of the personification of the in-
dividual members (Meyer). 26.] Kat,
and accordingly, in matter of fact : we see
that God’s temperament of the body has
not failed of its purpose, for the members
sympathize most intimately with one an-
other. TACXEL... Tuva XEL | Kal
yap Th mrépyn modAdKis mpostaryelons
axdvens, bdov To coma aicedvera Kab
Mepiuva’ Kal v@Tos KdumTeTal, Kal yaori)p
kal unpol cvoréAAovTat, Kal xetpes Kaba-
mep Sopuddpor k. Sanpérat mposidyTes aved-
ABCDF
KLNab
cdefg
hklm
017
22—29.
IIPOS KOPINOIOY= A.
588
P , MY. Oceana ee = is \ g =ch. vii. 5
Kalpet TAVTA Ta MEAN. UILEIG OF EGTE OWUA YPLOTOU KAQL © veg, ;
pedAn Ek z pspoue.
pes , ~ ’ , ld
exkAnola 7 OWTOV amooroAovc, OevTEPOV
~ heh, xiii. 9 bis,
Nea ats \ k e N ’
28 Kal OUC MEV eQero oO Qeoc év ™) 10, 12 only.
(see Rom. xi.
25 reff.)
1 Kings xxiii.
26
mn 2
mpopnrac,
’ , 7 / of 5
tpirov ™? doacKkaAoue, evetta P Suvaperc, Eretta * yapiomata i= versal.
see note.
3 , > , , ~
Viapatwr, “avriArnupec, * KuBepynaec, ° yevn * yAwaoun, Ke ver iss
29 s , eee: x - ‘ A
By TaVTEec ATOOTOAOL, PY TAVTEC
Eph. iv. 11. n Acts xi. 27 reff.
q ver. 9 (reff.).
Bavectat, Acts xx. 35.)
27. cwpa bef core F Ambry.
labsol., Acts
mn ie 5 S xii. 1. “Eph.
TOOCQRYTAL , YY i. 22 al.
? ? B m Acts xiii. 1.
o1Tim.ii.7. 2 Tim.i. 11. p = ver. 10.
rhere only. Ps. xxi. 19. Sir. xi. 12. 2 Mace. viii. 19. (-Aap-
shere only. Prov.i.5. xi. 14. (xx.18F.) xxiv. 6 only.
for pepous, weAous (perhaps error: perhaps, as
Mey, cx pep. was not understood) D\(and lat) vulg syr(uep. marg) arm Orig, Eus Nyssen
Epiph Cyr, Thdrt, Procl lat-fi(om ex pe.
Thdrt Damase (c Thi.
Hil Aug): txt is supported by Orig, Chr
28. rec for 2nd emerra, ert (corrn as more usual, follg eweita: the omn may be
accounted for by « desire to throw all into one catalogue), with KL rel Thdrt @e Thi:
om DF Hil Ambr: txt ABCN a 17 Bas Cyr-jer Chr Cyr Damasce.
ins above the line X-corr!.
Kovot TY Tayev, Kal Kepadh emidmrel, Kat
bpOadpol meT& TOAATS Spor THs povt loos.
Chrys. Sofdlerar... ovyxatper |
Chrys. again with equal beauty instances,
orepavorta 7 Kepadh, Kal Eras 6 dvOpw-
mos dokdCeTae A€yer TH oOTSma, Kal yeA@ow
bpOarpol Kal evppatvovra. But perhaps
the analogy requires that we should rather
understand Sof of those things which
physically refresh or benefit the member,
e.g. anointing or nourishment.
27.| Application of all that has been
said of the physical body, to the Corin-
thians as the mystical body of Christ:
and to individuals among them, as mem-
bers in particular, i.e. each according to
his allotted part in the body. Hach church
is said to be the body of Christ, as each is
said to be the temple of God (see ch. iii.
16, note) : not that there are many bodies
or many temples; but that each church is
an image of the whole aggregate,—a micro-
cosm, having the same characteristics.
Chrys. would understand é« wépovs—ort oT
éxxAnola 7 map tuiv wépos eotl THs Tay-
Taxod Kemerns exxAnoias, Kal TO TwmaTos
TOU Oi TATOV TVVLOT OpevoU TAY EKKANTI@Y :
but this, though true, does not appear to
have been here before the Apostle,—only
the whole Corinthian church as the body
of Christ, and its individual components as
members, each in his appointed place.
28.| The divine disposition of the members
in the spiritual body. os mév was
apparently intended to be followed by ous
(or &AAous) d¢, but meanwhile another
arrangement, mp@Tov, devT., TplT., Occurs
to the Apostle, and ods ev is left uncor-
rected, standing alone. See Eph. iv. 11,
where ros pev is followed by tods 8¢,
regularly. év Ty éxkA.]| in the (uni-
om yevn X!:
versal) church, a sense more frequently
found in the Epistle to the Ephesians, than
in any other part of St. Paul’s writings.
mp. atoatdéAous | Not merely the Twelve
are thus designated, but they and others
who bore the same name and had equal
power, e. g. Paul himself, and Barnabas,
and James the Lord’s brother: see also
note on Rom. xvi. 7. apo. | See
above, on ver. LO. SidacKkadovs | Sce
reff. : those who had the gift of expound-
ing and unfolding doctrine and applying it
to practice,—the Adyos copias and the
Adyos yvadoews. Suvapers | He here
passes to the abstract nouns from the con-
crete,—perhaps because no definite class of
persons was endowed with each of the
following, but they were promiscuously
granted to all orders in the church : more
probably, however, without any assignable
reason ; as in Rom. xii. 6—8, he passes
from the abstract to the concrete.
avrudypwes | i.e. dvréxerOa Tay ao0evav
and the like, as Chrys. forming one depart-
ment of the Siaxovia of ver. 5: as do also
kuBepvyjcets, a higher department, that of
the presbyters or bishops—the direction of
the various churches. yévyn yAwooaey |
cides mov Téberke TOUT) TO Xapioua, Kal Tas
mavTaxod Thy eoxaTnY avVTG vemer THEW ;
Chrys. There certainly seems to be inten-
tion in placing this Zas¢ in rank: but Tam
persuaded that we must not, with Meyer,
seek for a classified arrangement: here, as
above, vv. 7—L1, it seems rather suggestive
than logical: the xap. tau. naturally sug-
gesting the avriAhupers,—and those again,
the assistances to carry out the work of the
church, as naturally bringing in the cuBep-
vices, the government and guidance of it.
29, 30.] The application of the
584
t Acts if. 4.
x. 46. xix. 6.
ch. xiv. 2&c.
u Luke xxiv.
27. Acts ix.
36. ch. xiv. 5, t
13, 27 only t.
2 Mace, i. 36
only.
(-veutHs,
ch. xiv. 28.)
v=ch. xiv. 1,
39 (xiii. 4 al.) only.
13 reff.
31" ZnNoure SE ta
w ver. 4 reff.
1 Kings xii. 23.
Sir. li. 18.
zch.iv.17.
TIPO KOPINOIOYS A.
q UJ 4 qe , ‘ ,
Xaplopara EyouvoLv ltauaTwY , Nn TAVTEC
XII. 30, 31.
Aadovow; py Tavrec “ Stepunvebouvow 5
o
“yapionata ta *peiZova’ Kat Ere
¥ cal’ ¥ vrepBoAny * odov byty Seikvum. KILL. | édy raic
x = ch. xiii. 13. xiv. 6. y Rom. vii.
see Acts xiii. 10 reff.
31. ree for peova, kperrrova, with DFKL rel (-ccova DF &c) latt copt Orig,
Sevrn-c Chr Damasc, Phot Thl(ov« eire Ta welCova GAAG Ta KpelrTova): txt ABCR m
17.73 am Syr (syr ?) wth Orig, Thdor-in-ctn Thdrt-comm Damase, Phot Orig-int Jers.
om ra F old-lat.
questions already asked vv. 17—19.
29. Suvdpets] not, as Meyer, al., accusa-
tive, governed by €xovo1v—which involves
a departure from the parallelism, besides
the harshness of construction :—but nomi-
native, in apposition with mdytes. The
Apostle has above placed the concrete,
ardaToAo, mpop7rat, SiddocKadol, in appo-
sition with duvdwers and yapiou. iau., and
now proceeds with the same arrangement
till he comes to xapiopatra iauatwy, which
being too palpably unpredicable of persons,
gives rise to the change of construction,—
wh wdvres Xap. €xovow iaudtwy; In the
last two questions, he departs from the
order of the last verse, and takes in again
one particular from the former catalogue,
ver. 10. Meyer compares Hom. Il. ».
726—734. See Stanley’s note and excur-
sus. $1.] But (he has been shewing
that all gifts have their value: and that
all are set in the church by God: some
however are more valuable than others) do
ye aim at the greater gifts (uel¢. is ex-
plained ch. xiv. 5). This exhortation is not
inconsistent with ver. 11: but, as we look
for the divine blessing on tillage and care-
ful culture, so we may look for the aid of
the Spirit on carefully cultivated powers of
the understanding and speech ;—and we
may notice that the greater gifts, those of
tpopnreta and d:d5acKradAta, consisted in the
inspired exercise of the conscious faculties,
in which culture and diligence would be
useful accessories. ‘ Spiritus dat, ut vult
(ver. 11): sed fideles tamen libere aliud
pre alio possunt sequi et exercere, ¢c. xiv.
26.” Bengel. Compare also xiv. 39. There
is thus no need to explain away (yAoire,
as Grot. (‘‘ agite cum Deo precibus ut ae-
cipiatis”) and others: or to depart from
the known usage of xapiouara, and explain
it to mean faith, hope, and love, as Morus,
or the fruits of love, as Billroth. kal
ért| And moreover: besides exhorting you
to emulate the greatest gifts.
ka’ tm. 68.] An eminently excellent
way, viz. of emulating the greatest, gifts :
for eri, ett D!: ere F.
—so Theophyl.: kat eta tovtwy (Todt
yap SnAot Td Kal E71), edy BAws (nAwTal
bmdpxnTe Xapiouatwy, Seltw suiv play
6d5dv Kal brepBoAny, Tovtéativ, brepexov-
cay, ATis p€per ert wavta Ta xapiopata’
Thy ayanny O& A€yet. Kad’ dmepB. |
must not be joined with the verb,—‘ est
adhuc via quain vobis diligentissime de-
monstro’ (Pagnini’s version, and some
mentioned by Estius): see reff. and ef. 7
ddicta avayvepiots, Arist. Poet. ii. 6,—
pada otpatnyov, Xen. Hell. vi. 2. 39,—
ed mpatis, Asch. Agam. 262,—ood5pa
yuvakev, Plat. Legg. i. p. 639 c, and
other examples in Bernhardy, Syntax, p.
338. The explanation of Estius and
Billroth, that the way which he is about to
shew them is ‘multo excellentiorem iis
donis de quibus hactenus egit’ (Hst.), is
clearly wrong: the opening verses of ch.
xill. shewing, that he doesnot draw acom-
parison between love and gifts, but only
shews that it is the only way, in which
gifts can be made effectual in the highest
sense. See also on ch. xiv. 1.
Cuap. XIII. 1—18.] Tor PANEGYRIC OF
Love; as the principle without which all
gifts are worthless (1—8): its attributes
(4—7) : tts eternity (8—12): its superior
dignity to the other great Christian graces
(13). Meyer quotes from Valcknaer, p.
299: “Sunt figure oratorie, que hoe
caput iHuminant, omnes sua sponte natz
in animo heroico, flagrante amore Christi
et huic amori divino omnia postponente.”
“It may,” he adds, “without impro-
priety be called ‘a Psalm of Love :’”—the
nrpywy of the New.Test. (see Ps. xlv.
title). “On each side of this chapter the
tumult of argument and remonstrance still
rages: but within it, all is calm: the sen-
tences move in almost rhythmical melody :
the imagery unfolds itself in almost drama-
tic propriety: the language arranges itself
with almost rhetorical accuracy. We can
imagine howthe Apostle’s amanuensis must
have paused to look up in his master’s
face at the sudden change of his style of
, A , 2 bs ,
mavrec "° OvdackaAor; wy mavtec ° Ouvapetc; °° py TavTeC ABCDP
Ra
ek ed
@wooalc c
Y seek
defg
klm
ol7
XIII. 1—3.
~ >
* yroooate Tey hii chibead
ayarray of uy EX, ® yéyova ye abun oe
2 Kav
sok ‘adahatov. EX
" pwariipta mavra Kat pated THY
IPOS KOPINOIOYS A.
: Aad Kal Twv *
Syreow, Kav
585
ayyéedwy, § asoch. iv. 9.
i aii.
anXev oi * KvuPa- on omurk aia
A \ Pal xii. 41.
ev. Xviii. 12
pga Kat HOO TA Ie Ce
k » iv. 22.
EX | magay bere (Luke
xxi. 25 v.4r.)
|»
THY K lor WC TE don | ™ udioraven, a ayarny Oe To) exw, omy jae
Vil. (1. ye
n ps 2 3 vn re) ’ , ‘ p e , , (-
xos, Acts
ovbév expe. kav °Ywpicw mavra ta ? vrapyovta (x
e here only. 1 Chron. xiii. 8. f Mark v.38 only. Josh. vi. 20. g = Rom. xii. 6. ch. xii.
10, xiv. 22 al. (Rev. i. 3.) see Sir. xxiv. 33. h Matt. xiii. 11. ch. xy. 51. Dan ii. 18 al.
ich. viii. 1. xii. 8 al. Prov. xxx. (xxiv.) 3. k Acts xiv. 9 reff. LIsa. liv. 10.
m -cveuv, here only ¢t. (Luke xvi. 4. Acts xiii. 22. xix. 26. Col. i. 13 only. aude x. 16 F.) neh.
vii. 19 reff. o Rom. xii. 20 only. constr., here only. Num. xi. 4, 18 al. p = Matt.
xix. 21. xxiv. 47. Heb. x.34al. Gen. xii. 5.
oH XIII. 1. homeotel in &! from pn exw to pn exw next ver:
for, yeyova, ev et D1, also addg 7, F, [tn] unum sum ut old-lat(viz,
X-corr!
D-lat E- lat G-lat spec) zeth Augaliq Pelag Bede.
supplied by
adadavwy AD d.
2. rec (for av) kat eay (twice in this ver and twice in next), with DFKL() rel Chr
Thdrt Damase, Ist (4th time ka: av) B, 4th 17: txt AC, au and 3rd B, Ist 2nd and
3rd 17. ins ta bef rayra F.
rel Orig, Chr Thdrt Damase (ce.
peOtorava. BDFR-corr! m 17 Clem Thi: txt ACKL
elz ovdevy, with D!FK Method Mac, Chr
ae txt ABCD3& Clem Eph Bas Mac, Damase (ic Thl-comm.
8. elz Pouilw (corrn, the force of the aor not being perceived), with K: txt A
dictation, and seen his countenance lighted
up as it had been the face of an angel, as
the sublime vision of divine perfection
passed before him.” Stanley. 1]
éav Aad supposes a case which never
has been exemplified: even if I can speak,
or as EK. V. though I speak. So Isocr.
Areop. p. 142,—aaAd’ éay wev katopbdowar
mepi tivas mpdtes, 2) Sid TYxHY, 7) OV
avdpos apethy, piucpoy Siadumdyvtes modu
eis Tas avTas Gmopius KaTéoTnoay. See
Matthie, § 523. 1. Tats yAeooats
T. GvOp. x. T. ayy. | dpa médev EpxeTau
™p@Tov amd Tov Bavuaorov Sokovytos
elvat map autos Kah peyaAou, TOV YAwo-
o@y. Chrys. It is hardly possible to un-
derstand yA@éooa: here of any thing but
articulate forms of speech : i.e. languages.
Meyer and De W., who deny that the
speaking with tongues was ever in an
articulate language, vehemently impugn
such a rendering here. But their own ren-
dering is to me undistinguishable from it,
as far as the sense is concerned: ‘tongues
speaking in all possible ways, surely, in
the common acceptation of words, must
mean, tongues speakiny all possible lan-
guages, and the use of the word indif-
ferently for the tongue and a tongue (a
language), when this very gift is spoken of,
e. g. Acts il. 4, compared with 11, and here
as compared with ch. xii. 30, is one of the
strongest proofs that AaActy yAdooais is to
speak in languages : see note on Acts ii. 4.
Of men (generic) and of angels (ge-
neric): i. e. ‘of all men and all angels,’
whatever those tongues may be.
aydrnv | Love Zo all, in its most general
sense, as throughout the chapter: no dis-
tinction being here drawn between love to
man and to God, but the general principle
dealt with, from which both spring. The
‘ Caritas’ of the Latin versions has oc-
casioned the rendering ‘ charity’ in most
modern versions. Of this word Stanley
remarks, “the limitation of its meaning
on the one hand to mere almsgiving, or on
the other to mere toleration, has so much
narrowed its sense, that the simpler term
‘ Love,’ though too general exactly to meet
the case, is now the best equivalent.”
yéyova] Iam become; the case supposed
is regarded as present: ‘if Ican speak...
I am become.’ xadx. Hx. | Brass, of
any kind, struck and yielding a sound: i.e.
avalaO@nrév tt Kk. &bvxov. Chrys. No
particular musical instrument seems to be
meant. Kv pBador | KUpBara iv mAa-
Téa Kk. meydAa XdAKeEa, Jos. Antt. vii. 12.3.
The Heb. name is most expressive, O°223-
There appear to have been two sorts, men-
tioned in Ps. cl. 5, pow z>s and myn .x,
rendered by the LXX, xupBéArots eUNXols
—and #«. dAadayuov, as here. Winer
thinks the former answered to our castag-
nettes, the latter to our cymbals. The
larger kind would be here meant. See
Winer, RWB. art. ‘ Becken.’ ada-
Adfov] see Ps. cl. cited above. 2.]
Ta pvotTyp. WavTa are all the secrets of
the divine counsel,—see Rom. xi. 25 (note) ;
xvi. 25,—and reff. The knowledge of these
would be the perfection of the eift of pro-
phecy. The verb belongs to both puor.
and yv@s.v. The full construction would
be «(56 wvor. and éxw yao. TAacav
THhv wiotw hardly, as Stanley, implies ‘ a/Z
the faith in the world,’ but rather, ‘all
586
IIPOX KOPINOIOYS A.
XIII.
wn ~ ‘ ~ , id
= Acts xv. q
Ie Dan, HOM Kav rapade TO OWA fou tva kavlnowpat,
28 (95 € 4 t
5 a 26. ayanny oe mn EX, oveey * opeAovuat. 4 n ah igi s ar
Matt. xvi. 26.
Prov. x. 2. ofu [n ]
t Matt, xvii cP ‘ Lgl, " Xonoreverat, 7 ayarn ain " endgh i] ayamy
6, 29.
26, eke oy * mepmepevetar, ov ¥ puoovtat, ° ovK * doXnHovei, ov
1 Thess.v.14. q ~ a oa. - Yee, 0 , > \
Beye! a Cnret Ta EaUTNC, OU maooGuverat, ou © Xo yiderar ° TO
a Ss a
bis,&. 2 Pet. 4 Aaj Ope taal. Seah aes 10 fi f 4 Oe S
ate ’9 only. KAROYs ou KEtOEl el TH a (Kid, OUYVX GtpEt € 7
Proy. xix. 11. (-uta, Rom. ix. 22. -uws, Acts xxvi. 3.) u see Rom. ii.4. 2 Cor. vi. 6. v here
only ¢. (not found elsewhere. Lexx.) w Acts vii. 9 reff. x here only t. see note. y ch. iv. 6 reff.
zch. vii. 36 only. Deut.xxy. 3. (-ootvn, Rom.i.27. -uwy, ch. xii. 23.) ach. x. 24, Phil. ii. 21.
b Acts xvii. 16 only (reff.). c = Rom iy. 8, from Ps. xxxi. 2. d Rom. ii. 9 reff. econstr.,
Matt. xviii. 13.
BCDFLY® rel.
Luke i.14. Acts xv. 31. ch. xvi.17. 2 Cor. vii. 13. Prov. xxiv. 19.
fch. xii. 26 ref.
kavenoouat DEKL b?edf h k Mae Max: ravynowua: ABR 17
copt-ms eth Ephr Jer(from gr-mss asserts apud Girecos ipsos ipsa exemplaria diversa
esse, but thinks, 0d similitudinem KkavOnowua ef Kavxnowpa apud Latinos errorem
inolevisse) : txt CK rel Chr Thdrt lat-ff Jacob-nisib.
txt BCDFKL rel Chr Thdrt.
ov@ev AN 17. 73 Bas-ms:
4. om 3rd 7 ayarn B a 17. 19. 55. 73-4. 118-22! lect-17 vulg copt arm Clem Epbr
Chr Thl Tert Ambrst Ambr.
5. for Ta eavTns, To wn eavTyns B Clem.
the faith required to,’ &c.: or perhaps the
art. conveys the allusion to our Lord’s
saying, Matt. xvii. 20; xxi. 21: ‘all that
faith,’ so as, &e. 3.| The double
accus, after Ywul¢w is found in the reff. to
LXX: but here the accus. of the person
is omitted, and left to be supplied from the
context: If I bestow in food all my sub-
stance. Sce the quotation from Coleridge
in Stanley’s note. Tapas. T. TOL.
p- tva kav8.] So ref. Dan., cal rapéSoxav
To THpata a’Tay eis eumupiopdv, LXX.
mop, Theod.: see also 2 Mace. vii. 37.
He evidently means in self-sacrifice : for
country, or friends. Both the deeds men-
tioned in this verse are such as ordinarily
are held to be the fruits of love, but they
may be done without it, and if so, are
worthless. Stanley prefers cavxjowpa:—
and Lachmann has edited it. The objec-
tions to it seem to me to be, (1) It leaves
maoad@ standing in a very vague and un-
defined meaning—*‘‘ deliver, to what?”
(2) It introduces an irrelevant and con-
fusing element, a boastful motive, into a
set of hypotheses which put forward merely
an act or set of acts on the one side, and
the absence of love on the other: and in-
deed, worse still, (3) it makes an hypo-
thesis which would reduce the self-sacri-
fice to nothing, and would imply the
absence of love; and so would render
aydrnv 5& wh exw unnecessary.
4—.| The blessed attributes .of love.
4.] paxpobupet is the negative
side, ypyatevetar the positive, of a eas
temper: the former, the withholding of
anger; the latter, the exercise of kind-
ness. ov Enrot, ‘knows neither envy
nor jealousy both are included under
the more general-sense of (jAos.
meptopeverat A Lphr.
meptrepevetat| The word occurs in Cicero
ad Attic. i. 14: ‘Di boni! quomodo émep-
Tepevoduny novo auditori Pompeio!’ and
Mare. Antonin. v. 5: apeoxevec@a, kal
mepmepeverOal, kK. TooatTa pimTadcecOat TH
Wuxn.
mwépmepos and meprépeia, is a good defni-
tion from Basil: tf éori 7d wepmepever Oa ;
may © ph bia xpelav, GAAG Sia KaAAw-
Ticmov mepthauBavetat mepmepelas exeL
katnyoptav. And the Etymol. Mag.,—
avtl Tov, paTaovTal, aTaKTEl, KaTeTat-
petat pete PBdAakelas emaipduevos. The
nearest English expression would perhaps
be displays not itself. See Wetst.
gvo., see, for a contrast, ch. viii. 1.
5.| ovK aoxnpovet seems to be general,
without particular reference to the disor-
ders in public speaking with tongues. 7&
éavtyAs— Love is so personified, as here to
be identified with the man possessing the
grace, who does not seek ra éavTov: see
ch. x. 83. ov oyif. To Kakdv |
imputeth not (the) evil: ovdéy movnpdy
ov povoy ov KaTacKevd er GAN ovde bT0-
mTevel KaTa Tod ayannuéevov, Chrys. :
and so Theodoret, Theophyl., Estius,
Rickert, Meyer: and this is better and
more accordant with the sense of Aoy!¢e-
rat, than the more general rendering
‘thinketh no evil” And we must not over-
look the article, which seems here to have
the force of implying that the evil actually
exists, ‘the evil’ which is,—but Love does
not impute it. So Theodoret, cuyyiweéorer
Tots é€mTaicmevois, ovx em) KaK@ oudTe
TavTa yeyevnjoba vmroAauBaver.
6. od x. éwt Tq 48.| rejoices not at (the)
iniquity, i. e. at its commission by others,
—as is the habit of the unloving world.
aovyxatper TH aA. | Most Commenta-
Among the examples in Wetst. of
ABCDF
KLNab
cedefg
hkilm
ol7
4—10. I1IPOS KOPINOIOYS A. 587
> ’ , h , la i , ,
5 aXnbeia, 7 TavTa OTEYVEL, TAVTA : TLOTEVEL, TavTa ee cole i. 6.
ess. ii.
’ ' p k ¢ t C4 Ie oe Or ] ' F
ehmiter, mavra “vmopéve. 87 ayarn ovdémote Timre. 1 Rom
WA ~ iii. 8.
wyroo- ™ gire Oe ” moopnreiat, ° ssapanyliggisad ™ sire P yLoooat, heh. ix. 12.
oa C, 9 < 0; Qr? poet iii.1,
ABDF on
KL ab mavoovrat’ EITE FMB ORICS * Raraneynt noET al. EK Sir. 2A 17
cedefg é Ou a Wwwoko LEV Kal "EK é OU ag 19) NTEVO Ev’ fae
hkim iter ¢ * cs ‘ f 1) Sb ? . ? i y M ee
= KC Yr.
o17 oTrav oc& EAUH TO TEAELOY, TO EK * pé00uC ° katapyn GAG aEBe
x. 32. xii. 2,
3. Jamesi. 12. Wisd. xvi. 22. 1 = Luke xvi. 17. 1 Kings iii.19. é«a., = Jamesi. 11. see
note, and Acts xli.7. Rom. ix. 6. m so ch, xiv. 7. xv. 11. 2 Cor. viii. 23. n ver.
2 (reff.). Och. i. 28 reff. 2 Cor. iii. 14. p Acts ii. 4 reff. q absol., Acts xx.
]. Exod. ix. 33, 34. rch. xii. 27 reff. sch. xi. 4, 6 reff. t=ch. ii. 6. xiv.
20. Kom. xii.2. James i. 4bis. 1 Johniv.18. Ps. cxxxviii. 22.
8. om 7 B. rec exmmret, with C?3DKLN® rel Clem Orig, Mac Chr Thdrt,
Damase (Ze Thi lat-if: txt ABC!X! 17 Nyssen Orig-int Ambrst Aug. om de
C!DIFK latt copt arm Did lat-ff: ins ABC?D?-3LX syr goth gr-ff. Tpopnynrete,
KkatapynOnoerat B: mpopntia katapynOnoortat(sic) A. yreces [or -o1s | katap-
yn9noovra (to conform to the preceding clauses) AD°EX 17 (Tert).
9. for yap, de (perhaps because this sentence was regarded not as rendering a reason
Sor the last, but as another asser tion of the imperfection of knowledge and prophecy)
KL rel Phot(in (Ee: 6€ ayti rod ydp. aitia ydp éote Tov dia 7) meAAOVOL KaTapy. K.
mato.) Ge: om 67? goth eth Orig, Melet Chr: txt ABDFN m latt Orig, Thdrt Iren-
int Hil.
10. rec ins rote bef 70 ex wepous (for emphasis and precision), with D’-3KL rel syrr
Melet Chr Thdrt: om ABD!FX 17 latt copt goth eth arm Orig, Ath Damase Iren- ‘int
Orig-int. KatapynOnoetat bef To ex wepous D!3F latt Syr goth Jer. TO El Me
F i en-int.
tors, as the E. V., altogether overlook
the force of the verb and the altered
construction, and render, ‘rejoiceth in
the truth ? others, who respect the verb,
make 77 dA79.= Tots evdorimovor (Chrys.),
those to whom, as in 3 John 12, weuap-
TUpnTa Um avTasS THS dAnOeias. But
Meyer’s rendering is the only one which
preserves the force of both words: re-
joices with the Truth, 7 dA‘0. being
personified, and meaning especially the
spread among men (as opposed to adurcia)
of the Truth of the Gospel, and indeed
of the truth in general, —in opposition
to those who (ref. Rom.) thy dAn@eray
ev adixla kar éxovgt,—who (ref. 2 Tim.)
avOloravrat ™ GAdnbela. a
mavrTa,—i. e. all things which can
be borne with a good conscience. So
Bengel, of all four: ‘ videlicet, que te-
genda vel credenda, quee speranda et suf-
ferenda sunt.’ oréyer| bears: see
note, ch. ix. 12. Hammond, Estius,
Bengel (above),—‘ covers :’ but the varia-
tion in sense from ch. ix. is needless.
mot. | viz. without suspicion of another.
éeAw(f.] viz., even against hope—
hoping what is good of another, even when
others have ceased to do so. trop. |
viz. persecutions and distresses inflicted by
others, rather than shew an unloving spirit
to them. 8—12.| The eternal abiding
of Love, when other graces have passed
away. 8. wine | The exact word is
that of the E. V., faileth: so Theod.: ov
diacpdAAeTat, GAN? ded péver BeBala k.
aodAeuTos K. akivntos, és aed Siapévovca.
TovTo yap 61a Toy éemayonevwv édldatev.
Of the two readings, we may illustrate
amimret by Plat. Phileb., p. 22 5, dAAG why,
@ Sadnpates, Eworye Sowed viv pev Oovy
go. memTwKevat Kabamepel TAnyetou rd
T@Y VoY a) Ad-yow : and Polyb. x. 33. 4,
Kay TOTE TET TH dda, “in case the Ww fale
plan should fail :? id. i.35.5: and € éxminrer
by Plat. Gorg. p. 517, ef odto prtopes
Roa, ovTE TH adn Ouwy pnt opuch €XPw@VTO
(cd yap ay étémecov) ovTE TH KOAaKIKh :
where Heindorf,—‘ proprie usurpatur de
actoribus, citharcedis, aliisque, qui a spec-
tatoribus exploduntur et exsibilantur :’ and
by the celebrated passage in Demosthenes
mept oredp. p. 315,—erpitayeviortes, eyo
& ededpouy. ckémimtes, eye 8 eovpittov:
where also, by the way, émmres is a va-
rious reading. By eite, etre, etre, the
general idea, yaptopata, is split into its
species —be there prophesyings,—be there
(speakings in) tongues,—be there know-
ledge. Chrys., al., understand the two
first futures, katapy., wavo., of the time
when, the faith being every where dis-
persed, these gifts should be xo longer
needed. But unquestionably the time al-
luded to is that of the coming of the Lerd ;
see ver. 12, and this applies to all these,
not to the last (yvéo.s) only. The two
first, mpod. and yAdao., shall be abso-
lutely superseded: yv@ots, relatively ays the
imperfect, by the perfect. 9, 10.]
588
u gospp. and
Acts, passim.
Panl, Gal. i.
10, 22 only.
Neh. ii. 15.
nucba, Matt.
xxii. 30 bis. ces avno,
Acts xxvii.
1 ye
,
Baoerat. OTE
37. Epb. ii. 3.
vch. iii. 1 reff. &
Gal. iv. 1, 3.
w absol., here TooC
only. Isa. @ » s
xliv. 18. ETLYVWTONAL
x = Rom ii. 2.
y Rom. viii. 5 reff.
xii. 8. Sir. xxxix. 3.
i.32. Matt. xi. 27 bis
22. vii.6,17 al. Job xxx. 1,9.
ll. aft 1st ore ins Se D! fuld.
‘
7o0CwToY"
KaQwe
IPOS KOPINOIOYS A.
u
nunv
, ? € Vv , x? , € Vv , a ey! /
* Eppovouv WC vymTtoc, eAoyilouny WC VYUTIOC OTE oa
oO s
ph Sn lle!
yao aort ou 7 ecomT poy ev “auviyuare, TOTE oe? mpdcwirov
b
aprtt ywwoKe
z Jamesi. 23 only +t. Wisd. vii. 26. Sir. xii. 11 only.
b Gen. xxxii. 30. see 2 John 12, 3 John 14.
Jer. v. 5. (absol., Acts ix. 30 only.)
XIII. 11—13.
v ie ’ , € Vv ,
vyTloc, eAaAouvr WC VHTLOC,
‘ ~ , 97 ,
ae TOU TUNTOV. 12 PAérousy
, OE
EK péoove, Tore E
13 e uw Os
a here only. Num.
ec = Rom.
e Rom. vi.
Kat ° heen
Num, xii. 8.
dch, xii. 11 reff.
rec ws vnmios bef the verb (3 times), with DFKL
rel fuld syrr Epiph Chr Thdrt, Th] (ce lat-ff; 1st time, m: txt ABN 17 vulg copt eth
Clem Orig Bas Nyss (Did) Thdr t, Damase Orig. int, Jer Aug,.
ree aft 2nd ote
ins 6e, with DSFKLN rel syrr copt eth Origatig, Epiph Chr Thdrt Tert: om ABD!(and
lat) &! am(with harl! tol, agst fuld al) goth Origa, Did Hil.
B.
for yeyova, eyevouny
Ta Tov vntiov bef katynpynka DEF syr goth Bas lat-ff. (not F-lat Aug.)
12. om yap D'!F Jatt arm Cyr Tert Cypr Ambrst.
ins kat bef ev awiypati L f 63. 109-78 Origsepe Gaud,.
in 2nd tore, re is written over the line by X-corr!
b g o Clem, Thdrt, Tert.
F D-lat G-lat tol Cypr.
Reason given ;—that our knowledge, and
our prophesying (utterance of divine things)
are but partial, embracing but a part : but
when that which is perfect (entire—uni-
versal) shall have come, this partial shall
be abolished—superseded. See Eph. iv.
11—13, where the same idea is otherwise
expressed. 11.] Analogical illustra-
tion of ver. 10. vytTios and té\etos
are used in contrast ch. ii. 6—iii. 1; xiv.
20. éX\ddouv, éppdvovv, éoyilopnv
—I spoke, I felt (was minded), I judged.
There can hardly be an allusion, as
Theophyl., Gic., Bengel, Olsh., al., think,
to the three gifts, of tongues (e€dAdd.), pro-
phecy (éppév., which suits but very lamely),
and knowledge (édoy:¢.) ote yey.
«.7.A.| Now that Iam become a man, I
have brought to an end the ways of a
child: not, as E. V., ‘when I became a
man, I put away ...., as if it were done
on a set day, and as if yéy. and Karnpy.
were aorists. For this use of dre, cf.
Demosth. Olynth. 1, init. dre rolvuy
Tavl obrws EXEL, Mposhnker mpodvuws eOe-
Acw aeovew: see Kiihner, § 813. 2.
12.] Contrast between our present
sight and knowledge,—and those in the
Suture perfect state. yap justifies the
analogy of the former verse: for it is just
so with ws. Gptt, in our present con-
dition, until the Lord’s coming. &v
ésémtpov, through a mirror: i. e. as
Billroth, Meyer, and De W.—according to
the popular illusion, which regards the
object, really seen behind the mirror, as
seen through it.
our mirrors of glass, but of the imperfectly-
reflecting metallic mirrors of the ancients.
We must think, not of
ins ws bef 8: esortpov D-gr
ins eyw bef ereyvwoOnv
The idea of the lapis specularis, placed in
windows, being meant, adopted by Schétt-
gen from Rabbinical usage (e. g. ‘omnes
prophetze viderunt per specular obscurum,
et Moses doctor noster vidit per specular
lucidum’ [ Wetst.] : and see numerous ex-
amples in his Hor. Hebr. i. 646 ff), and
followed by many Commentators, is incon-
sistent with the usage of és0mtpov, which
(Meyer) is always a MIRROR (Pind. Nem.
vii. 20: Anacr. xi 2; xx. 5. Lucian, Amor.
xliv. 48: see also reff.) : the window of
lapis specularis being 8tortpa (Strabo,
xli. 2, p. 540). év aivytypatt| There
is a reference to ref. Num., ordéua kata
otbua AaAhTw ad’T@ ev ectSe1, kal ov SP
aiviypdtwy. Many take the words adverbi-
ally,—‘ entgmatically’ (so KE. V.,‘darkly’) :
but this cannot be, because atviyua is ob-
jective, not subjective: ‘adark hint given
by words.’ I agree with Meyer, notwith-
standing De Wette’s strong objections, in
believing év aiviywatt to mean ‘in a dark
discourse,’ viz. the revealed word, which is
dark, by comparison with our future per-
fect knowledge. Soalso Luther: in einem
dunfeln Wort. Thus, as M. observes, év
will denote, as év TG xpur7@, Matt. vi. 4,
the local department, in which the BXérew
takes place. TéTE = ray Abn Td
TéXevov, ver. 10: ‘at the Lord's coming,
and after? Tpdswm. mpos Tpdswm. |
Face towards face, i. e. by immediata
intuition : so Heb. in reff. I shall tho-
roughly know even as I was (during this
life: he places himself in that state, and
uses the aor. as of a thing gone by) tho-
roughly known. In this life we are known
by God, rather than know Him: see Gal.
ABDF
KLNab
edefg
hkilm
017
XIV. 1—3.
TIPO KOPINOIOY® A.
589
Poe ’ ’ \ Lt 2 \ , ~ * t \ ses
pévee Tlotic eAmic ayamn, Ta Tpla Tavta B petlwy de fz Heb. xiii
, € ’ ,
TOUTWY N ayaTyn.
> i« ~ “
XIV. !" Até&xere tiv ayarny, ‘Cndovre 88 ra * rvev-
patixa, paddov o& twa ' oopnrevnte. 20
> - ~ ~
™ yAwsoy oUK avNowrotc ads, adda [rw | Bew" ovdete .
\ n? 7 oO , 8 »\ - p , ri 3 ¢ : NT -
yao “axove, °rvevpare d& Aader? puornpia’® ° o o& T00-
reff. 1 ch. xi. 4, 5 reff.
14,15. Acts xvii. 16.
m ch. xii. 30 reff.
p ch. xiii. 2 reff.
1, see note.
g£—ch. xii. 31.
xiv. 5. com-
parat., Matt.
xiii. 32.
rene aed
‘ m = ch. xv. 19.
a AaXdwy h = Rom. ix.
30 reff. Ps.
Exxiii. 14.
= ch. xii. 31.
ver. 39 only.
Sir. li. 18.
k =ch. x.3,4
n = Markiy. 33. Gen. xi. 7, xlii. 23. Oo = vV.
Cuap. XIV. 2. yAwosoats D-gr F-gr b 0 G?-lat Chr, Cyr Aug. ovx X.
om Tw bef ew (for conformity with avp.?) BD'FX' 1 Chr-comm : ins AD3KLN3 rel
Thdrt Damase Th] He.
flor) Pelag Vig Bede.
ovOis &.
iv. 9; ch. viii. 3, note,—and cf. Philo de
Cherub. 32, vol. i. p. 159, viv dre (Ger,
Kpatovucba maAAov 7) apxomev, kK. yvwpt-
Céucba wadrrov 2) yywpiCouer. The sense
of this aor. éreyvaéoOny must not be forced,
as in E. V., toa present, or to a future, as
by some Commentators. 13.] Supe-
riority of Love to the other great Christian
graces. Some gifts shall pass away—but
these three great graces shall remain for
ever—FAITH, HOPE, LOVE. This is neces-
sarily the meaning,—and not that love
alone shall abide for ever, and the other
two merely during the present state. For
(1) vuvi 8€ is not ¢ but now,’ i. e. in this pre-
sent state, as opposed to what has just been
said ver. 12,—but ‘zvebus sic stantibus,’
‘que cum ita sint,—and the inference
from it just the contrary of that implied
in the other rendering: viz. that sixce
tongues, prophesyings, knowledge, will all
pass away, we have left buf THESE THREE.
(2) From the position of péver, it has a
strong emphasis, and carries the weight of
the clause, as opposed to the previously-
mentioned things which katapyn@joetat.
(8) From 1T& tpla tadta, a pre-eminence
is obviously pointed out for faith, hope, and
love, distinct from aught which has gone
before. This being the plain sense of the
words, how can faith and hope be said to
endure to eternity, when faith will be lost
in sight, and hope in fruition? With hope,
there is but little difficulty : but one place
has inscribed over its portals, “ Lasciate
ogni speranza, voi che’ ntrate.” New glo-
ries, new treasures of knowledge and of
love, will ever raise, and nourish, blessed
hopes of yet more and higher, —hopeswhich
no disappointment will blight. But how
can faith abide,—faith, which is the evi-
dence of things not seen,— where all things
once believed are seen? In the form of
holy confidence and trust, faith will abide
even there. The stay of all conscious
created being, human or angelic, is depen-
for mvevpati, mvevua F-gr G D-lat fuld(with
dence on God; and where the faith which
comes by hearing is out of the question,
the faith which consists in trusting will be
the only faith possible. Thus Hope will
remain, as anticipation certain to be ful-
filled: Faith will remain, as trust, entire
and undoubting :—the anchor of the soul,
even where no tempest comes. See this
expanded and further vindicated in my
Quebee Chapel Sermons, Vol. i. Serm.
Vili. petLov t.] The greater of
these,—not ‘greater than these.’ ‘ The
greater,” as De Wette beautifully remarks,
“because it contains in itself the reot of
the other two: we believe only one whom
we love,—we hope only that which we
love.” And thus the forms of Faith and
Hope which will there for ever subsist, will
be sustained in, and overshadowed by, the
all-pervading superior element of eternal
Love.
Cuar. XIV. 1—25.] Demonstration of
THE SUPERIORITY OF THE GIFT OF PRO-
PHECY OVER THAT OF SPEAKING WITH
TONGUES. 1.| Transition from the
parenthetical matter of the last chapter to
the subject about to be resumed. Pursue
after Love (let it be your great aim,—im-
portant and enduring as that grace has been
shewn to be): meantime however (during
that pursuit ; making that the first thing,
take up this as a second) strive for spiritual
gifts, but more (more than zy. in general :
i.e. more for this than for others) that ye
may prophesy (sc. (jAodte, va... as the
aim of your (7Aos). 2—20.] Pro-
phecy edifies the BRETHREN more than
speaking with tongues. 2.| For he
that speaks in a tongue, speaks not to
men but to God; for no one understands
him (so akovw in reff. and Athen. ix. p.
382, Zreyev phuata & ovde eis Hxovcev
av, i. e. as a general rule, the assembly do
not understand him; some, who have the
gift of interpretation of tongues, may,—but
they are the exception), but (opposed to
590
g = Rom. xiv.
19 ret.
s here only t.
Wisd. xix.
12 only.
(-@cov,
Phil. ii. 1.
-Geioba,
2 Thess. ii.
IIPOS KOPIN@IOYS A.
0 6: ' rpognrevw EKKAnolav ‘ OLKOOOMEL.
XIV.
pnrevw avOow7ouc AaXe 4 orKodopny Kat * maoakAnowy
kal * taoauv0iav. 40™ atov™ yAwooy Eavrov ‘ oikodomet,
-
5 OéXw Oé Tavrac
vuac ™Xadew ™ yAwsoatc, paddov & va Toopntevyte’
" usiZwy be 0 | ToopnTEevwY no” AaAoyv™ yAwsoate, * extoc
: . 2 , ed > ‘ , ‘ oS
= Acts ix.81” g¢ un “ Steounvedy, wa H EKKANoLa 4 oLKOSOMHY AaBy.
reff.
u=ch. xii. 3]. 6x
xiii. 13.
veh. xv. 2
1 Tim. y. 19 only. w ch. sii. 30 reff.
8. for o Se, ec yap o F-gr G; nam qui vulg(and F-lat) D-lat.
4. for AaAwy, AaAee F(G adds aut Aadwy).
vuv 6£, aed pot, éav tAQw TOOC vuac™ yAwscatc ™ hKadwv,
x ch. xii. 18 al.
avOpwrous F,
yAwooats D 46 Mac. aft
exkAnoway ins Seov F-gr G vulg-ed(not am demid fuld tol F-lat) Pelag Bede.
5. vuas bef mavras A syrr copt Ambrst.
for wa mpopntevnte, mpopntevery D! vulg Jer Pelag Bede.
om AaAeww kt,
yAwooas bef AaAew A am Chr Thi:
rec (for de aft wer(wy) yap, with DEK LN? rel vss Chr Thdrt Jer Ambrst: txt ABN! 39
copt.
diepunvever (the later mss confound « and ny to a very great extent:
see the original collations passim) Kuabedfghk1oChr Thi: d:repunvevey D', 7
o Stepunvevwy F-gr (and G-gr).
6. rec vu, with D°KL rel Chr Thl Gc:
ovdels yap Gover) in the spirit (in his
spirit, as opposed to in his understanding :
his spirit is the organ of the Holy Ghost,
but his understanding is unfruitful, see vv.
14, 15) he speaks mysteries (things which
are hidden from the hearers, and sometimes
also from himself) : 3.| but (on the
other hand) he who prophesies, speaks
to men edification (genus) and (species)
exhortation and (species) consclation. See
the definition of prophecy given on ch. xii.
10: and Stanley’s excursus introductory to
this chapter. mapapvGia occurs Plato,
Axioch. p. 365,—ao0evh thy Wuxhy, mavu
evded mapauvdias: and Alian, V. H. xii.
1, fin., mapeuwvOjoaro ’Aptatéptny, Kx. 7d
THs AUmns idcato wd0os, el~avtos TOD Bac.
7H Kndepovia, K. TH Tapapvbig meicbevTos
ouveT@s. 4.| é€avt. otk. does not
necessarily involve his waderstanding what
he speaks : the exercise of the gift in ac-
cordance with the prompting of the Spirit
may be regarded as an oixoSouq: the in-
tensity of the feeling of prayer or praise in
which he utters the words is edifying to
him, though the words themselves are un-
intelligible. This view is necessary on ac-
count of what is said in ver. 5, that if he
can interpret, he can edify not only himself
but the church. éxkAnotav] not, as
Meyer, a congregation, but = thy ékkaAn-
ciav: the art. being often omitted when a
noun in government has an emphatie place
before the verb : accordingly in ver. 5, it is
m exkA., which is edified. 5.] He
shews that it is from no antipathy to or
Jealousy of the gift of tongues that he thus
speaks : but (force of the 8) that he wished
them all to speak with tongues, but rather
that they should prophesy. The distine-
txt ABD!FX Chr-ms Thdrt Damase.
tion between the acc. and inf. after @éAw,
as the simple direct object of the wish, and
tva with the subj., as its higher and ulterior
object, has been lost in the E. V. The
second 6€ is opposed to the subordinate
Aad. yA., as in ver. 1 to Ta mvevparikd.
petLwv Sd] d¢ is transitional.
peiLov | see reff.,—superior in usefulness,
and therefore in dignity. €KTOs eb py
is a mixture of two constructions, é«rds ei,
and ei uy. It is not a Hebraism, as Grot.
supposes ; Wetst. gives examples from De-
mosth., Aristides, Lucian, Sextus Empi-
ricus : and from Thom. Mag., papeév, ends
ei uh 745, Kal exTds ei Td5e. Steppn-
vevn] viz. 6 AaAdv yAdoon, not Tis, as
suggested by Flatt. On the subj. with ei,
giving a sense not distinguishable from the
ind., see Winer, edn. 6, § 41. 2 end, and
Herm., on Soph. Ant. 706. 6.] Exam-
ple of the unprofitableness of speaking with
tongues without interpreting,—expressed
in the first person as of himself. vov
8€] ‘quod cum ita sit’—viz. that there is
no edification without interpretation.
éév €\Ow] Chrys. understands the first
person to imply ‘not even I myself should
profit you,’ &e. But then adrds éyd or
some expression similarly emphatic would
have been used. The second édy is pa-
rallel to the first, not dependent on ade-
Ajow. It is the negative side of the sup-
position, as éay €A@w «.7.A. was the affirma-
tive. On this double apodosis Hermann
remarks, Soph. Aj. 827,—‘ Est enim hee
verborum complexio ex eo genere, cujus
jam apud Homerum exempla inveniuntur,
quod duplicem habet apodosin, alteram
preemissam, sequentem alteram: que ratio
ibi maxime apta est, ubi in magno animi
4—10. IIPOS KOPINOIOY= A. 591
Pe Song > Paw - Kn ’
Tl Unacg wpednow, cay pn vuiv AaAnow 7 ¥ Ev am@oKkaXv- y ch ji. 7,18,
r 2 - = 2 x a, att. xiii. 3.
Ye yn Yev “yrwon n ” ev 4 Toognrela nvew? didayy < naa,
Tet { ‘aw ve S4 f +7 er. 8 f 7 7. Gal. ii. 2.
Onwc ta “apuya pwvnv cuddvra, ‘Eire © avAoe “ EiTE
1 j - _— ~
" «Wapa, eav ' StacrodAny tote * pboyyorc py ° dw, TWSG
, Lea | ’ , an ‘ , \
yrwolnoerat TO avAovupevov it}, FO ™ keBapiZouevon 5 8 ical (refi
b Acts ii. 42
reff.
\ \ / be
yap éav " dondov ° dwryv ° oadmrys * dw, tic P mapaokeva- TF. ao
, , 5 Ne pete Ve = ,
cerat sic TOAguOV; PoUTwWE Kal UVeEIC Sta THE yAwoonc
q a8 Q ro , e ~ ~ , ‘
éav pn ‘evonnov Aoyov dare, Two yrwoGnoerar TO
x , . A A > s 22 ~
aXovmuevoy; Eceale yao ec *atpa A\aXcuvtec.
29. Isa. xiii.10. XW dcd0vca Gopufov, Eur. Hee. 1093.
Gal. ili. 15
only. 2 Macc.
Kv.0.
d here only +.
10 Wisd. xiii.
17. xiv. 29
TO~ only.
e = Matt. xxiv.
f ch, xiii. 8 reff. g here
only. 1 Kingsx.5al. (-Antys, Matt. ix. 23.) h Rev. v. 8. xiv. 2. xv. 2only. Gen. iv. 21 al.
i Rom. x. 12 reff. k Rom. x. 18 only, from Ps. xviii. 4. Wisd. xix. 18 only. 1 Matt. xi.
17 || L. only t. m Rey. xiy. 2only. Isa. xxiii. 16. n = here (Luke x. 44) only. (Ps.
1.6 [8]). 2 Mace. vii. 34 only. Polyb. viii. 3.2, adnAoe édmtdes, and al. (-Aws, ch. ix. 26. -AoTHS,
1 Tim. vi. 17.) o Matt. xxiv. 31. Rev.i. 10. viii. 13. Exod. xix. 16, 19. p Acts x.
10. 2 Cor. ix. 2,3 only. Jer. xii. 5. q arrangt. of words, 2 Cor. ii. 4 reff. r here
onlyt. Ps. lxxx. 3 only.
om Ist 7 N ec.
F-lat D-lat om 3rd.)
7. wn bef diacroAny 7. P0oyy. D'F.
Ambrst.
8. cadm. bef dwvny AN d 17. 119 Orig.
9. for evonpuov, evcxnmov D! 21. 28. 80.
motu, quasi non satis sit id quod preemissum
est, aliud infertur secunda apodosi, quod
gravius sit et fortius.’ 7H év amrok..... ]
It seems best here, with Estius, to under-
stand ‘duo juga, ut conjugata sint reve-
latio et prophetia, ac rursus conjugata
scientia et doctrina.’ So also Meyer, who
observes that the ground of zpopnreta is
_amoxdAvyis, and that of ddax4, yv@ors :
the former being a direct speaking in the
Spirit, and the latter a laying forth by the
aid of the Spirit of knowledge acquired.
Thus ev, as referred to dmox. and yvéo.,
denotes the internal element :—as referred
to mpod. and 6:5., the external element, of
the spiritual activity. _ 7—11.| Instances
to shew that unintelligible discourse profits
nothing. And first, —7—9.] from musical
instruments. 7.] Spws occurs here
and in the two other places where it is used
in the N. T. (reff.) at the beginning of the
sentence, out of its logieal order, which
would be before édy SiaoroAhy . ., thus:
Things without life which yield sound,
whether fiute or harp, yet, if they do not,
&e. The renderings, ‘even things with-
out life’ (HE. V.), or-‘ things which, though
without life, yet give sound’ (Winer, edn.
6, § 61. 4), are inadmissible,—the former
because of the usage of dus, the latter
because no such idea as any surprise at a
thing without life yielding sound is here
in place. dev. §18.] so Si5ou pwvdy
Pind. Nem. v. 93. éav Siacr.| If
they (the apuxa ¢. 5.) shall not have
8tde D3FL rel Thdrt Damase Thl:
s ch. ix. 26 reff.
om last ev DIFN! b harl?. (am D-lat om 2nd ev: am harl?
for tors P0oyyos, PPoyyou B tol D-lat
dwre K: txt ABD'N f Orig Chr (ic.
dom D!. mapackevaterat A Orig.
yielded a distinction (of musical inter-
vals) in their tones, how shall be known
that which is being played on the flute
or that which is being played on the
harp (i. e. what tune is played in either
case: the art. being repeated to shew
that two distinct instances are contem-
plated, not necessarily ‘one tune, either
piped, or harped’ = 7b addotuevoy 3}
xiBap:Cduevov 3)? The observation of
Meyer, that this example is decisive against
foreign languages being spoken in the
exercise of this gift, is shewn to be irre-
levant by the next example, from which
the contrary might be argued—the &3nAos
gwvh of the trumpet being exactly analo-
gous to an unknown language, not to an
inarticulate sound. But the fact is that
all such inferences, from pressing analo-
gies close, are insecure. 8.] adndov,
uncertain, in its meaning : for a particular
succession of notes of the trumpet then,
as now, gave the signals for attack, and
retreat, and the various evolutions of an
army. The giving the signal for battle with
the trumpet is called by Dio Cassius 7d 7o-
AeutKdy Body, by lian 7d mapopyntucdy
éumvery: see Wetst., where many examples
are to be found. 9.| Application of
these instances. dia. T. yAdoors is
most naturally understood physically, by
means of your tongue, as answering to the
utterance of the sound by the musical in-
struments. But the technical rendering,
by means of the tongue (in the sense of
592
~ t ’
t ch. xv. 37 uta
only. i ee = ine
e Mut. 4 .
Nom. 26, vol. apwvov
i. p. 600,
MovacKe ev Esopat TW Aahovyre
yep, él 12
TUXOL, K * BapBapoc. obras Kal
ypaupati-~ 4g , b
Kickiel celts TVEVMLATWY, T00C THY
(Dion. Hal.
iv.19, Mupiwy 7 dispup., EL TUXOL ++ - «
ao = ch. xii. 10 reff.
Wie 2).
maXdatous.
2,4 reff. y= Rom. xi. 25.
iv. 1. b = Rom. xy. 2.
10. om tocavtra D! F(with G-lat).
note), with KL rel Chr Thdrt Ge:
IIPOS KOPINOIOYS= A.
éav ouv un LOW THY
* PapBapos, Kal 0 AaXwv Y ev E{OL
v = here only.
txt ABDFX Clem Damase Thl.
koonw D'F bo, hoc vulg-ed(and F-lat, not am) Ambrst Bede.
Pah Es
t 2% us ~ ’ ’ , ‘ Se
TRG ia Pwvwy ELGLY EV KOTLW, Kal OVOEV
" dbvapuy TNC purne,
\
Uucic eet * CnAwral EoTE
* otxodomny tHe EkKAnatac Cy-
Galen. de usu part. vi., déka ev, €l TUXOL. Wetst.) see ch. xvi. 6.
(Acts Viil. 32 reff.)
Dion. Hal., Antt. i. 68, Tov 7 pyre ypaupatos ebpnuévou, Tm! 4 dndAouy Tt.
Dio cast lv. 8, TocovTov yap n Ovvayis TOU ovdnaTos TovToU dnAot.
z Acts xxi.
c Rom. xiv. 19 reff.
w =here only. Numb.
ékeivov dtvayw rT.
x Acts xxviii.
1 John
20 reff. a=ch, xii. 10. ver. 32.
rec (for eotv) extiv (gramml corrn: see
ins Tw bef
rec aft ovdev ins
QUT wv es Sor preci: ision), with D§KLN? rel G-lat syrr Chr Thdrt: om ABD!FR! d
17 vulg E-latt Clem Damase Ambrst Bede.
11. ido AD'L am 17: ywworw EF. (st ergo nesciero F-lat, and so vulg.)
aft apwvoy ins ect D'F vulg.
om
ev DF latt syrr copt arm Clem Chrexpr(o e“ot A@A. BapB.) Damase lat-ff.
yAdéoon dareiv), is allowable. éveoe
. - . Aad.] This periphrasis of the future
implies, ye will be, so long as ye speak,
speaking,... On eis dépa, see ref.: it
implies the non-reception by hearers of
what is said. 10, 11.| Another ex-
ample of the unprofitableness of an utter-
ance not understood. 10.| ei tvxo1,
if it should so happen, i. e. peradventure:
—it is commonly found with numerical
nouns; but sometimes with hypothetical
sentences in general, as in ch. xv. 37. See
reff. and examples in Wetst. It will not
bear the rendering ‘for example,’ though
in meaning it nearly approaches it. It
belongs here to towavra, itself represent-
ing some fixed number, but not assignable
by the information which the writer pos-
sesses, or not worth assigning. See similar
expressions, Acts v. 8,—and 2 Sam. xii. 8
in E. V. yévn pwvav | kinds of lan-
guages: the more precise expression would
be yévn pwrijs, or pwval: we can hardly
say, with Meyer, that each language is a
yéevos pwvdv. The use of dwvay, and not
yAwooay, is no doubt intentional, to avoid
confusion, yA@ooa being for the most part
used in this passage in a peculiar meaning :
but no argument can be grounded on it
as to the yA@ooa: being languages or not.
eigiy (plur.), because it is wished to
distinguish them in their variety. ov-
Sév, scil. yévos. Bleek renders, ‘no ratio-
nal animal is without speech ;? and Grot.,
reading as the rec. adra@v, understands it as
referring to men: others supply €@vos to
ovdévy, But the common rendering is both
simpler, and better sense: none of them
is without signification, as HE. V.: or,
is inarticulate. 11.] otv, seeing that
none is without meaning: for if any were,
the imputations following would not be just.
We assume that a tongue which we do not
understand has a meaning, and that it is
the way of expression of some foreign
nation. BapBapos,—a foreigner,
in the sense of one who is ignorant of the
speech and habits of a people. So Ovid,
Trist. v. 10, —‘ Barbarus hic ego sum, quia
non intelligor ulli:’ and Herod. ii. 158,—
BapBapouvs 5& mavras of AiyumTio: Kadé-
ovat Tovs wh Thiot duoyAdaaous. (Wetst.)
The appellation always conveyed a certain
contempt, and such is evidently intended
here. So Ovid, in the next line,—‘ Et rident
stolidi verba Latina Get.’ év epuot, in
my estimation: so Kurip. Hippol. 1335,
oS & 7 exelyw Kady euol paivn kakds,—
‘in his judgment and in mine:’ see Kiihner,
ii. 275 12.] Application of the ana-
logy, as in ver.9. The otras is evidently
meant as in ver. 9, but is rendered some-
what difficult by the change of the construc-
tion into a direct exhortation. It is best
therefore to suppose an ellipsis ; and give to
o’trws the pregnant meaning, after the
lesson conveyed by this ecample. Meyer’s
rendering, since in such a manner (i.e. so
as to be barbarians to one another) ye also
are emulous, &e., is very harsh, besides
making the second clause, standing as it
does without a “a@AdAov or any disjunctive
particle, mean (and I do not see that it
will bear any other meaning), seek this
BapBapopwria to the edifying of the
Church, Thus likewise ye (i. e. after
the example of people who would not wish
to be barbarians to one another,—avoiding
the absurdity just mentioned), emulous
as ye are of spiritual gifts (reff.), seek
them to the edifying of the church, that
ye may abound: or perhaps (but I can
ABDF
KLNab
edefg
hklm
o17
11—15.
bed ed e ,
TelTe, LVa Af,
,
® roocevyéa0w
7
pat yAwoon, TO
k » 7 1
akapmog EoTLV. 15
jou
1.9. iv. 3. 2 Thess.i. 11. iii. 1.
k Matt. xiii. 22) Mk. Eph. v.11.
1 Acts xxi. 22. ver. 26.
TIPOS KOPINOIOYS A.
13 Sto
'
Tl ouv éoTw moocevSomuat TW
Tit. iii. 14. 2 Pet. i. 8.
593
e ~
o f \adov yhoooy °3 Sabet > Matt.
h 5 ’ 14 2 is.
lEONVEUY. eay ya 790 EVY W- fwv.2 Ke.
PI ” u te fe X ¢ X cr Xxiv.
TVEVUG now moocevXerat, o 6 vouc PA rene
(67ws, Auts
viii. 15 )
Phil. i. 9. Col.
i= Acts xvii. 16 reff.
h ch, xii. 30 reff.
Wisd. xv. 4 only.
Jude 12 only. Jer. ii. 6.
12. for repicoevnte, mpo¢nrevnte A 73 Ambrst.
13. rec d:omep, with KLN* rel Chr Thdrt Thl Gc:
ins ADKLX rel vulg(and F-lat) E-latt syrr Chr Thdrt Damase
14. om yap BF sah :
txt ABDFN! 17 Damasc.
(Ec Thl Orig-int Ambrst Aug, Pelag Sedul Bede. (17 def.)
find no instance of (776 ta thus used:
ch. iv. 2 is no case in point, see note there)
as in E. V. ‘seek that ye may excel
(abound in them) to the edifying of the
church? 13.] Hortatory inference
from the foregoing examples. ‘There is
some difficulty in the construction of
this verse. mposevx. tva Stepp. is ren-
dered by Chrys., Theodoret, Theophyl.,
Erasm., Beza, Calv., Grot., Estius, Wetst.,
—Bleek, Riickert, Olsh., al., ‘pray that he
may interpret. But the next verse shews
that this is untenable. For the act of
mposevxerbat yAwoon is there introduced
in strict logical connexion with this verse
so as to shew that the mposevxécOw here
must have the same meaning as there, viz.,
that of praying in a tongue, openly in the
church. Seeing this, Luther, Rosenm., al.,
renderits © let ste ces. so pray, that he may
interpret :’ i. e. ‘not pray, unless he can
interpret.’ But this rendering of ta is
hardly allowable even where ottw is ex-
pressed, see note on ch. ix. 24. The knot
of the difficulty lies in the relation of iva
to verbs of this kind. It may be doubted
whether in such expressions as mposevxeo-
Oa1 tva (see reff.), the conj. ever represents
the mere purport of the prayer, as in our
“to pray, that.” The idea of purpose is
inseparably bound up in this particle, and
can be traced wherever it is used. Thus
mposevx. iva seems always to convey the
yaeaning, “‘to pray, ix order that.” At
the same time, prayer being a direct
seeking of the fulfilment of the purpose
on account of which we pray,—not, like
many other actions, indirectly connected
with it,—the purport and purpose become
compounded in the expression. This
will be illustrated by ypnyopetre x. mpos-
evxerbe, Iva mh eiséAOnte eis Teipacudr:
where it is plain enough that tva py re-
presents the ulterior object of ypnyopeire,
and, now that it is joined with ypnyopette,
of mposevxeobe: but had it been merely,
mpusevxeabe iva wh K.T.A., the above con-
fusion would have occurred. Now this
Vou. II.
confusion it is, which makes the words
mposevxérOw iva Stepunve’n so difficult.
Obviously, the rposevxécdw is not merely
used to express a seeking by prayer of the
gift of interpretation, on account of t
sense in the next verse: but as plainly,
there is in mposevxéo0w a sense which
passes on to fva Stepunvevy. The render-
ing of Meyer and De Wette, ‘pray, with a
view to interpret (what he has spoken in a
tongue),’ is unobjectionable, but does not
give any reason for the choice of mposev-
xéo8w, any more than edxapioreitw, or
thelike. I believe the true rendering to be
pointed out by the distinction in the next
verse. If a man prays in a tongue, his
spirit prays, but his understanding is
barren. This prayer of his spirit is, the
intense direction of his will and affections
to God, accompanied by the utterance of
sounds to him unintelligible. ‘ Let then
him who speaks with a tongue, pray, when
he does pray, with an earnest striving (in
this prayer of his spirit) after the gift of
interpretation. The meaning might be
more strictly given thus in English: where-
fore let him who speaketh with a tongue,
in his prayer (or, when praying), strive
that he may interpret. 14.] This
verse has heen explained above. It justifies
the necessity of thus aiming at the gift
of interpretation. TO TV. ov, not
as in ver. 32, and Chrys. 7d xdpicpa Td
d00ev por Kal Kwoty Thy yAéooav,—but
as in reff., my (own) spirit, taking him-
self as an example, as above, ver. 6: a use of
the word familiar to our Apostle, and here
necessary on account of 6 vods pov follow-
ing, ‘When I pray zz a@ tongue, my higher
being, my spit, filled with the Holy
Ghost, is inflamed with holy desires, and
rapt in prayer: but my intellectual part,
having no matter before it on which its
powers can be exercised, bears no fruit to
the edification of others (nor of myself’
but this is not expressed in &kapzos; cf.
the usage of kapmés by Paul,—Rom. i. 13 ;
vi. 21, 22; xv. 28; Gal. v. 22, al.).
Qe
594
mi here bis,
Rom. xv. 9,
from Ps. xvii. art
49, Eph. v.
19. James v. ie zy
13 only.
ch, x. 16 reff.
=here(Matt.r 8
xiii.14 ch.
os
ys >
IYPO> KOPINOIOYS A.
ATV.
i , , \ \ re +, om ~ Pa) | 4
‘avedmatt, moocevcouat O& Kal TH vot’ “paw tw ' rvEv-
‘ ee ra =a ’ vy ? Sh U XE »
TO apynv eT TH OY EUKAOLOTLA, ETELOY TL ALYELC OUK
xvi. 17. Gal. 5 x ‘ \ ~ ’ - ’ ’ e v
vi. 2. Phil. - 17 w x : Nie ee
it Thee OLOED 5 ov ev yap ene: EVX APLOTELC, aXA o ETE
ii. 16 % > Zz ~ > ~ ~ tad
(Gen saix. QO OVK * OLKOSUpEITAL. i *evyuotato ty Ow, Tavtwy
28 al.) Jos.
B.J. v. 2. 5, erparubrov taki dvamAnpovv. Philo, Flacc. 12, vol. ii. p. 531, mpecBevtov tak.
Tacit. Ann. iv. 38, ‘locum principem impleam.”
r 2 Cor. i. 20.
u Acts &xiv. 3 reit.
v Acts xv. 24 reff.
y Rom, ii. 1 reff. :
Z Acts ix. 31 rei.
s = Rev. v.14. Neh. v. 18. viii. 6 al.
exmAyjow.
q Acts iv. 13 reff.
t= Acts xi. 1Y. 2 Cor. xii. 21. Heb. vill. I.
w ch. vii. 37 reff. x abs., ch. xi. 24 reff.
p =here only. Sir. xii. 12.
a Rom. i. 8 refi.
15. mposevéwua (twice) ADF: -fwuar and -foua: N: txt BKL rel latt Orig, (see note).
om Ist S5¢ FK 35. 46. 109. 114 latt Syr sah Orig,(om «a also) Eus, Damase
Orig-int, lat-ff: ins ABDLX rel syr Orig, Chr Thdrt (Ke Thl.
2nd mvevuati EF.
om tw bef
om 2nd de BF 46. 109 latt Syr sah Orig,(where he has the 1st
de) Cars Ps-Ath, Max-conf Damase Thl lat-if: ins ADKLX rel syr copt Orig, Eus Ath,
Chr Thdrt Ce.
16. rec evAoynons, with FKL rel Chr Thdrt Ge Thi; benedixeris latt: txt ABD
b! 0 17 Damasc.
to F.
17. adda Bl.
rec ins tw bef mvevuati (to conform to last ver: byt see note),
with KL rel Chr Thdrt: ev B(sic: see table) DR*: om AFR! 17 Damase.
ovr odev bef Tt Aeyers F E-lat G-lat Jer Aug. (not F-lat.)
om
18. rec aft Tw Oew ins pov (addn from such places as ch i. 4, Romi. 8 fe: 38 eth
arm even further add rept), with KL rel Thdrt Damase Ambrst Pelag: om ABDFR17
E-lat G-lat am(with tol, agst demid harl) syr copt eth Chr Thdrt-ms Jer Sedul Bede.
15.] What then is (the case) (i. e. as our
‘What then?’ Cf. ri otv, Rom. iii. 9;
vi. 15. ‘ What is my determination there-
upon ?’)? I will pray (on the reading
mposeviwpat, see note on Rom. yv. 1) with
the (my) spirit: I will pray also with
my mind (i.e. will interpret my prayer for
the benefit of myself and the church), &e.
This resolution, or expression of self-obliga-
tion, evidently leads to the inference, by
and by clearly expressed, ver. 28, that if he
could not pray TG -vot, he would keep
silence. Wade | hence we gather that
the two departments in which the gift of
tongues was exercised were prayer and
praise. On the day of Pentecost it was
confined to the latter of these. 16. |
The discourse changes from the first person
to the second, as De W. observes, because
the hypothesis contains an imputation of
folly or error. éav evd.] if thou
shalt have blessed in spirit (no art. now:
the dat. is now merely of the manner in
which, the element; not of the specific
instrument, as in the last verse), how shall
he that fills (i. e. is in) the situation of a
private man (id:é7ns, in speaking of any
business or trade, signifies a lay person, i.e.
one unacquainted with it as his employ-
ment. Thus in state matters, it is one out
of office—Anpoobéver dvr: idtéTy, Thue. iv.
2: in philosophy, one uneduéated and rude
—nuets why of idiGrat ob Sedolkauev, Suets
dt of Pirdoopat SeiArare, Diog. Laert. Aris-
tipp. ii. 71, &ce. &e. See examples in Wetst.
So here it is, one who has not the gift of
speaking and interpreting. The word
tTotrov is not to be taken literally, as if the
id:a7a had any separate seats in the con-
gregation: the expression, as in ref., is
figurative) say the AMEN (the Amen always
said: see Deut. xxvii. 15—26 Heb. and
E. V. (LXX, yévorro) ; Neh. viii. 6. From
the synagogue,—on which see Wetst.,
Schéttg. in loc., Winer, RWB., art. Syna-
gogen, and Philo, Fragm. vol. ii. p. 6830—
auvedpevovot .... 0% wey ToAAO) ciwTh,
TAHV el TL TposeTIPHuioa Tots avaryivw-
cxouevois voulCerat,—it passed into the
Christian church; so Justin Mart. Apol.
i. 65, p. 82, 08 (scil. Tod mpoeot@ros) ovv-
TeEcavTOS TAS EVXAS Kal THY EvxapioTiar,
mwas 6 mapwy Aads mavevpynuel A€yor, auhy.
See Suicer, sub voc. and Stanley’s note
here) to (at the end of) thy thanksgiving,
since what thou sayest he knows not?
This is, as Doddridge has remarked, deci-
sive against the practice of praying and
praising in an unknown tongue, as ridi-
culously practised in the church of Rome.
17.] «ads is not ironical, but con-
cessive: it is not the act of thanksgiving
in a tongue that the Apostle blames, for
that is of itself good, being dictated by
the Spirit: but the doing it not to the edi-
Jication of others. 6 €repos, the idid-
Tns spoken of before. 18, 19.] De-
claration of his own feeling on the matter,
ASDF
KLx ab
aN Ve fies ch Sp EN Vii Meu? Sie 4 z
" Wadw Oe Kat TW VOL. 16 eet gay evAoyyc | mVEU- edete
fo? a ~ N Pee = iG 18 / a meg. Ovly
atl, 0 avamtAnpwy tov * TeTOY TOU “LOLwWTOU TW EDEL
16—21. TIPO KOPINOIOY® A. 595
vuwv waddXov b yAwsay >rado’ adda ev exkAnaia Ghthm vn
2 Macc. xiv.
, , = a4 ~ ef aor d
mévte AOyoue TW VO Ay ) Nove Awe
T youe tw vot wou Aadyoat, wa Kat adXoug “ Kate 42, oii 95
Bin
20 AceA pol, saat Matt.
xviii. 8, 9 |]
, ced f , h et 5
NKXnowW, 7) Mueloue oyouc Ev of W007).
\ , ’ = eae oe ‘ “ah ns
un) marola yiveobe taic ® posow adXa ty ° Kakta ' yynmia- Mk. Lake
eee Nea ar Hae 7 ee thm, MeMeE
Gere, Talc O€& potolv TEAELOL ylves €. Ev TW VOLW 9 Sa Xxxvili. o6.
ef we HE ’ Oe WR ' n tr f Matt. xvii.
yeparrat Ort év ETEDO'YAWOOIC KQ@l &V XEtA cou ETEOWDY 24. ch. iv. 15
5 > only. Esth.
iii. 9. g here bisonly. Prov. xviii. 2. h Rom. i. 29. ch. v. 8. Eph. iv. 3lal. Ps. li. 3. (5.)
ihere onlyt. (-2vos, ch. xiii. 11.) =ch. ii. 6. Heb. v.14 al. 1 Chron. xxv. 8. 1 here
onlyt. (Isa. xxviii. 11.) Ps, exiii. 1 Aq. mu) = Matt. xv. 8) Mk. (from Isa, xxix. 13.) Kom.
iii. 13. Heb. (xi. 12.) xi1i.15. 1 Pet. iti. 10 only. n= Actsil.4. Exod. xxx. Y.
(om @ew F-lat.) ins ote bef ravTwy F latt syrr copt lat-ff yAwoon bef waddAor I:
om paddov 41! D-lat Chr-ms.—omnium vestrum lingua loquor vulg(and F-lat).
rec yAwooats, with BKL rel syrr copt Chr Thdrt Orig-int: txt ADF 17 latt Damase
Ambrst Pelag Bede. rec Aadwy (the bare present aft evx. was not understood,
and thus some helped it with ott, some by turning dadw into Aahwv. Or Agro wis
understood to belong to evxapicta, ‘I give thanks, speaking,’ &c.), with KL rel Chr
Thdrt Damase: om A: txt BDF ¢ 17 latt syrr copt ec Orig-int lat-ff.
19. [adAa, so ABD: om NI. ] rec dia Tov voos (see note. If tw vor had come
from ver 15, wou would prob have been omd), with KL rel D-lat syr Mae Chr Thdrt
Max-conf Phot Thl (ec: d:a tov vowoy (omg pov) Mcion-e, per legem Ambrst-txt ; in
lege Paulin: txt ABDFX m 17 vulg Syr copt Nyssen Epiph, Marc-mon Damasc lat-ff.
20. wa ras pp. TEA. yernode, omg de, F D-lat Orig-int Ambrst Aug Gaud.
21. aft vouw ins 71 N1(N* disapproving).
rec erepots, with DK rel vss Orig Constt Chr Damase Thi Qe lat-ff:
F lect-8.
highly endowed as he was with the gift.
I thank God, I speak with a tongue (have
the gift of speaking with tongues) more
than you all. This juxtaposition of two
clauses, between which ‘ that’ is to be sup-
plied in the sense, is not unusual: BovAe
oxom@mev: ‘fac videas,—Eur. Hippol.
567, éemicxer’, addyv tav ~owey exudbw.
Hom. Od. B. 195, Tndrceudx» 8 ev naow
eyav iwoSjcoua adtés, Mntépa fv és
marpos avwyétw amovéecbar. See Har-
tung, Partikell. ii. p. 134. 19.] év é«-
KAnoig, in (the) assembly, ‘in the congre-
gation,’—not ‘in an assembly,’ as Meyer.
The art. is omitted after a preposition : see
Middleton, ch. vi. § 1; the logical account
of which is, that the prep. serves to cate-
gorize the substantive following it, and
so make it general instead of particular.
Oto .. ., 4, as BovrAount, th,
Tl. a. 117: similarly émidvpéw, (ntéw,—
see Hartung, ii. p. 72. 31a Tod vods has
probably been a correction, because Aadetv
76 vot was found harsh, the understand-
ing being only the indirect instrument.
20.] With this exhortation he con-
cludes this part of his argument, in which
he reproves the folly of displaying and being
anxious for a gift in which there was no
edification. ©&Sehpot suavem vim ha-
bet,’ Bengel. Tats dpectv, in your
understandings, as this preference shews
you to be. Tq kaki — dat. of reference,
as regards vice: see Winer, edn. 6, § 31. 6.
for eTepoyAwooots, eTepais yAwoous
21—25,] By a citation from the
O. T. he takes occasion to shew that
tongues are a sign ¢o the unbelieving only:
and that even for them they are profitless
in comparison with prophecy. 21. |
éy TO vopw, as John x.34; xii. 345 xv. 25;
—where the Psalms are thus quoted. The
passage stands in the LXX: 814 pavaicpoy
xeiAéwy, Bia yAdoons étépas Ott AaAT-
covet TG AGG TOT... Kk. VK HOEANTAY
axovew. The context is thus: The scoffers
in Jerusalem (see ver. 14) are introduced
as scorning the simplicity of the divine
commands, which were line upon line, pre-
cept upon precept, as if to children (vv. 9,
10). Jehovah threatens them that, since
they would not hear these simple com-
mands, He would speak to them by men
of other tongues, viz. the Assyrians, their
captors. Here as in many other cases,
the historical sense is not so much con-
sidered, as the aptness of the expressions
used for illustrating the matter in hand ;
viz. that belief would not be produced in
the unbelieving by speaking to them in
strange tongues. The 67: answers in the
LXX top, ‘for ;’ or ‘yea verily,’ as Louth.
It forins part of the citation, not of the text.
év érep.] in (in the person of)
men of other tongues: Heb. with another
tongue ;—and it is placed second. The
Apostle personifies it and gives it the pro-
minence: év x. €t.] in (as speaking
in using as the organ of speech) lips of
QQ2
596 TIPO KOPINOIOY= A. 6 bm
, ~" ~ , ‘ St er , , U
oral NaAnow Tw Aaw TOUT, Kat °ovd ° ovrwe " glee ace ABDF
p = Rom. v. 12 rE 22.0 oy AS 5 = sae
refi, pov, eye KUpLOC. WCTE al me @ocat © ete * onuetov cdefx
q Ma Deus €
rake eeu Jou Tolc misTevovow adAa TOI “amtoroc, 1 Oe * Tpo- olf
Heh, v. 7 , >”
only. Dent. onrela ov roe “amisroie adda toic moTevovew. 7° éav
wast r s ; € ’ ’ ev ’ \ a , ‘ \
aes Ue “*ouverOy n>) exkAnota ¥ OAn ** Et TO avTO Kal TaVTEC
TH ay, ee a z 3 aN) 8s a io ee Nu >
qretov, &. NaN wou yAwsoatc, eiceAOwow oe * touwtat nH ” aTLGTOL, OUK
al. fr. Jer.
ix. 22. a t Rom. iv. 11 reff. u = ch. vi. 6 reff. _vch. xiii. 2 reff. w = Acts
i. 3 reff. x ch, xi. 20. Josh. ix. 2. y Rom. xvi. 23 refi, z Acts i. 16 refi.
a ver, 16.
txt ABN 17. (Meyer thinks the dat a mere mechanical corrn to suit the other datives.)
for ovd ovtws, ovderrw |.
22. for (2nd) morevovoty, moras F.
23. om ovy F 67? old-lat_ goth Ambrst Ambr.
bef 7 exxAnoia DF latt goth lat-ff.
B Ambrst.
others (strangers, see reff.) : Heb. in (by)
stammerers of lip: Louth, with a stam-
mering lip. TO Aa@ TovTw | in Isa.,
the Israelites: here taken generally for
the unbelieving world. 08’ otTws
eisaxovo.| This is the point of the pas-
sage for St. Paul’s argument: see ver. 23 :
—‘for them, and not for us: but even
for them, profitless in the main :”—not
even under such circumstances will they
listen to me: even this sign will be for
them ineffectual. 22.| &sTe,—viz.
according to the words of the foregoing
prophetic passage. ai yA.| the
tongues, in the then acceptation of the
term. He is not interpreting the pro-
phecy, nor alluding to the tongues there
spoken of, but returns back to the sub-
ject in hand—the tongues about which
his argument was concerned. eis
onp. eioiv] serve for a sign: but there
is no emphasis on the words,—the meaning
being much the same as if eis onetoy
were omitted, and it stood &ste ai yA.
eioly ov tots 7. Not seeing this, Commen-
tators have differed widely about the mean-
ing of onuetov. So Chrys.: eis onpeior,
tovtéatiy, eis exmAniw :—Bengel: ‘quo
allecti auscultare debebant :’-—Calvin: ‘lin-
gue, quatenus in signum datz sunt:’ &e.
&e. All dwelling on the word onpetoy
would introduce an element foreign to the
argument, which is, that tongues are (a
sign) for the unbelieving, not for the be-
lieving. ov T. Tiot.| not to men
who believe, but to unbelievers, i. e.
‘men who do not believe :’ not, as Nean-
der, Billroth, Riickert, and in substance
De Wette, ‘men who will not believe :’
&moros must be kept to the same sense
through this whole passage, and plainly by
evsaxouvcetat I'(not lat) 43. 113 lect-14.
for cvved@n, eA9n B!. oAn
rec mavTes yAwooats AaAwouy, with KL rel
vulg(and F-lat) syrr Chr-txt Thdrt Damase Ee Vict-vit Bede :
Chr-comm Ambrst: Aaa. yA. tay. Dl3 goth: txt ABFX Bas Thl.
Aad. Tay. yA. copt eth
om 7 amotot
ver. 23 it is not one who will not believe,
but an unbeliever open to conviction. The
mistake has been occasioned by regarding
those to whom the prophecy was directed,
and interpreting P. aul by Isaiah, instead of
by himself. 7 Se ™pod. | scil. éotiy,
as Meyer, or eis on. éeotiv, as De Wette:
it seems to me to import little which we
supply, seeing that eis onu. is of so very
slight weight in the preceding clause. If
emphatic meaning had been attached to
onuetov as belonging to ai yA., we must not
have supplied it here: but if it be a mere
indifferent word, to be interpreted accord-
ing to the sense in which ai yA. and 7
mpod. were onueta, there can be no objec-
tion to it here: and the uniformity of con-
struction seems to require it. Both
here and above, tots amtor. and the other
are datives commodi—for, not ‘to,’ the
unbelieving. 7 mpopnteia was a sign to
the unbelieving, see vv. 24, 25. Pro-
phecy, i. e. enspired and intelligent expo-
sition of the word and doctrine, was emi-
nently for believers, but, as below, would
be also profitable ¢o unbelievers, furnish-
ing a token that God was truly among
his assembled servants. 23—28. |
Instances given of the operation of both
on the ungifted or the unbeliever.
23.| ovv, following up the axiom just
laid down, by supposing a case = if then
The first oe put answers to the
former half of ver. 22: the second, to the
latter. The A is this: that
all the (Corinthian) church is assembled,
and all its members speak with tongues
(not in a ¢umultwary manner—that is not
part of the present hypothesis, for if it
were, it must apply equally to ver. 24,
which it clearly cannot :—but that all have
22—26.
, ~ ¢ b ’ ae.
éOOVOlV oTt paiveoOe 5 4
ve , u 7 * , , da2 Nes e ‘ ,
eicéA Dy Oe tie “amtoroc 7 * Lown, ehéyyerat UTO TAV- reff.
’ , © ‘ , ‘
Twv, “avakplveTal UTO TaVTWY, 25 rq!
Ol > ~ g SS g , ‘
lag autov *daveou *° yiveTal, Kat
i , , ad Peer] 6 , i]
Tpocwmov Toockurnoa Tw Oew, atayyéAXwv ort
i ‘\ n ? € ~ 2
twe o Geog “ev up Eotiy.
6. xxvi.39. Luke y. 12. xvii. 16. Rev. xi. 16. Num. xvi. 4. xs. 6.
ire) UPS) ceivinleras
1 John i. 2,3 only, Gen. xiv. 15,
n = 2 Cor. xiii. 6.
llonty. dat , Matt. ii. 2 al. fr.
9. Heb. ii. 12.
v.5al. Num. xxii. 37 only.
24. for 2nd Se, re A Syr (wth).
IPOS KOPINOIOYS A.
597
<= x f , Sate
cav o& mavrec © roopnrevWwo, ” Acts xii.15
ech.xi, 4,5
a‘ Kpumra THe Kap- 2. "Bs alix.
h ¢« e i i f \ ones iv. 9 reff.
OUTWC = TEOWY ETL 1 Rom. ii 16
m ” rei. s
a> pee
26°T, ou éariy, adeAgot 3 pre?
i Matt. xvii.
k Paul, here and Acts xxiv.
1 gospp. and Acts, passim. elsw., 1 Thess i.
m = Mark xi. 82. Lyke xxiii. 47, 1 Tim.
v Acts xxi, 22. ver. 15.
25. rec ins kat ovtw bef ta kpurta (from below,—the result being imagined better
to begin here; the follg x. ovtws being by some omd, as Chr Ambr, by some carelessly
left, or reintroduced without erasing this former.
Chr), Thdrt: om ABD'FS 17 latt Syr copt «th arm Bas Chr, Cyr lat-ff.
So Meyer), with D°KL rel syr
rec
o Geos bef ovtws, with KL rel syr Chr Thdrt; om oytws k 3. 32 Thdrt-comm: txt
ABDEN h 17 latt syr copt goth eth arm Orig-int lat-ff: om o D! FX! 1! 109! Chr!,
the gift, and are in turn exercising it):
—then iS:@rat, ‘plain believers,’ persons
unacquainted with the gift and its exercise,
come in. Itis obvious that the hypothesis
of all being assembled, and all having the
gift, must not be pressed to infer that no
such id:éTns could be found; no one hy-
pothesizes thus rigidly. If any will have
it so, then, as Meyer, we may suppose the
idi@ta to come from another congrega-
tion; but the whole difficulty seems to me
mere trifling. The i6. plainly cannot be,
as De W. maintains, an wnbeliever, for his
case is separately mentioned. Such plain
men, or perhaps a company of unbelievers,
have come in :—they have no understand-
ing of what is going on: the yAdésou
sound to them an unmeaning jargon; and
they come to the conclusion, ‘These men
are mad;’ just as men did infer, on the
day of Pentecost, that the speakers were
drunken. 24.) But if all (see
above) prophesy (i.e. intelligibly lay forth,
in the power of the Spirit, the Christian
word and doctrine) and there enter any
(singular now, setting forth that this would
be the effect in any case; plural before,
to shew that however many there might
be, not one could appreciate the gift)
unbeliever or plain man (a&motos first
now, because the great stress is on the
power of prophecy in its greatest achieve-
ment, the conversion of the unbeliever ;
but id:@7a: was first before, because the
stress there was on the unprofitableness
of tongues, not only to the amoroat, but to
the idi@ra), he is convicted by all (the
inspired discourse penetrating, as below,
into the depths of his heart,—by all, i, e,
by each in turn), he is searched into by
all (each inspired speaker opening to him
his character), the hidden things of his
heart become manifest (those things which
he had never before seen are revealed,—his
whole hitherto unrecognized personal cha-
racter laid out. Instances of such revela-
tions of a man to himself by powerful
preaching have often occurred, even since
the cessation of the prophetic gift): and
thus (thus convicted, searched, revealed to
himself :—in such a state of mind) having
fallen on his face, he will worship God,
announcing (by that his act, which is a
public submission to the divine Power
manifest among you: or, hut not so well,
aloud, by declaration of it in words) that
of a truth (implying that previously he had
regarded the presence of God among them
as an idle tale; or, if a plain Christian, had
not sufficiently realized it) God is among
you (or in each of you: by His Spirit).
In this last deseription the idaérns is
thrown into the background, and (see
above) the greater achievement of pro-
phecy, the conviction and conversion of
the &moros, is chiefly in view. “For a
similar effect of the disclosure of a man’s
secret self to himself, compare the fascina-
tion described as exercised by Socrates over
his hearers by the ‘ conviction’ and ‘judg-
ment’ of his questions in the Athenian
market-place. Grote’s Hist. of Greece,
vili. 609—611.” Stanley, 26 —35, |
Regulations respecting the exercise of
spiritual gifts in the assemblies.
26.| The rule for ail, proceeding on the
fact of each having his gift to contribute
when they come together: viz, that all
598 IIPOS KOPINGIOYS A. aos, ips
P = Eph. v.19: ora He dec ld exagrog [oper | P Parnor & oe 9 88a-
(Luke xx. 42.
xxiv. 44, ny Eye Me w Eye, yAwsoay Fyet, * Eounvelav
Acts i. 20 ? 4 i
aA Oe) GUY Eye’ Tavra " mpog * axco8ony ‘ ywicbw. 27 elre yAwoon
“6 (refi.). x - \ 2)
tonaiin” tle AaAg, “Kata Ovo Nn ‘To “wAEtoTOV TpEIC, Kal ” ava
ouly +. Sir. yen aie wo ’ J 98 > 3} Sty
yea a BEOO Kal ELC Sueounvevétw éav O& [LN 1). Steounvev-
“peu ; , s , ? , e ~ ’ \ ~ ea
Gs) THC, “ovyatw Ev ExKANsta, EauTW de AaXeirw Karr Dew.
5ver. 12. - \ , n me U e
t = ver. 40, 29 a Tmoogyrat oe vo a TOEIC AaXelrwoav, Kal ol ee
ch. XVI
pak hey b , 5 , ” > ;
ua Murky” Stak OlwETWoaV “0 cav d& adAw Saroxaduply Kabnniro,
Luke ix. 3.
x.1. Johnii. 6. Ka@’ €va, Eph. v.33. John xxi. 25. Ken. Anab. iv. 7.8. vhereonly. (Isa, ix. 3 )
w here only. ava pu. “ae, Polyb. iv. 20.10, andal. freq. see Rom. xi. 25 reff. x ch. xii. 50 reff.
y here only t. % Acts xii. 17 refit. change of subject, Luke xv. 15, xix. 4, Acts vi.6. Winer, eda.
6, § 67.1. ¢. a Acts xi. 27 reff. bch. vi. 5. ech. it. 10 reff.
26. om vuwy ABR! a 17 copt:
om d:5ax. exer (homeotel) A k.
ins DF KLN? rel vss Chr Thdrt Damase lat-ff.
rec yAwoouy exer amoKadufy exet (the clauses
dropped out by homeotel, and were then confusedly reinserted), with L rel Chr Thdrt
Damase: om amckadvy exer m 35-9. 42-7. 63 Chr-mss:
om yAwooay exer K 35-9.
42-3. 57. 91!. 106-77. 288: txt ABDFR latt syrr coptt «eth arm Bas Th] (c-comm
lat-ff. Stepunveray DF.
ABDFKLX rel Chr Thdrt &e.
28. epunveutns BD'F, pref 6 D'F.
29. om o DIFLI!.
30. om de D!F latt Orig-int Ambrst.
rec yeveoOw, with (none of our mss) Damasc:
txt
for cavTw, avTw I,
avakpivetwoay D'F.
[xa in kaOyuevw is written over the line,
o7 having been first written and then marked for erasure by N!. ]
things must be done with a view to edi-
fication. ti ovv €otiv| See ver. 15.
ér. ouv.| whenever ye happen
to be assembling together: the present
vividly describes each coming with his gift,
eager to exercise it. Wadpov] most
probably a hymn of praise to sing in the
power of the spirit, as did Miriam, De-
borah, Symeon, &c. See ver. 15.
Sidayxyv] an exposition of doctrine or
moral teaching: belonging to the gift of
prophecy, as indeed do also WoAp. and
amo«aAd., the latter being something re-
vealed to him, to be prophetically uttered.
yAaooav | a tongue, i. e. an act
of speaking in tongues: see vy. 18, 22.
€ppyvetav] See below, and ver. 5.
avr. 1p. otk. yi. | THE GENERAL
RULE, afterwards applied to the several
gifts : and 27, 28.] to the speaking
with tongues. eite begins the construc-
tion, but is not carried on, ver. 29, where
mpopytat 5€ answers to it. 27.| Kata
Svo (scil. let it take place), by two (at each
time, i.e. in one assembly: not more than
two or three might speak with tongues af
each mecting) or at the most three, and
by turn (one after another, not together) :
and let one (some one who has the gift,—
and not more, than one) interpret (what
is said in the tongue). 28.| But if
there be not an interpreter (Wieseler, in
the Stud. und Krit. for 1838, p. 720, would
render it, ‘if he be not an interpreter, viz.
himself. But this would exclude the pos-
ABDF
KLNab
cdefg
hklilm
017
sibility of others interpreting, which we -
know from ch. xii. 10 might be the case.
And thus the preceding eis could hardly
bear its proper meaning. Wieseler tries to
make it mean ‘one at a time’ Besides,
the emphatic position of 77 seems to require
morestress than this sense would give, which
would be better expressed by ¢av 5€ Step-
Knvevtys “) }), let him (the speaker in a
tongue, see refi.) be silent in the church:
but (as if orydrw had been ph Aadelrw)
let him speak for himself and for God:
i. e. in private, with only himself and God
to witness it. Chrys. ka@’ éauvtby p0ey-
yéo0w: which Theophyl. enlarges to tour-
éot aaopnt) Kal hpéua Ka? éavrdv:
which does not seem to agree with Aa-
Aeltw, the speaking being essential to the
exercise of the gift. 29—33.] Simi-
lar regulations for PROPHECY. 29. |
8€, transitional. Svo F Tpets, viz. at
one assembling ;—not together; this is
plainly prohibited, ver. 30. There is no 7d
mAcioTov as in the other case, because he
does not wish to seem as if he were limit-
ing this most edifying of the gifts.
ot GAXor, scil. Tpopyra,—or perhaps, any
person possessing the gift of d:axploess
mvevudtwy, mentioned ch, xii. 10 in im-
mediate connexion with mpopnrela. Such
would exercise that gift, to determine
27 —34.
( ~ Zz ,
oO TOWTOC oLyaTw.
€
TIPO KOPINOIOY®= A.
1 , ed , , \ , e
TOOPHTEVE, tva WaAVTEC pavOavwor Kal TWAaAVTEC 7Taoa~
599
dch,. xi. 4, 5
reff.
31 Sivacbe yao “ kaQ eva mavtec 8%.
e = Rom. sii.
8 reff.
f= ch. xii. 10
- ‘ 2 \ fs , ag - , he
kadovrat’ *? Kal TVEULATA “TPOPNTWY © TOOPNTAIC | UTOH oY. xxii. 5,
, Paes es , ’ i? ’ Cue , > sh Luke ii. St.
TAOOETAL ov yap €oTlv akaTaoTaclac O soc, a\X\a Rom. vil.
Tp Se ec 2 k , ~ k? , Pe, | en # 7, <U al.
} sronune, WC tv’ TWaoatc Talc EKKANnGIALC TWY aylov. ee
i Luke xxi. 9.
34 e - > - ’ , 2 , x ? ‘
At yuvalkec évy Talc EKKANGLALC oryatwmaayv OU 40
iii. 16 only. Proy. xxvi. 28. Tobit iv. 13 only.
i : k Rom, xvi. 16. ch. vii. 17.
35 reff.
ix. 13 reff.
2 Cor. viti. 18, xi. 28 only.
2 Cor. vi. 4.
xii, 2U. James
j Row. xv.
(-erazos, James i. 8.) i
1Rom.i.7. Acts
81. mavres bef x8 eva DF h! Jatt syr arm: om zwaytes 17 Ambrst: exaoro: 6. 672:
exaoTo. wayTes 38. 72.
32. for mvevuata, mvevua DF 1. 43.52. 672. 213 vulg-sixt Syr eth Orig, Thdrt Orig-
int lat-ff: txt ABKLN rel vulg(and F-lat) syr copt Orig, Epiph Did, Chr Thdrt-ms
Damase ec Thi Orig-int, Tert. (The plur was corrd to the sing becarise, One Spirit in-
spiring all the prophets, rvevuata was not understood.)
33. 0 Geos bef axatacracias A 57 Syr copt: om o F.
vrotaccovTat li.
[aada, so ABDN e g k.]
at end ins didacnw (from ch iv.17) F b o 2. 10. 39 vulg(not am) syr-w-ast
Chr, : d:a7Taccowat Chr-ms, Damase.
Vv. 34, 35 are placed aft ver 40 in DF 93 Ambrst Sedul.
84. rec aft yuvaires ins vuwy, with DEKL rel syrr Chr Thdrt @e Ambrst Ambr
Sedul: om ABN 17 vulg(and F-lat: vestre is written over vuwy in the gr column) coptt
whether the spirit was of God: see ch. xii.
3; 1 John iv. 1—8. 30.] But if
a revelation shall have been made to
another (prophet) while sitting by, let
the first (who was prophesying) hold his
peace (give place to the other: but clearly,
not as ejected by the second in any dis-
orderly manner: probably, by being made
aware of it and ceasing his discourse).
The rendering of Grot., al., ‘let him (the
second) wait till the first has done speak-
ing, q. d., ‘let the first have left off, is
ungrammatical. See also vv. 28, 34.
31, 32.] He shews that the 6
mMp@Tos aiydtw is no impossibility, but in
their power to put into effect. For ye
have the power (the primary emphasis of
the sentence is on dvvacGe, which is not
merely permissive, as E. V., ‘ye may,’ but
asserts the possession of the power ; —the
secondary on ka’ éva) one by one all
to prophesy (i. e. you have power to bring
about this result—you can be silent if you
please), in order that all may learn and
all may be exhorted (or, comforted) :
32.| and (not, for: buta parallel assertion
to the last, ‘ye have power, &c. and’)
spirits of prophets (i.e. theiv own spirits,
filled with the Holy Spirit: so Meyer, and
rightly: not, as De Wette, the Spirit of
God within each: and so ver. 12: the in-
spired spirit being regarded as a mvetpa in
a peculiar sense—from God, or otherwise.
See the distinction plainly made 1 John
iv. 2: év tovT@ yiweoKeTe TH TVET pA TOD
Qeod, may mvetpa x.7.A. The omission
of the art. generalizes the assertion,
making it applicable to all genuine Chris-
tian prophets) are subject to prophets (i. e.
to the men whose spirits they are. But
very many Commentators, e. g. Theophyl.
(alt.), Calvin, Estius, and more recently
Bleek and Riickert, take rpopjrass to sig-
nify other prophets—td & ou xdpioma,
Kal 7 évépyera Tov ey oor TVEvuaToS, UTOTAC=
TEeTAl TS Xapiomate Tov ETepov Tov KW7-
Oéyrtos cis TO mpopyTevew (Theophyl.). But
the command 6 mpétos ovydtw would be
superfluous, if his gift was in subjection to
another). 33.| Reason of the above
regulations. The premiss, that the church
is God’s church, is suppressed. He is the
God of peace, not confusion: therefore
those assemblies which are His, must be
peacefully and orderly conducted. And this
character of God is not one dependent for
its truth on preconceived views of Him :—
we have a proof of it wherever a church of
the saints has been gathered together. ‘Zn
all the churches of the saints, God is a God
of peace: let Him not emong you be sup-
posed to be a God of confusion.’ Tam
compelled to depart from the majority of
modern critics of note, e. g. Lachmann,
Tischendorf, Billroth, Meyer, De Wette,
and to adhere to the common arrangement
of this latter clause. My reason is, that
taken as beginning the next paragraph,
it is harsh beyond example, and super-
fluous, as anticipating the reason about to
be given od yap «.7.A. Besides which,
it is more in accordance with St. Paul’s
style, to place the main subject of a new
sentence first, see 1 Tim. iii. 8, 11, 12;
600 IIPOS KOPINOIOY®S A. XIV. 35—40.
> , ,’ ~ a ’ ‘ i
m = & constr, ™ ET ITOETETAL AUTALC NaAeiv, adda *”
Acts xzvi.1 35?
EL
€ , ‘
vroracccaba, Kabwe
= /
oe te pabeiv OéXovatv,
Lol ” 8 p , 4 A q , ‘ 4
totovg avopac sag \ alsxpov yap
- > ~
gore yuvatkl AaXetv Ev ExKAnola. nap vw o * Aoyoc
Ixv. 1) only. ~f - gs vn nt? C Me , t , 37 ”
a cht ee tov * Oeov eenr0ev, NH €l¢ Vac POvOUg KaTHYTHOEV 5 EL
r Acts xi. 1 reff. Af - * owes , w? t
s= Rom x18 gre ™ Soxer * TOOPNTNS EVAL] | TVEVMATLKOG, © ETLYLYWOKETW
t Acts xxvi.7 , Ce ' > \ , Leal ’ t
; yoapu ULV, y oTt KUOLOU EOTIV [ evroAn | 38 él Oé Ttc
vch. ii. 15 reff. w constr., Acts iii. 10. iv. 13. 2 Cor. i. 14. xiii. 6.
reft.
n GEN. iii. 16.
och. xi. 34 reff.
p Matt. xii. 10
al. fr. Epp.,
Rom. x. 20
(from Isa.
Nie , ‘ o?
kat 0 “vomnog A€yet. ev
oS ‘
OLK@) TOUG
’
reft.
u=ch. iii, 18
reff,
eth arm Mcion-e Epiph Dial Nyssen Damase (Cypr) Pelag Bede. rec emiTeTpatr-
rau (‘the sense of the perfect, permissum est, was more familiar to the transcribers.’
Meyer), with K rel syrr Mcion-e, Chr Thdrt, emrerperra: L: txt ABDFR 17 vss
Mcion-e, Damasc lat-ff.
[aAAa, so ABD!N. |
* brotascto0waayv ABN 17
coptt Mcion-e Damase: vrotaccec@at DFKL rel latt syrr Dial Chr Thdrt Thl Ge
lat-ff. add tors avdpaciw A.
85. ex. T1 Se si quid autem DF Ambrst.
OeAwow A 73 Damase.
pavOavew AN! 17. 23-6. 31. 73 Nyssen.
ree yuvatkw (to agree with plurals preceding), with
DFKLN? rel syrr copt Chr-mss Thdrt Ambrst : txt ABN!17 vulg(and F-lat : mulieribus
is written over yuvaitw in gr column) basm eth arm Chr Damase Pelag,
rec ev
exkAnowa bef AaAewv, with DFKL syrr Chr Thdrt Ambrst: txt ABN m 17 coptt eth
Damase Bede: exxAnoiis FL 49. 69. 106-8 D-lat syr Thdrt.
87. emvyryvwoketw D: ywwonetw B Chr(addg tava).
with (none of our mss) Thl: om ABDFKLX® rel Chr Thdrt Damase Qe.
kuptov, Qeov A copt.
ree ins Tov bef kupiov,
for
rec eo evtoda, with D2-*KL rel vulg(and F-lat) syrr basm
Chr Thdrt Ambrst-ms: evtoAn eotiv N!: eat, omg eytoAn, DIF D-lat G-lat Orig-
int, Hil Ambrst-ed : eotw evroAn ABN? m 17 copt wth Aug.
and we have an example of reference to
general usage coming in last, in aid of
other considerations, ch. xi. 16: but it
seems unnatural that it should be placed
first in the very forefront of a matter on
which he has so much to say. 34,
35. | Regulation prohibiting womento speak
publicly in the church, and its grounds.
If as... aytwv be placed at the begin-
ning of this sentence, we must not, as
Lachm. absurdly does, put a comma be-
fore tév aylwy, which would throw the
emphasis on it and disturb the sense: and
which besides would then be expressed
Gyiwy yuvaikes, or even ayiwy ai yuvatkes,
but certainly not tay aylwy ai yuvaixes.
34.] adda trotdogedOat, scil.
KeAeveTat avrais. The same construction
where a second verb must be supplied
from the context, occurs 1 Tim. iv. 3.
So Soph. Cid. Tyr. 236, roy &vip amravda
TOUTOV pnt’ eisdéxeoOat mire mpos-
pwveiv Tia, w0civ F am olkwy mayTas:
Lucian, xdpwy 7) emioxorotytes, line 49
from beg.,—oé 5€ kal abrdy KwAvoe evep-
yeiv Ta Tod Bavdtov Epya, kal Thy TIAov-
Twvos apxhv Cnuiody. See other examples
in Kiihner, § 852 K. 6 vépos—
ref. Their speaking in public would be
of itself an act of independence ; of teach-
see ee
ing the assembly, and among others
their own husbands. 35.] This pro-
hibits another kindred irregularity—their
asking questions publicly. They might
say in answer to the former ovydtwoar,
‘But if we do not understand any thing,
are we not to ask?’ The stress is on
padeiv. i8fovs, confining them to
their own husbands, to the exclusion of
other men. aitoxpdév] See ref.:
indecent, bringing deserved reproach.
86—40.] GENERAL CoNncoLvu-
sion: the unseemliness and absurdity of
their pretending to originate customs un-
known to other churches, as if the word
of God first went forth from them: and
the enforcement of his apostolic authority.
Then, @ summary in a few words of the
purport of what he has said on the spiritual
gifts, and a repetition, in another form, of
the fundamental precept, ver. 26.
36.| I cannot agree with Meyer in refer-
ring this only to the regulation concerning
women which has preceded. It rather
seems to refer to all the points of church
custom which he has been noticing, and
to be inseparably connected with what
follows,—the recognition of iis apostolic
orders, as those of God. 87. | mvev-
patikéds, one spiritually endowed: not
ABDF
KLNab
edefgz
hkim
o1l7
AWE, TTPO KOPINOIOY® A. 601
none xree Pet, 12,
~ fe Cc
> NaAclv Hn * kwdvere . ev? yAws- os s
=ch.ve
a bate, aded hot [nov],
To" mpopnreve, Kal TO
40
— - x? ’
a apa i ae ai
cac, 49 zavra Oe 4 ee Kal Kata *rakey | yvéodu. ns
lg ch. xi. 4, 5,
XV. Tywpigw 6 é uv, aded pol, TO evayyéAtov Oo me an
* wapeAaPere, ) ev @ Kal
Exod xxxvi. 6. d Rom. xiii. 13. 1 Thess. iv. aoc
Heb. v. 6, 1U & vi. 20 (from Ps. cix. 4). vii. 11, Sc. only. L.P.H.
7 gch. aie ert 2 Cor. viii. 1.
10. Acts xiii. 32 (xvii. 18]. 2 Cor. 3
j John viii. 44. Rom.y. 2. (2 €or. i. 24.) ‘Col. iv. 12,
h > x Jd € ar a
ali ae toaunv vulY, O Kat
14, Luke xxiii. 2 al.
c= Mate. xix,
(-ue@v, ch. xii. 24.)
Job xxxvill. 12.
h constr. ace. & dat., Luke i. 19. ii.
i=ch. xi. 23. Gal.i. 9, l2al. *sve John i. 11.
38. for ayvoeitw, ayvoerra: D1(-re) F(nyv-) &' 17 Origy and perhaps A!(w is written
secunda manu, the original letter being erased): ignoratur D-lat: ignorabitur vulg
G-lat Orig-int lat-ff: non cognoscetur Hil: txt A7BD3KLN3 rel syr Chr Thdrt Damase
Thl Ge. (There appears no reason why the indic should have been altered to the
imperat ; but the form of exprn in ch viii. 2, 3 may perhaps have occasioned an altera-
tion of the imperat into the indic, esp if, as Meyer supposes, in writing aryvoeitw wste,
one w had dropped out, and left the last letter of ayvoeir. to be supplied.)
89. aft adeApor ins wou AB'D?-88 c g m o syrr copt Chr Thdrt Damase: om B?(sic :
see table) D' FKL rel Jatt basm Ambrst Pelag. om Ist-To F. om 2nd to B
48. rece yAwoous bef uy KwAvere, with DFKL rel latt Chr Thdrt Ambrst: txt
ABN m 17 Damasc.—rec om ev (Aad. yA. being the more usual exprn ?), with ADSKLN
(17 ?) rel vulg(and F-lat) syrr Chr Thdrt Ambrst: ins BD'F D-lat G-lat coptt.
40. rec om Se (because there appeared to be no contrast ?), with KUL rel basm Thl
(ec Ambr:
quite as in ch. ii. 15. & ypade |
the things which I am writing, viz.
‘these regulations which I am now mak-
ing, kuptov, emphatic: the Lord’s
[commandment |: carrying His authority.
No more direct assertion of inspiration can
be uttered than this. “ Paul stamps here
the seal of apostolic authority: and on
that seal is necessarily Christ.” Meyer.
38. dyvoeitw| implying both
the hopelessness of reclaiming such an
one, and the little concern which his op-
position gave the Apostle. The other
reading, ayvoetrat, gives a passable sense
—‘he is ignored,’ scil. by God: ef. ch.
Wille 2,5 exit, 2); Gals ive 9:
89.] {nAotre and ph KwAvete express
the different estimations in which he held
the two gifts. 40.] 8é, only pro-
vided, that «2a. kata Tag |
i. e. in right time, and due proportion.—
Meyer compares Jos. B. J. ii. 8. 5, of the
Essenes: ote kpavyn more Toy oikoy ote
OdpuBos moAvver, Tas SE AaAias ev TakeL
Tapaxwpovow GAAnAos. See Stanley,
edn. 2, pp. 293 f.
Cuap. XV.] OF THE RESURRECTION
OF THE DEAD; WHICH SOME IN THE
CORINTHIAN CHURCH DENIED. For
the enquiry, WHO they were that denied
the Resurrection, see note on ver. 12.
1—11.] The Apostle lays the
foundation of his intended polemical argu-
ment in the historical fact of the RrsuR-
RECTION OF CHRIST. But he does not
ins ABDFX am 17 Chr Thdrt Damase Pelag Bede.
altogether assume this fact. He deals with
its evedence, in relating minutely the various
appearances of the Lord after His Resur-
rection, to others, and to himself. Then,
in ver. 12, the proclamation of Christ’s
Resurrection as the great fact attending the
preaching of the gospel, is set against the
denial of the Resurrection by some of them,
and it is subsequently shewn that the two
hang together, so that they who denied the
one must be prepared to deny the other ;
and the consequences of this latter denial
are pointed out. But it by no means
follows, as De W. (in part) and Meyer
have assumed, that the impugners were
not prepared to deny the Resurrection of
Christ. |The Apostle writes not only for
them, but for the rest of the Corinthian
believers, shewing them the historical cer-
tainty, and vital importance of Christ’s
Resurrection, and its inseparable connexion
with the doctrine which they were now
tempted to deny. 1, 2.) 8€ transi-
tional. yvwptfe, not, as most Com-
mentators, aft. (He., ofoy smropimvicKe,
nor as Riick., ‘I direct your attention to’
(both which meanings are inadmissible,
from the usage of the word: see reff.),—
but as E. V. I declare: i. e. ‘declare
anew: not without some intimation of
surprise and reproach to them. TO
evayy.| the (whole) Gospel: not merely
the Death and Resurrection of Christ,
which were év mpétos parts of it; the
reproach still continues; q. d. ‘I am con-
602
k pres., Acts ii.
47. ch. i. 18
2 Cor ii. 15.
1 Pet. iii. 21.
iv. 18. Isa.
xlv. 20.
Ich. xi. 2 reff.
m ch. xiv. 9.
1 Tim y.19
only.
n Rom. xiii. 4 reff.
q here only. see note. Gen. x xxiii. 2.
16. Isa. liii.5. Daw. ix.24. ZeEcH. xiii. 7.
‘ eorinkare, 28. ov Kat
-]
pny vp El karéxere,
3p 7
Cuap. XV.1. [aft yrwpifw X! has written a, but erased it. ]
tor esrnkate, ornkete D'F latt copt Ambrst.
2. aft Aoyw ins ka: D'(and lat); quod et sermone Ambrst.
Orig-catn.
IIPO2 KOPINOIOY® A.
Gq?
TapiowKa yao Uw &v
o= Acts xix. 2. Rom. xiii, 11. ch. iii. 5.
r Heb. v. Ll. vii. 27. x. 12.
EN?
Fowheode, rive wey euny yeaa
= <i py) "ete,
i aN
1 rowrote Oo Kal TAME aBov,
peers
¢ ‘ a) BoP rie. PN - r ¢ - a, f= s N
oTt Kolgroc an iQavev UTED TWY AMAPTiwY UwWY KaTa
Eph. i. 15.
a p = ch. xi. 2 reff.
- 22.
s Psa. xxi.
evayyeAitauny D
for el KaTEXETE,
opetAete katexely D'F D-lat G-lat lux Ambrst.
strained to begin again, and declare to you
the whole gospel which I preached to
you.’ ® Kal wap.| The thrice re-
peated kat indicates a climax :—which ye
also received (see especially ref. John), in
which moreover ye stand, by means of
which ye are even being saved (in the
course of salvation). tive hoy. if ye
hold fast, with what discourse I preached
to you: the clause rim Ady. being pre-
fixed for emphasis’ sake. Adéyos, of the
import, not the grounds of his preaching :
for of this he reminds them below, not of
the arguments. Some Commentators take
tl Adyw K.T-A. aS a Mere epexegesis of
evayyeAiov,—‘ the gospel... ., with what
discourse I preached to you,’ as olda ce,
tis el. But as Meyer has remarked, in
that case,—(1) od (eobe and ef Karéxere
being altogether severed from one another,
el KaTéxeTe becomes the conditicnal clause
to yrwplGw dyiv, with which it has no
logical connexion: (2) «i kart éxeTe would
be inconsistent with év 6 kab eorhKare,
which would thus be an absolute assertion:
(3) the words éxrds ef wh ix emior. would
have to be referred as a second conditional
clause to ef katréxere (see below).
exros eb pt eixa emior. | The only chance,
if you hold fast what I have taught you, of
your missing salvation, is the hardly sup-
posable one, that your faith is vain, and
the gospel a fable; see ver. 14, of which
this is an anticipation :—unless (perchance)
ye believed (not as E. V. ‘have believed,’
which confuses the idea: it is, ‘became
believers,’ see reff.) in vain (els xevdy, as
ver. 14). So Chrys., who remarks: viv
pev treotaduevws adtd pnot, mpoidy Se
kal Siadepuavduevos’ yuuvy Aomdy TH
Keparh Bog kal Aéye: Ei 5€ xpiords ovdK
eyiryeptat, K.T.A. ver. 14. This explana-
tion of the words appears. to me the only
tenable one. Meyer, and in the main De
W., understand them of a vain and dead
faith, which the Apostle will not suppose
them tohave. Butsurely if the previously
expressed condition of karéyete were ful-
filled, their faith could not be vain or dead ;
and again the qaovist is against this inter-
pretation: unless ye became believers in
vain, not, ‘unless your faith has been a
vain one. Astill further reason is, the
parallelism of eixj éemiatedoare here and
obtws emorevoare, ver. 11: leading to the
inference that ec) here relates, not to the
subjective insufficiency of their faith, but to
the (hypothetical) objective nullity of that
on which their faith was founded. (c.,
Theophyl., Theodoret, Luther, Calv., Es-
tius, and De W. connect éxtds ef un (see
above) as a second conditional clause to
ei karexere, supplying between, KaTeXeTe de
mdvrws (Theophyl.): but this is arbitrary
and unnatural. 38—11.] A detail of
the great facts preached to them, centering
in THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST.
3. év rpwrors | in primis, with relation not
to order of time (as Chrys.: ée apxijjs),
but to importance (as Theophyl.: ofovel yap
OeueArds eoTt maons THs Tiotews). So
Plato, Rep. vil. 6, p. 522: rovro 7d Kowdy
«++. Kal maytl ev mpdros avaynn
pavOdvew. 6 wal wapéAaBov] viz.
(see ch. xi. 23 and note) from the Lord
himself, by special revelation. Before his
conversion he may have known the bare
fact of the death of Jesus, but the na-
ture and reason of that Death he had to
learn from revelation :—the Resurrection
he regarded as a fable,—but revelation in-
formed him of its reality, and its accord-
ance with prophecy. On the following
clauses, ‘the earliest known specimen of
what may be termed the creed of the early
Church,’ see Stanley’s notes, and disserta-
tion at the end of the section. urép
T. Gp. Np.| ON BEHALF OF OUR SINS: viz.
to atone for them. Meyer makes the im-
portant remark, that this use of émtp with
TOV GpapTiav ju. shews, that when Paul
uses it in speaking of Christ’s sufferings
with 4pav only, he does not mean by it
‘loco nostri.’ He also quotes from Butt-
ABDF
KLRab
EmloTEvaaTe. cdetg
hklim
017
2—7. TIPOS KOPINOIOYS A. 603
Nice Lge Aiget = t plur., Acts
Tac ‘ypapac, * sige ak mie a al a aes " eynyeprae 1) mmeog pio.
u Matt. viii. 21
TH Teiry ‘ kata Tac “ypapac, ° Kal OTL * wpOn Knog, gira 22 L. xiv. (
2. Ke
roic Owoeka. %Emera * won » ETaVW TEVTAKOGLOLG ACEA- X%22- Sea
- Mi ald , v a 2 ¢ ! bt es sa ” ¥, ld only.
pore ” eparrat, e& wv “ot “wAstoveg ” uévovery ° ewe “aort, Gen. xxii. 4.
v = Matt. x. 8.
\ 5} ANa die? 10 ay ev BS a Hf) gif « xiv. 2. xvi
TWEC O& [eat exorunUnoav emetTa ~ whUn akwBw, ae ee
Xxvi. 19. w Psa. xv.10. Isa. liii. 9,10. Hosta vi.2. Jon.i. 17 (ii. 1). see Matt xii. 40.
x Acts ii. 3 reff, 1 Tim. iii. 16. in this ref., = pen or é~avepw@tn, (Mk. xvi. $—20) John. See Stanley.
y = Mark xiv. 5 only. Exod. xxx. 14al, elsw. ot place or authority. Z= tere
(Rom. vi. 10.
23. Phil. i. 25. ech. iv. 13 reff.
Heb, vii. 27. ix. 12. x. 10) only t.
See Winer, edn. 6, § 37. 5.
ach. ix. 19 reff.
b = John xxi.22,
d= ch. vii. 39 reff.
4. rec Tn Tpityn ne. (see Matt xvi. 21; xvii. 23. Here tn nu. tn Tp. is solemn and
emphatic), with FKL rel vulg Syr basm goth Dial Eus Chr Thdrt Iren-int: txt ABD
m 17 syr copt Cyr-jer Cyr, Hil.
5. eweita AN m 17 Kus Cyr-jer Chr:
peta, TavTa DIF,
for 5widexa, evdera DIF
latt syr-marg goth arm nonnulli codices-in-Aug Phot Damase Archel Jer.
6. rec mAc.ovs, with KL rel Chr Thdrt Damasc :
txt ABDFRX k m 17 Orig Eus Cyr.
om Kat (not perceiving its force or confusion from € kat exo) A'(perhaps) BD!F ‘NI
latt Syr coptt goth arm lat-{f: ins A7D3KLN? rel Syr eth Orig Archel Eus Chr Thdrt
Damase.
7. for [st eme:ta, erta D (al?): txt ABFKLN 17 rel Orig Cyr-jer Chr Damasce.
mann (Index to Meidias, p. 188), on the
distinction between tmép and epi: “id
unum interest, quod epi usu frequentis-
simo teritur, multo rarius usurpatur d7ép,
quod ipsum discrimen inter Lat. prep.
de et super locum obtinet.” It may
be noticed, that in 3 Kings xvi. 19, where
it is said that Zimri a@ré@avey imép tov
GQmapTi@v avtod wy emoinoer, it is for his
own sins, as their punishment, that he
died. So that taép may bear the meaning
that Christ’s death was the punishment of
the sins of that our nature which He took
upon Him. But its undoubtedly inclusive
vicarious import in other passages where
bmép u@v and the like occur, seems to
rule it to have that sense here also.
Kata Tés yp.| This applies to Christ’s
Death, Burial, and Resurrection on the
third day: see reff. 4. éyyyeptat |
the perfect marks the continuation of the
state thus begun, or of its consequences :
so Herod. vii. 8, GAA’ 6 wey TeTEACUTHKE,
wal ove ekeyeveTd of Timwphracba: see
Kiihner, § 441. 6. 5.| That the fol-
lowing appearances are related in chrono-
logical order, is evident from the use of the
definite adverbs of sequence, eita, ére:ta,
éxxatov 5&¢ maytwy. See examples in
Wetstein. Wieseler, Chron. Synops. der
vier Evy. pp. 420 f., attempts to disprove
this, but certainly does not succeed in get-
ting over éoxatov mdvtwyr, ver. 8.
©6604 Kydd] See Luke xxiv. 34.
tTois Sa@dexa] used here popularly, as
decemviri, and other like expressions, al-
though the number was not full. The
occasion referred to seems to be tbat in
John xx. 19 ff.; Luke xxiv. 36 ff. Clearly
we must not with Chrys., suppose Mat-
thias to be included as possibly having
seen Him after His ascension: for the
appearance is evidently one and the same.
6.] He drops the construction with
drt, dependent on aapédwxa, and pro-
ceeds in a direct narration. But evidently
the sense of the former construction con-
tinues: he is relating what he had re-
ceived and preached to them.
érdvw tevtax. 48. épam.|] From Matt.
xxvili. 17, it appears (see note there) that
others besides the eleven witnessed the
appearance on the mountain in Galilee.
But we cannot say that it is the appearance
here referred to:—nor indeed is it likely
that so many as 500 believers in Jesus
would have been gathered together in Gali-
lee: both from its position in the list, and
from the number who witnessed it, this
appearance would seem rather to have
taken place at Jerusalem, and before the
dispersion of the multitudes who had as-
sembled at the passover: for we find that
the church of Jerusalem itself (Acts i. 15)
subsequently contained only 120 persons.
épdmag | not here in its commoner
meaning of ‘once for all, but at once,
at one and the same time; as Theodoret,
ov Ka’ éva, GAN buod waow.
pévovoety | survive; see reff. The circum-
stance of most of them remaining alive is
mentioned apparently by way of strength-
ening the evidence : q- d. “and can attest
it, if required :’—hardly for the reason
suggested by Stanley, that the dead among
them would haye been worse off even
than others, if there were no resurrection, .
having been “ tantalised by the glimpse of
604
e adv., here
IPOS KOPINOIOYS A.
- ’ ’ ~
ereira re aTooroAoc TAGGLY,
XV.
Be
Ww Ab fy ,
eo\YaTOv oe TAVTWY
ly. Numl
only. 2. pe h ’ t x ” > f} 9 ’ x , ’ €
feut., see ® womepel TW EKTPWUATL apOn ie a eyo yap étutlt O
Mark xii. 28, 5 ict . oF
snare onto! eXaXtaroc TOV cues oc ay ELpl tkavoc kadea0at
Jos. Antt. iii, > a, Sie 8 x ' ~ k 6 =
7a. SDiod. amTrooTo Oc, lott “~ iwea THY ¥ ekK notav TOU EOU
h fcr 10 oO 7) e A Seat , > oe Wises VL ed Dc iN
Job ti 16. pases E E0U ne Oo aes Kal 1) xXaouc ae nH ELC EME
Eccles. vi. £ > , ~ ,
age (08 KERN eyevn On, a\Aa " TEPLOGOTEPOY aUTWY TAaYTWY
i= Matt. iii.
ll. 2 Cor. iii. §. Exod. iv. 10. conatrs, 2 Tim. ii. 2. j= Matt. v.10, 11 al. fr. Ps. vii.1. 2 Macc. v.8.
k ch. i. D reff. 1] Pet. i. m = Acts iv. 25 (trom Ps, ii. 1). vy.14, 58. 1 Thess.ii.1. Deut.
XXxXii. 47. n adv., Mark’ vii. 36. Heb. vi. 17. vii. 15.
rec (for 2nd ere:ta) evra, with BLN? rel Chr Thdrt; txt AFK! ac e g 17 Orig
Eus Cyr-jer Damase.
8. om Tw F lect-19 (al ?).
10. om 2nd 4 D'F, gratia ejus in me latt lat-ff.
mTwxn ov yeyovey F: pauperla] non fuit D-lat G-lat lat-ff(not Jer Aug:
evyevnOn D!:
another world in the vision of their risen
Lord.” 7. *lak®Bo}] Probably,
from no distinguishing epithet being added,
the celebrated James, the brother of
the Lord: see Gal. i. 19. So Chrys.:
éuol Bonet, TE ADEAPG TS EavTov. See
notes on ch. ix. 5, Matt. xiii. 55, and the
Prolegg. to the Epistle of James. On
Wieseler’s view that this is the appearance
on the road to Emmaus, see note on Luke
xxiv. 13. This appearance cannot how-
ever be identical with that traditional one
quoted by Jerome (from the Gospel ac-
cording to the Hebrews), Catal. Script.
Eccles. ii. vol. ii. p- 831 f.: “ Juraverat
enim Jacobus, se non comesturum panem
ab illa hora qua biberat calicem Domini,
donec videret eum resurgentem a mortuis.”
This would imply that the appearance was
very soon after the Resurrection, and be-
fore any of those to large collections of be-
lievers, in which James would naturally
be present. amroot. Tacw]| This
is decisive for the much wider use of the
term amrdéarodos than as applying to the
Twelve only: and a strong presumption
that James, just mentioned, and evidently
here and Gal. i, 19, included among the
améoroAot, was not one of the Twelve.
Chrys. extends the term to the Seventy
of Luke x. and others: joav yap ral
BAAot amdoToAo, ws of EBdSounKovTa.
8.] But last of ali (not masc., as Meyer,
who refers it to taév damrocrdAwy, — for
others than the Apostles have already been
mentioned,—but neut., as in ref. and in
the expression mdvrwy pddiora [ Plat.
Protag. p. 330]), as to the abortively
born (r@ pointing out the Apostles asa
family, and himself as the abortion among
them,—the one whose relation to the rest
in point of worthiness, was as that of the
immature and deformed child to the rest
of the family. That this is the meaning is
for ov kevn eyevnOn, mTwWXN OVK
evident from ver. 9, which drops the figure.
On éxtTpwua, see examples in Wetstein.
It is not, as twes in Theophyl., 7d tatepov
yevynua, ‘a weakling child of old age.
The grammarians find fault with the term,
and prefer &uBAwua or eéduBAwua: but
it occurs in Aristotle, de generatione ani-
malium, iv. 5,—ov divara: TeAcady, GAAG
kunuat exminteL mapamAhoia Tots Kka-
Aovmevos ExTpdwacy. The suggestion
of Valecknaer, al., that 7@ is tw for Tit, is
equally inconsistent with usage and the
sense of the passage), He appeared to me
also: viz. on the road to Damascus. This,
and this only, can here be meant; as he is
speaking, not of a succession of visions, but
of some one definite apparition.
9, 10.] Digressive, explanatory of éxtpd-
part. 9. éyo] The stress is on eyo, ‘ Z,
and no other? és | ‘ut qui: assigns
the reason. ixavds | see reff.
KadetoGar| ‘to bear the honourable name
of an Apostle.’ 10. xdp. 5. Beot |
“With the humiliating conviction of his
own unworthiness is united the conscious-
ness of that higher Power which worked on
and in him,—and this introduces his chas-
tened self-consciousness of the extent and
success of his apostolic labours,” De Wette,
The position of ydpits dé Geo0, and the re-
petition of 7 xapis a’rod afterwards, shew
the emphatic prominence which he assigns
to the divine Grace. 6 ely] viz. in
my office and its results. The church has
admirably connected this passage, as Epistle
for the11th Sunday after Trinity, with that
other speech of a Pharisee, Luke xviii. 11,—
6 0eds, evXapioT@ cot STi ov iu Ssrep ot
Aoirol Tay avOpdérwy: see note there.
H cis @ué] which was (manifested) to-
wards me: see ref, and Rom. viii. 18.
&AAG opposed to Kev} ey.,—‘ by means of
God’s grace’ being understood after éAAd,
as afterwards explained. TEPLOTOTE-
ABDF
KLNab
edefg
hklilm
017
8—12.
’ ’ , on NX , ’ eG, , - =
°éxomiaca, ovk Eyw 62, adAa N Yapic Tov eou
? t o Si Pita ow ’ ” e ’
guol. |! 4 eire ovy eyw Teite exewor, OvTWE " KNnOVEGOMED,
\ e ’ , 9 , Nt X t , ’
kal ovtwc ®émiorevaats. | a O&' ypuatog ‘ Knpvaoerat ™ EK
IIPOS KOPINOIOY= A.
605
P cap 0 Matt. vi. 28.
ouv Acts x 35.
Rom. xvi. 6,
12) Se burl.
16. Ps
exxvi. |.
p Acts xiv. 4,
ch. xiii. 8 reff.
u i! e REV Sey oP w pe t ? Coe q
VEKOWY OTt eynyeorat, TWC AEyouow EV ULV TLVEC OTL rabsol., Matt.
passim. Exod. xxxii. 5.
s = ver. 2 reff.
ii. 1, and
t see Acts viii. 5 reff. a Matt. xvii.
9. (ny. a0 T. vey xiv. Qal. not in Mk., who has éx v. dvaor.. vi.l4) Lukeix.7. Johnii. 22. xii. 1,
9,17. xxi. 14. Acts ili. 15 al2,
w = Rom. vi.2. Gal. ii. 14. iv. 9.
egena Hil).
erased) &.
D-corr(? °F 3?
BD'F®! latt Orig(gr and int) lat-ff.
[addAa, so ABD'N 17. ]
11. for ovv, 3c autem D'F goth Iren-int: enim vulg Tert Pelag.
Paul, passim. Heb. xi. 19.
om avtwy D!-gr L!: mavtwy bef avtwy a.
1 Pet. i. 21. v = ver. 4al. Ir.
amravtwy (but a
rec ins 7 bef ou (see note), with A
KLN? rel Ath Chr Cyr Thdrt, Damase, Thl (ec Orig-int, Jer;: om
miotevoate X!.
12. * ree Ort eK VEKOwY, with ABKLN rel vulg(and F-lat) Chr Thdrt Iven-int :
ex vexpwy ott D!3F D-lat G-lat Orig.
rec tives bef ev ya, with DFKL rel goth
Epiph Chr, Thdrt Ambrst Promiss: quidam dicunt in vobis latt Tert: txt ABN a 17
syrr Orig Chr,(and 2-mss) Damase Orig-int.
pov] adverbial, as in reff.: or perhaps
neut. accus. governed by exomlaca.
aitav wavtwv] either, ‘than any of
them,’ or ‘than them all,’ scil. together.
Meyer prefers the latter, on account of
trois &m. mwacw, ver. 7. But it seems
hardly necessary, and introduces an element
of apparent exaggeration. éxoTriaca. |
Spoken of his apostolic work, in all its
branches ; see reff., especially Phil.
ovk éya $€] explanatory, to avoid misap-
prehension : it had been implied (see above)
in the adAd:—not I, however, but the
Grace of God with me (see var. readd.) :
scil. exomlacev K.T.A. That is,—the
Grace of God worked with him in so over-
whelming a measure, compared to his own
working, that it was no longer the work
of himself but of divine Grace. Augus-
tine, de Grat. et Lib. Arb. § 5 [12], vol.
x. p. 889, hardly expresses this: “Non
ego autem, i. e. non solus, sed gratia Dei
mecum: ac per hoc nee gratia Dei sola,
nec ipse solus, sed gratia Dei cum illo :”—
for he overlooks the entire preponderance
of Grace, which Paul asserts, even to the
exclusion of his own action in the matter.
The right view of this preponderance of
Grace prevents the misunderstanding of
the words which has led to the insertion
of the article, 7 obv éuot, whereby Grace
becomes absolutely the sole agent, which
is contrary to fact. On the coagency of
the human will with divine Grace, but in
subordination, see Matt. x. 20; 2 Cor. v.
20; vi. 1, and ch. iii. 9, note. 115)
He resumes the subject after the digression
respecting himself':—it matters not whe-
ther it were I or they (the other Apostles)
—sucu is the purport of our preaching—
sucH was your belief:—oirws, after
this manner, viz. that Christ died, was
buried, and rose again, as vv. 3, 4.
12—19.] On the fact of Christ's Resur-
rection, announced in his preaching, and
confessed in their belief, he grounds (nega-
tively) the truth of the general Resurrec-
tion :—If the latter be not to happen,
neither has the former happened :—and
he urges the results of such a disproof
of Christ’s Resurrection. 12. | intro-
duces the argument for the resurrection,
by referring to its denial among a portion
of the Corinthian church. 8é belongs
to the whole question, and is cpposed to
otws Knp. and oft. émor. of the fore-
going verse. The position of xpioTds be-
fore the verb gives it the leading emphasis,
as an example of that which is denied by
some among you: But if CHRIsT is
preached that He is risen from the dead
(if an instance of such resurrection is a fact
announced in our preaching), how say some
among you (how comes it to pass that some
say) that a resurrection of the dead does
not exist (od gor. as ver. 13)? If the
species be conceded, how is it that some
among you deny the genus ? Tues |
It is an interesting question, WHO these
twes were; and one which can only be
answered by theindications which the argu-
ment in this chapter furnishes. (1) Were
they Sadducees? If so, the Apostle would
hardly have begun his argument with the
fact of the Resurrection of Jesus. And yet
we must remember that he is arguing not
with the deniers, but with those who being
as yet sound, were liable to be misled by
them. But the opposition between Sad-
duceism and Christianity was so complete,
that we have little reason to think that any
leaven of the Sadducees ever found its way
into the church. (2) Were they Epi-
cureans? Probably not for two reasons:
606 IPOS KOPINOIOY® A. XV.
x*” # x ~ > a Ale! hee Wap eae dew 2 re
x Matt. xxii. avaoTaciC VEKPWVY OUK EOTLY 5 €t Of penne vE-
81 only a Us ee, Pet ‘ Ah \4 x
writasa Dal, Kpwyv OUK EOTLY, OVE yolsToc eynyepTau tL be aah at
aul, Rom. i. , i V. Zz \ av \ ‘
4. Xe. y :
A able =n OUK eynyeorat, KEVOV apa Kat TO Knpvypa dine
Heb, vi. 2. Zz s \ ¢ 4 C.F ay ELC if] Of
see Actsiv. 2 KEVY Kal 1) TLOTIC VULWVY eUpLOKOpE a € Kat 4 hev-
refi. x. 41 reff. , ~ ~ « e’ f =
late Me Somaprupec TOU Oeov, OTL éuaptupnoauey kata Tou Qeov
a2 Cor. v.15. Gal. iii. 29. see Rom, vii. 3, 25.
d Matt. xxvi. 60 only t. see Acts vi. 13.
15. Acts xxiii. 11 al.
éxomev Aeyecv.
13. om ex de to ecriv(homeeotel) XR! a d:
(-petv, Mark x. 19.
f= here only. Xen. Cyrop.i.
b Rom. xvi. 25 reff. c¢ =ch. iv. 2 reff,
-pla, MIs Ev. 19.) c= John i. 7, 8,
. 16, TavTa pév dé Kata TWavtwy Tepowy
ins N-corr!.
14. rec om Ist ka (as superfluous), with BLX® rel Ps-Ign Constt Epiph Cyr-jer
Chr Thdrt Damase Jacob-nisib :
Gic. (D-lat lat-ff express neither ea: nor apa.)
rel syr Pseud-Ign Constt Chr Thdrt Thl He:
nuwy D! 167°. 73. 91. 106 sah goth Ps-Ign-2-mss Dial Cyr-
Dial Damase lat-if.
jer Hc Ruf Arnob Bede.
(a) the Epicurean maxim, “ Let us eat and
drink,” &e., is represented as a legitimate
consequence of adopting their denial of the
resurrection, not as an accompaniment of,
much less as the ground of it : and (8) had
the Epicurean element entered toany extent
into the Corinthian church, we certainly
should have had more notice of its exceed-
ingly antichristian tenets. It is possible
that the deniers may have been, or been in
danger of being, corrupted by mixture with
Epicureans without, from the warning of
ver.33. (3) Were they Jews? Ifnot Sad-
ducees, hardly Jews at all, or Judaizers: a
strong tenet of Pharisaism was this very one
of the Resurrection, see Acts xxili.6: and
we know of no tendency of Essenism which
should produce such a-denial. (4) They
must then have been Gentile believers,
inheriting the unwillingness of the Greek
mind to receive that of which a full account
could not be given, see vv. 35, 36: and
probably of a philosophical and cavilling
turn. Meyer argues, from the antimate-
rialistic turn of the Apostle’s counter-argu-
ments, vv. 85 ff.,—that the objections were
antimaterialistic also: De W. infers the
very opposite, which certainly seems to me
more probable. No trace whatever is
found in the argument of an a/legorizing
character in the opponents, as was that of
Hymenzus and Philetus, who maintained
that the resurrection was past already, 2
Tim, ii. 17, 18,—as Olsh. after Grot. sup-
poses. Whether the Apostle regarded
the resurrection of the body as inseparably
bound up with a future existence of the
soul, does not very clearly appear in this
chapter. From the use of the word az-
éXorTo, ver. 18, which must refer, not to
annihilation, but to perdition, it would
seem that he admitted an independent ex-
istence of the soul ; as also from Phil. i. 23.
But from ver. 32, i vexpol odk éyetpovrat,
ins ADFKN! d (e) f2 1 m 17 G-lat basm goth Dial
rec aft xevy ins de, with D9KL
om ABD!EFR a! m 17 latt coptt Cyr-jer
ddyouey K, mlomev, avpioy yap amodvy-
okomev, it would seem that the Apostle re-
garded the denial of the resurrection as in-
volving that of the future state and judg-
ment. On the question, to which of the
(supposed) Corinthian parties the opponents
belonged, I have nothing to say, not recog-
nizing the divisions into the Pauline, Apol-
lonian, Petrine, and Christine parties as
having any historical foundation ; see note
on ch. i. 12. 13.] 8é is the but
arpurtien tangs frequent in mathematical
demonstrations. av. vex. ovK éoTwv |
the words (ox) of the deniers. ovee
Xptot. éyyjyeptat| This inference depends,
as Grot. observes, on the maxim, “ Sublato
genere tollitur et species ;” the Resurrection
of Christ being an instance of the rule, that
dead men rise; inasmuch as He is man.
This is enlarged on, vv. 20—22. 14.]
Sé, again introducing a new inference.
ov« éy. | Again repeating and using as mat-
ter of fact (od«) the inference of the last
verse; q. d. ei 5& xp. odK-e-yiyepTat.
kevév] idle, ‘empty,’ ‘without result :’
placed first for emphasis. apa | then:
‘rebus ita comparatis’ (Meyer).
kat] also, q. d. “If Christ’s Resurrec-
tion be gone, then also our faith is gone.”
Without the copula 5é, the clause is much
more forcible :—idle also is our preach-
ing, idle also is your faith. Thus rai
both times refers to the hypothesis, «i xp.
ovK eyny. 15.] Not to be joined
with the former verse, as Lachm., al., and
Meyer: for it does not depend on ei 5&
Xp: «.T.A., but has its reason given below.
2 kat, moreover. Wevd.
Tov §.] false witnesses concerning God
(gen. obj.), not ‘belonging to God’ (gen.
subj.), as Billroth: and false witnesses,
as bearing false testimony (see below),
not, as Knapp, as pretending to be wit-
nesses, and not being :—there is no such
ABDF
KLNab
cdefg
hkim
ol7
607
13—20. HPOS KOPINGIOYS A.
¢ ca , y wv g ov ” g- Rom. viii
ort ayeipey Tov Xptotoy, ov ovK Done ee G00 6 etic iz.
\ ’ , 1 Pet, i. 3.
VEKool ouk ? om 16 45 yap vex oot ouK Y eyEtpov- h ch. ii. 20 ref
i John viii
Tal, OUvoE Xecrras Y eyhnyeprac’ Wt Se Xparoc GUK es.
, ’ reff,
y eynyeptat, ” matata n mioreg Uuwv, Ett Eote ‘Ev Talc 1=1 Thess iv,
ts ” ~ 2 oy,
“apaortiate v Uw" 18 ape Kat ot * Kouunbévrec | év \ pisrip Meee
m? , 19 ? = Cp ay n = Phil. i. 20.
amwaAovrro. el ev Ty "Zon rabry ey Xetarey “PF nAme- ° samesiv 14,
\ ’ , ’ F; ef. ii. 10,
Kore Téopev povory, reNcetGekace Tavtwy avOowmuwy Espey, fom Ps.)
90 s \ Se eR ey / c = Dy bs ~ 04 Kings xviii.
VUvl OF YPLOTOG EYNYEPTAL EK VEKOWY, ATADXY TWY "5. se Eph.
p perf., John v.45. 2 Cor.i. 10.
r Rey. iii. 17 only t. compar., ch. xiii. 13 reif.
u Rom. viii. 23 ret.
15. om ka D! goth arm Tert.
om eumep to eyepovra D 43 harl' Syr sah.
17. aft vwey ins ect BD! (latt).
ett yap goth Orig lat-tff.
19. rec nAmucotes ecnev bef ev xpiotw, with D3KL rel (vss) Orig
txt ABD! FX m 17 latt goth (Orig,) Chron (Thl) Iren-int Ambr Ambrst.
1 Tim. iv. 10. v. 5. vi. 17 only.
ees
q constr., Acts xxv. 10 ref.
s = ch. xiii. 13 reff. t ver. 12.
aft xpiotov ins avrov &1(X3 disapproving).
ins o: bef vexpor F.
ins ka bef er: AN! Syr sah eth arm Damasc :
, Chr Thdrt Gc:
2nd
eouev bef mayvtwy avGpwrev D latt goth lat-ff: omnibus sumus hominibus Iren-int.
distinction as Miller attempts to lay down
(Diss. Exeget. de loco Paul. 1 Cor. xv.
12—19, cited by De Wette) between Pev-
Seis udptupes, ‘ qui falsum testimonium di-
cunt,’ and Wevdoudprupes, ‘qui mentiuntur
se esse testes :? see reff., and compare (De
Wette) Pevdod:ddonadros, Wevdorarnyopos.
Kata Tov Geod | not, as commonly, and
even Meyer, ‘against God: butas E. V.,
of, or concerning God: sce, besides ref.,
Plut. de Liberis Educandis, § 4:—0d kara
TOV TEXVOY kK. TAY ETLIOTHUGY A€yely Eld-
Oamev, TavTby Kal KaTa& THs apeTHs daréov
éotiv. @s cis Thy TayTEAR SixatoTparyiay
tpla Set cuvdpapetv, piow, Kk. Adyov, kK.
é0os. eimep dpa] if in reality, as
they assert, ..., compare Plat. Protag.
p- 319 (§ 27), 4 rardy, jy © eyd, réexynua
pa KexTnoa, etrep KéeKTyH OL, and see Har-
tung, Partikellehre, 1. 348. 16.] Re-
petition of the inference in ver. 13, for
precision’s sake. 17, 18.] Repetition
of the consequence already mentioned in
ver. 14, but fuller, and with more refer-
ence to its present and future calamitous
results. 17. patata] from pdrny,
and thus more directly pointing at the
Srustration of all on which faith relies
as accomplished,—e. g. the removal of
the guilt and power of sin;—and of all
to which hope looks forward, e. g. bliss
after death for those who die in Christ.
This is so, because Christ’s Resurrection
accomplished our justification (Rom. iv.
25), and, through justification, our future
bliss, even in the disembodied state
(for that seems here to be treated of).
18. dpa «at] then also. ot
kop. | those who fell asleep in Christ,
perished (i.e. passed into misery in Hades).
He uses the aorists, speaking of the act of
death, not of the continuing state: the act
of falling asleep in Christ was to them
QmwmA€LA. év Xp-, in communion with,
membership of Christ. On KoupnPevtes
Meyer quotes a beautiful sentence from
Photius (Quest. Amphiloch. 168 [al.
187 or 197], vol. i. p. 861, Migne) : em)
bev civ TOD Xpiorob Gdvarov KaAEL, iva Td
mabos mioTéonta’ em) 5 Huay koipnouy,
va Thy odbvny Tapauv9tjonrat. év0a pev
yap Tapexadpnoev 7 avaotacis, Cappav ka-
Ae? Odvatov. Oa 5e ev edmiow rt mévet,
Kolunow Karel. 19.] Assuming this
amréAea of the dead in Christ, the state
of Christians is indeed miserable. It has
perhaps not been enough seen that there
are here two emphases, and that pévoy be-
longs to the aggregate of both. According
to the ordinary interpretation, ‘ If in this
life only we have hope in Christ ...,’ it
would be implied that in reality we shall
have hope in Christ in another state also,
which would not agree with the perfect
naAmucdres eonev. The right arrangement
of the Greek gives the key to the sentence :
ei [ev TH (wh Ta’tn ev xpioTe HATiKSTES
éopev| pdvoy,—‘if all we have done is
merely having hoped in Christ in this life,’
‘if it is there to end, and that hope have no
result . The perf. AAmudétes eop.
implies the endurance of the hope through
our lives. éheewv. mavr.] We are
most to be pitied (most miserable) of all
men; viz. because they, all other men, live
at ease,—we on the contrary are ever ex-
posed to danger and death: because our
hepe is more intense than that of all others,
and leads us to forego more: and to be
disappointed zz it, would be the height of
misery. 20—28.] Reassertion of
the truth that Christ 18 RISEN from the
608
IIPOX KOPINOIOY® A.
AY,
k /
v Acts xv.24 0" KEKOLUNMEVWY. 2lv emedy yao br avOpwrou [0] Bavaroc,
w ver. 13 reff. \ S ty 0 , w 924
x = Acis iv. 2. Kat Ol apy aad avaotaacic " vEKpwv. a ce yap
ch. vu. ’ ~
ae tee) Seep TW “Addy TAVTEC ato0vnskovew, ourwe Kat * ev tT!
Gal. ii. 17. - y of O93 u 3
Eph.i. 4. loTW TAVTEC caoras ROGER eee re & €v Th
iii. 11. Hox ee
R 17 2 .
Tern iv. 1Olw Tayuate “ amapyn Xptsroc, tetra * oF rou Xetsrou
z here only. 1Kingsiv.10. 2 Kings xxiii. 13. a w. gen., see Rom. xvi. 10, 11. ch. i. 11.
20. for yum, vuy AF Dial.
ins twy bef vexpwy F Damasc-comm.
rec at
end adds eyeveto (supplemental gloss), with D°KL rel syrr goth Thdrt Damase: yevo-
pevos 80: om ABD'FR 17 latt coptt arm Orig Dial Iren-int Hil.
21. om o bef @avaros ABD'KX Orig Dial Ath, Ps-Ath Damasc (appy to conform to
avacT. below :
Jrom Rom v.12):
avacr. also) Thdrt.
dead,—and prophetic exposition of the
consequences of that great event.
20.] vuvi, ‘as matters now stand:’ see
reff. amapx. T. Kekoip.| (as) (the)
first-fruit of them that sleep (anarthrous,
because categorematical). For the con-
struction Meyer compares Eur. Or. 1098 :
‘EAeyny xravemev, Mevedem AUTnY TiKpay.
The sense is, ‘Christ, in rising from the
dead, is but the firstling or earnest of
the resurrection of the whole number of
those that sleep.’ There does not appear
to be any intended reference to the legal
ordinance of the first-fruits (Lev. xxiii. 10,
11): but however general the application
of the analogy may be, it can hardly fail to
have been suggested to the mind of a Jew
by the Levitical ordinances, especially as
our Lord rose on the very morrow after the
Paschal Sabbath, when (1.c.) the first-fruits
were offered. TOV KekoLLnpevey | from
the logical connexion, should mean, not
the dead in Christ, but all the dead ; see
next verse: but it is the Christian dead
who are before the Apostle’s mind, when
he calls our risen Lord a@mrapx) tev KEK.
21.] Maw the bringer-in both
of death and life : explanation (not proof)
of Christ being the anapxh T. keKoum.:
and (1) in that He is Man: it being
necessary that the first-fruit should be as
the lump. The verity lying at the root
of this verse is, that by MAN ONLY can
general effects pervading the whole human
race be introduced. SV avOpdrov,
sc. early. .| (2) In that He is
(and here the fact of His being the Lord of
Life and Righteousness, and the second
and spiritual Head of our nature, are as-
sumed) to us the bringer-in of LIFE, as
Adam was the bringer- in of DEATH.
év 76 °AS., ev TH xptor@ | in community
with, as partakers in a common nature
with, Adam and Christ: who are respec-
tively the sources, to the whole of that
nature (naytes), of death, and life, i. e.
this is more prob than to suppose with Meyer that it has been introd
ins D§FL rel Ath, Eucher Cyr-jer(but 7 (#7 afterwards) Chr(but
(here) physical death, and rescue from
physical death. The practice of Paul to
insulate the objects of his present atten-
tion from all ulterior considerations, must
be carefully here borne in mind. The an-
tithesis is merely between the bringing in
of death by Adam, and of life (its oppo-
site) by Christ. No consequence, whether
on the side of death or of life, is brought
into consideration. That death physical
involved death eternal—that life eternal (in
its only worthy sense) involves bliss eternal,
is not so much as thought of, while the
two great opposites, Death and Life, are
under consideration. This has been missed
by many Interpreters, and the reasoning
thereby marred. But the ancients, Chrys.,
Theophyl., Theodoret, Gicum., and Olsh.,
De Wette, and Meyer, keep to the wniver-
sal reference. Theophylact’s note is clear
and striking: airiav mposti@not dv fs m0-
TOUTaL TH Eipnmeva’ Eder yap, Pyoi, avTyy
Viknoa thy ATTnOcicay pvow. Kal Toy
kataBAnbevta, adToy exvikjoat? Kal yap
ev T@ “Addu, TovTéott Sia Td TOU "Addu
TTAoMAa, mavTes TH Oavatw wswémrecor"
obTws obv ev XploTG TavTes avacTHoovTal
Tovtéott Sia Td ebpeOHjvar Toy xpioTdy
avaudpTntoy K. avévoxov TH BavaTtw, Kab
éxdvtTa ev amo0aveiv, avactiva 5é, Kabd
ovK ay Suvardy avroy Kpateioba bad Tis
pbopas, Toy apxnydy THs wis. See on
the great antithesis, Rom. v. 12 ff, and
notes. 23.) But in this uni-
versal Resurrection, ALL SHALL NOT
HOLD THE SAME RANK. Chrys. rightly,
elta, va wh Thy (worolnow Kowhy aKov-
cas, kal Tovs GuapTwAods voulons od eo-
Oat, emiyaryev Exagotos Se K.7.A.
Tdypo is not order of priority, but rank,
aE tee oop in an army,’ so Plut., Otho, P-
2 (Wetst.) : Aeye@ves, o0Tw yap Td
zee ‘Pwuato. Kadrovow émixAnow,.
The three ranks are mentioned in order of
priority, but this does not constitute their
distinctive character :—Christisthearapx7
ABDF
KLNab
cedefg
hklim
017
" O1=94.,
vey ™ 2
O1d0t THY
wapovaig ‘ones
* BaatAct elav
8, = James Vv. 7, 8 al. (ch. xvi. 17 reff.)
f = Acts xx. 25 al.
23. de is written over the line by N}.
IIPOS KOPINOIOY®S A.
N
elTa TO
h 23.
Fru Dew Kal ® rarol, ¢ orav Karao- ii. 28.
609
dt ¢ or
tédoc, Orav © Tapaq >=) Thess. ii.
1 John
c= Matt. xxiv.
d = Matt. zai 6,14. e = Matt.
1 Pet. iv. 7.
g Rom. xv. 6 reff. h
ch. i. 28 reff.
rec om tov bef xpiorov (by a mistake
appy). ins o: bef ev tn mapovora and add eAmoaytes F G-lat vulg-ed lat-ff. (qui
in adventulm] ejus crediderunt demid fuld, sperantes is written over «Am. in the gr
column of F: on the other hand, am D-lat F-lat have in adventu ejus; fri Aug, in
presentia ejus.)
24. rec mapadw (alteration to conform to katapynon, the propriety of the pres being
overlooked: see note), with KL rel Chr Thdrt Damasc :
tov Ov XN},
Hippol Bas Nys: txt BF. (17 def.)
—this is His Y5:0v rayua, see Col. i. 18 :—
of Tov xptoTov follow at His coming, who
are the @vpaua (as understood by the con-
text, and implied by azapx7), in the proper
and worthiest sense, made like unto Him
and partaking of Hisglory; then (after how
long or how short a time is not declared,
and seems to have formed no part of the
revelations to Paul, but was afterwards re-
vealed,—see Rev. xx. 4—6: compare also
1 Thess. iv. 15—17) shall come THE END,
viz. the resurrection of the rest of the dead,
here veiled over by the general term 7d
7€Aos,—that resurrection not being in this
argument specially treated, but only that of
Christians. The key to the understanding
of this passage is to be found in the pro-
phecy of our Lord, Matt. xxiv., xxv., but
especially in the latter chapter. The re-
surrection and judgment of of tov xpiaTov
forming the subject of vv. 1—30 there,
and 7d téAos,—the great final gathering
of mayvta Ta €Ovn, of Vv. 31—46.
amapxy, therefore necessarily the first
Taypa: and hence the word stands first.
ot Tov xp. | = of vexpol ev xpioTe,
1 Thess. iv. 16. No mention occurs here of
any judgment of these his 78101 dovAo1, as in
Matt. xxv., for it does not belong to the
present subject. év TH Tap. avT.| ev
as forming part of, involved in, His appear-
ing,—which, as the great event of the time,
includes their resurrection init. It ought
to be needless to remind the student of the
distinction between this rapovota and the
final judgment ; it is here peculiarly impor-
tant to bear it in mind. 24. eita |
then, next in succession, introducing the
third tayya,—see above. TO TEdos |
the end kar’ etoxnv: not the end of the
resurrection, as Meyer, after Theodoret,
Ccum., Bengel, al. :—nor, of this present
world, as Chrys., al..—which properly hap-
pens at the rapovota: nor exactly, of the
Kingdom of Christ, as Grot. and Billroth :
but generally, THE END, when all shall
be accomplished, the bringing in and ful-
ness of the Kingdom by the subjugation
of the last enemy, the whole course of
Vou. II.
mapadiiw ADN Kus Ath Did
mediatorial work of Christ, the salvation of
the elect ; the time indicated by Matt. xxv.
ult.: Kal amedAcdrovtar obToL eis KbAaoIV
aidvioy, of 5€ Sixator eis (why aidviov.
Stav mapadidot| when He (Christ) gives
up (the pres., for that which is certainly at-
tached to the event as its accompaniment—
étay indicating the uncertainty of the
time when) the Kingdom to God and the
Father (reff.: to Him who is God and
His Father). Then the rest of the sec-
tion as far as ver. 28, is in explanation of
the giving up the kingdom. And it rests
on this weighty verity: the KINGDOM OF
CHRIST over this world, in its beginning,
its furtherance, and its completion, has one
great end,—THE GLORIFICATION OF THE
FATHER BY THE SON. Therefore, when
it shall be fully established, every enemy
overcome, every thing subjected to Him,
He will,—not, reign over it and abide its
King, but DELIVER IT UP TO THE FaTHER.
Hence as in ver. 25, His reign will endure,
not, like that of earthly kings, WHEN He
shall have put all enemies under His feet,
but only tr~u He shall have, &c.,—and
then will be absorbed in the all-pervading
majesty of Him for whose glory it was from
first to last carried onward. It may be
observed (1) that the whole of this respects
the mediatorial work and kingdom: the
work of redemption,—and that Lordship
over dead and living, for which Christ both
died and rose. Consequently nothing is
here said which can affect either (1) His
coequality and coeternity with the Father in
the Godhead, which is prior to and indepen-
dent of this mediatorial work, and is not
limited to the mediatorial kingdom; or
(2) the eternity of His Humanity : for that
Humanity ever was and is subordinate to
the Father; and it by no means follows
that when the mediatorial kingdom shall
be given up to the Father, the Humanity,
in which that kingdom was won, shall be
put off: nay, the very fact of Christ in
the body being the first-fruits of the resur-
rection, proves that His body, as ours, will
endure for ever: as the ee that our
R
610 IIPOS KOPINOIOY® A. po ss
38 (reff.)
= 9 ~ ‘ a OS ” Ks ee Z *
fee, a 251 Ser yap avtov x Baotdevev, aypt ov % On jwavTag ToUC
, N ceN N , > -
éyAoouc v7To TOUC mooac auTou.
e , , ‘ rate By? " eds
oy). (KATAOYELTAL (0 Qavaroc. 7 Tlavra yap ° uméracev v70
44 |, Acts ii. ‘ ? > ~ e Np, e , € f
85, & Heb.i, TOUC mooac avrov. orav oe Pein OTL TavTa © UTOTE-
ee = 9
= r Qn 4 ’ bs ~ of a, di as ‘
Seen Thr la A Snrov Tore SexTOG Tov °vmoTagavToc auTw Ta
o Rom. viii. 20
reff. PsA. viii. 6. p ellips., ch. vi. 16 (reff.). q Gal. iii. 11 only. ras above(q). Matt.
xxvi. 73 only. Num. xxvii. 21. s = Acts xxvi. 22. Isa. xxvi. 13.
25. rec axpis, with B7DFKLN? rel: txt AB'N! 17 Chr-cat Damase. rec aft
axpt ov ins ay ( perhaps, as Meyer, from txx, Ps cix. 1), with D?-*KLN% rel Orig, Ces
Chr Thdrt: om ABD!FR! a? 17 Orig, Ath Eus Hip Epiphgepe Damase. aft
exOpous ins avrov AF 17 Syr coptt wth Orig, Marcell Eus Cxes Cyr-jer Orig-int Tert :
om BDKLX rel vulg(with am demid, agst harl F-lat) syr Orig Eus Ath Chr Thdrt
Damase Iren-int Hil. om avtov F Jer,. (not F-lat.)
26. This ver in DX-corr! tol Jer Ambrst stands after rodSas avtov ver 27: om ver 26
and 1st clause of ver 27 (homeotel) 17. 92(sic).
27. om Ist clause X!: ins (but see above) N-corr!-3,
ins ta bef 2nd mayta &.
lat-ff. (not F-lat Aug.)
et F Hip Orig-int Ambr ; bef uz., Epiph.
humanity, even in glory, can only subsist
before God by virtue of His Humanity,
makes it plain that He will be VERY MAN to
all eternity. atyv Bacrrteiav| That
kingdom, which in its fullest sense is then
first His. At this very time of 7d 7éAos,
Matt. xxv. 34, He first calls Himself by the
title of 6 Baowdkeds. The name will no
sooner be won, than laid at the feet of the
Father, thus completing by the last great
act of Redemption the obedience which He
manifested in his Incarnation, and in his
Death. Stav «atapyyjoy| (aor.)
when He shall have brought to nought,
&e.: see above. Tao. apX. K.T.A. |
not only, as Meyer, &c., hostile power and
government, but as the context necessi-
tates, ALL power. Christ being manifested
as universal King, every power co-ordinate
with His must come under the category of
hostile : all kings shall submit to Him: the
kingdoms of the world shall become the
kingdoms of the Lord and of His Christ :
—and see the similar expressions Eph. i.
21, where speaking proleptically, the
Apostle clearly indicates that legitimate
authorities, all the powers that be, are in-
cluded. Compare by all means Rey. xi. 15.
25.]| See on the last verse :—this is
the divine appointment with regard to the
mediatorial kingdom, —that it should last
till, and only till, all enemies shall have
been subdued to it. 64, viz. Christ, not
the Father, as Beza, Grot., Est., Billr., al. :
it is parallel with karapyjon, and included
in the mediatorial acts-of Christ, who in
His world’s course goes forth vikdv kat va
vuchon, Rey. vi. 2. It is otherwise with
brératev, ver. 27: see there. 26. |
om Ist ot: B vulg D-lat
aft vrotetakTat INS avTw
om Ta F,
Connect éoyar. éxOpds together; not as
Bloomf., “ last of all, the enemy Death is to
be destroyed,” which is ungrammatical. If
éorx. is to stand alone, €x@pbs katapyetrat
must be “is destroyed as an enemy.”
Death is the last enemy, as being the con-
sequence of sin: when he is overcome and
done away with, the whole end of Redemp-
tion is shewn to have been accomplished.
Death is personified, as in Rev. xx. 14.
katapyettat,—pres., either as a prophetic
certainty as mapadid0t above,—or as an
axiomatic truth. 27.| Scriptural
proof of the above declaration.
wreraé. viz., from the Psalm,—Gop, the
Father. See on the Psalm itself, Heb.
ii. 6 ff. notes. etry, scil. 6 Oeds, the
same subject as brératey. Meyer alone,
as it seems to me, gives the right construc-
tion of tay... troréraxtat. “The aor.
efrn must be rendered regularly, not in
the present sense, but as a futurum
exactum: see Luke vi. 26: Plat. Parm.
p- 143, © (rl & bray etm odcia te kad
év, Gpa ov audotepw ;),—Ion, p. 535, B
(tay ed clans En Kat exmAhins uddora
Tous Oewuevous). ‘The time referred to, is
that when the as yet unfulfilled mdvra
imératev shall be fulfilled and completed :
hence it is no longer the aor., but the
perf. droréraxrat. The meaning then is:
‘when God, who in Ps. viii. 6 has an-
nounced the émédratis, shall hereafter have
declared that this irdéraégis is come to pass,’
. This form of expression was suggested
to the Apostle by his having already ex-
pressed himself in the words of a saying of
God.” ITrender then, But when God shall
have declared that all things have been
ABDF
KLNab
edefg
hkim
017
25—29.
? Boas
TavTa
’ of €.97 -€ S toe
TavTa, ta n Oo Ode TaAvVTa
u , ‘ , ery ~ Ape OS
TOUGOVOLY OL BarriZopevor uUTEO TwvV VEKOWY > &l oAwe
§, TO GAow avtois Hv Kat TO Tay *ATENAT Se
v Matt. v.34. ch. y. 1. vi. 7 only.
28. om Ist clause (homeotel) XN! m: ins
IIPOX KOPINOIOYS A.
9§ ¢ by oe - oS \ ? , \
oTayv € umorayn auTw Ta TWAVTA, TOTE [Kar
Says e Cabs or , = ome A bee ? Eat ‘
auTtocgc oO vlLOcC UTOTAYNGET AL TW vroTtacavrT. auTw Ta
611
t = Col. iii. 11.
(ch. xii. 6.)
Herod. iii.
157, wavta
Hv €v 701%
> ~ 929 , \ u I 2
ev Taotv. EEL Tl Bafvrow-
vivice
Zwmvpos.
Polyb. v. 26.
u = Mark xi.6. John xi, 47. Acts xxi. 13.
X-corr!, om xa BD'F 17 am(with
fuld harl mar tol, agst demid) Syr goth Orig, Iren-int Ps-Ath-int Jer: ins AD?KLN
rel syr coptt Ps-Ign Dial Ath Ps-Ath Czxs Cyr-jer Chr Thdrt Damasc Orig-int Tert.
rec ins ta bef 3rd rayra, with D3FKLN rel Origupique Marcell Eus Dial Ath Tit
Epiph Cxs Cyr-jer Chr Thdrt Damase: om ABD! 17
subjected to Him, it is evident that
they have been subjected (ellipsis of the
predicate of the foregoing sentence after
djAov Griz and of8 87. is common; so Plat.
Gorg. p. 475, ©, ‘odKodv KakG trepBda-
Aov 7d Gbdicetvy KaKkioy dy etn Tov GdiKel-
c0at,—*dqAov dh Bru,’—scil. xdxiov bv
ein. Kiihner, § 852, d) with the excep-
tion of Him who subjected all things to
Him. 28.] On the sense, see above.
“The interpretations, that subjection is
only an hyperbolical expression for the en-
tire harmony of Christ with the Father
(Chrys., Theophyl., ec.) :—the limitation
of it to His human nature (Theodoret, Aug.,
Jerome, Est., Wolf, al.), with the declara-
tive explanation, that it will then become
plain to all, that Christ even in regard of
His kingship, is, on the side of His
Humanity, dependent on the Father
(Flatt)—and the addition, that Christ will
then in His divine nature reign with the
Father (Calv. :—* regnum—ab humanitate
sua ad gloriosam divinitatem quodammodo
traducet ’) ;—the interpretation (of aids
6 vids!) as referring to Christ’s mystical
Body, i. e. the Church (Theodoret),—are
idle subterfuges (leere Wusfliidte).” De
Wette. The refutation of these and all
other attempts to explain away the doctrine
here plainly asserted, of the ultimate sub-
ordination of the Son, is contained in the
three precise and unambiguous words, av-
TOs 6 vids. twa q 6 0. wavra év
awaovv | that God (alone) may be all things
in all,—i. e. recognized as sole Lord and
King: ‘omnia erunt subordinata Filio,
Filius Patri.” Bengel. Numerous exam-
ples of wdvra in this sense (less commonly
7a mdvta, Kiihner, § 422) may be found
in Wetst. 29—34.] ARGUMENTS
FOR THE REALITY OF THE RESURREC-
TION, from the practice (1) of those who
were baptized for the dead, (2) of the
Apostles, &c., who submitted to daily peril
of death. 29.] émei resumes the
main argument, which has been interrupted
by the explanation since ver. 23 of €xaoros
ev 7. dip Tdyyart. After it is an ellipsis
Hip.
of ‘if it be as the adversaries suppose.’
tt wowjoovo.w] There is in these
words a tacit reprehension of the practice
about to be mentioned, which it is hardly
possible altogether to miss. Both by the
third person, and by the art. before Barr.,
he indirectly separates himself and those
to whom he is writing from participation in
or approval of the practice :—the meaning
being, what will become of—‘ what ac-
count can they give of their practice ?’
ot BamtiLdpevor] those who are
in the habit of being baptized—not of
Barricbévtes. The distinction is impor-
tant as affecting the interpretation. See
below. trép Tav vexpOv] on behalf
of the dead ; viz. the same vexpot who are
spoken of in the next clause and through-
out the chapter as the subjects of avdoracts
—not vexpoi in any figurative sense. tév
vexp., the art. marking the particular dead
persons on behalf of whom the act took
place. Before we pass to the exegesis, it
will be well to go through the next ques-
tion—e? 6Aws x.7.A. If dead men are not
raised at all, why do they trouble them-
selves (ri kai as in reff.) to be baptized
for them ? Thus much being said as to
the plain meaning of the words used,
there can be no doubt as to their in-
terpretation. The only legitimate re-
Jerence is, to a practice, not otherwise
known to us, not mentioned here with
any approval by the Apostle, not gene-
rally prevalent (ot Bamr.), but in use
by some, of survivors allowing them-
selves to be baptized on behalf of (be-
lieving ?) friends who had died without
baptism. With the subsequent similar
practices of the Cerinthians (Epiph. Her.
xxviii. § 6, p. 114) and Marcionites (Chrys.,
Tertull. de resurr. 48, vol. ii. p. 864, adv.
Mare. v. 10, p. 494 f.) this may or may
not have been connected. All we clearly
see from the text, is that it unquestionably
did exist. With regard to the other
interpretations, Bengel well says, “Tanta
est interpretationum varietas, ut is, qui
non dicam vyarietates ipsas, sed varietatum
Rom: 2
612
\ ,’ w? ,
w ver 4.
x here bis, bei oe a a
. viii. ee x
My QUT OV. Lenk, ROO MIEIG
y Acts XiX. 27
reff. (-vos, 2 Cor. xi. 26.)
29. for roinoovow, moiovew F.
IIPOS KOPINOIOY®S A.
XY.
* ri * kal BamriZovrat UTEP
y 8 , Zz = ze ‘
Kivouvevomev * Tacav * weay ;
zhere only. Exod. xviii, 22, 26. Levit. xvi. 2.
rec (for avrwy) tw vexpwyv (mechanical repeti-
tion of the above), with D3L rel Syr Chr Thdrt ce Thl Jacob-nisib: avtwy twy vexpwv
m 43. 52: txt ABD! FKN ad 17 latt syr coptt goth arm Orig Dial Ephr Epiph.
catalogos colligere velit, dissertationem
scripturus sit.” Iwill give a few of them,
mostly in the words of their authors:
Chrys.:—émtp tev vexpOv, TovTécTL Ta
cwudtwv. Kal yap emt tovTw Bamrtl(n,
Tih Tod veKpod cwpaTosS avacTdacEl, TO-
Tevwy Ott overs méever vexpov... kal ov
bev did TOY pnudTwy A€yels veKpOv avd-
otacw' 6 de iepeds, &swep ev eixdve tivr
.... delkvuct cor... - Sia Tod VSaTos* Tb
yap BamriCecOa x. kaTadvecOa, cita ava-
vevew, THS eis GSov KaTaBarews eat) ovp-
Bodov k. Tis exeiev dvddov. 51d kK. Tdpuy
7 Barricua 6 TI. Kade? (Rom. vi. 4).—
Theophyl.: @notv ody, brt of muaTevoayTeEs
bri ota avdoracis vexpay TwuaTwv, Kab
Bamricbévres em) TorabTais eAmiot, TL ToLh-
covow a&marndevtes; Tt de GAws kal Bar-
tCovrat &vOpwrot brtp avactdaews, TOUT-
éotw én) mposdokla avactdcews, ef V. OvK
éy.; and so in the main, Pelag., cum.,
Phot., Corn.-a-Lap., Wetst.—'Theodoret :
—6 BarriCdpevds, pnot, TS SeomdTy cvvdd-
aretat, iva Tov SavaTov Kowwvnocas Kal
Ths dvactacews yéevnta Kowwyds: «i 5€
vexpdv é€ott Td caua, Kal ovk avioraTa.,
tt dhmote kal BamriCera:; and so Castal.,
al. All these senses would require 7
moinsete Banticbevtes, to say nothing of
the impossibility of thus understanding
imtp tav vexpav. Estius explains brép
TeV veKp. asS=‘jamjam morituri, and
Calvin justifies this, ‘ baptizari pro mortuis
erit sic baptizari wf mortuis non vivis pro-
sit.’ So too Epiph. (1. ¢.),—of catechu-
mens who mpd tis TeAevTHS AouTpoU
Kkatatioovrat:—and Bengel :—“ baptizan-
tur super mortuis il, qui mox post bap-
tismum ad mortuos aggregabuntur.” But
against this brép Tav vexpov is decisive,—
as is bwép against ‘ over the dead,’ i. e. over
their sepulchres (Luth., al.): this local
sense of imép not being found in the N. T.
Le Clere, Hammond, Olsh., al., explain iz.
7. vexp., ‘to fill the place of the dead.’
But, as Meyer observes, such an idea can
hardly be gathered from the words, but
would want explaining in the context ;—
and besides, the question would thus be
irrelevant, because, the place of the dead
being supplied by their successors, it would
be no matter to them, whether the dead
themselves rose or not: whereas now, the
benefits of baptism being supposed to be
conveyed to the dead by the baptism of his
substitute, the proceeding would be stulti-
fied, if the dead could never rise to claim
those benefits. This, the only justifiable
rendering, is adopted by Ambrose, and by
Anselm, Erasmus, Grotius, al., and re-
cently by Billroth, Riickert, Meyer, De
Wette, al. The ordinary objection to it is,
that thus the Apostle would be giving his
sanction to a superstitious usage, or at all
events mentioning it without reprobation.
But this is easily answered, by remember-
ing that if the above view of ri mornoovaty
is correct, he does no¢ mention it without a
slur on it ;—and more completely still, as
Riickert (in Meyer), “ usurpari ab eo mo-
rem, qui ceteroqui displiceret, ad errorem,
in quo impugnando versabatur, radicitus
evellendum; ipsius autem reprehendendi
aliud tempus expectari.” See a multitude
of other interpretations in Pool’s Synopsis
and in Stanley’s note. His concluding re-
marks are worth quoting : “ On the whole,
therefore, this explanation of the passage
(that given above) may be safely accepted,
(1) as exhibiting a curious relic of primitive
superstition, which, after having, as the
words imply(?), prevailed generally in the
apostolical church, gradually dwindledaway
till it was only to be found in some obscure
sects, where it lost its original significance :
(2) as containing an example of the Apos-
tle’s mode of dealing with a practice, with
which he could have no real sympathy ; not
condemning or ridiculing it, but appealing
to it as an expression, however distorted,
of their better feelings.” 30.| Not
only the practice of those just spoken
of, but his own, and that of those like
him, who lived a life of perpetual expo-
sure to death, were absurd, if there be no
resurrection. Observe that the argument
here applies equally to the future existence
of the soul; and so Cicero uses it, Tuse.
Quest. i.15: “ Nescio quomodo inheret in
mentibus quasi seculorum quoddam augu-
rium futurorum .. . quo quidem demto,
quis tam esset amens, qui semper in labor-
ibus et. periculis viveret ?” 31.] To
ABDF
KLN ab
cdefg
hklm
017
die daily is a strong expression for to be ~
daily insight of death and expecting it. See
2 Cor. iv. 11. This he strengthens by an
asseveration, grounded on his boast of them
as his work in Christ : not that this is im-
30—33. IIPOS KOPINOIOY®S A. 615
31? Kad! muepay arobimors, P va TH * bperépay © KabXn- ects pr
ov, ade pol, 7 nv ae ev Xplory ‘Inoou TW Kupiy nHOV. fee 15,
22 ot fara avOpwrov © tnponaynoae ev "Egiow, rt pau TO a
ogedoc 5 5 & vEKoOL OUK ”
: avovov yao aToOvnoKkopev.
reff. e Rom. xv. 17.
nase ii. 14, 16 only. Job xv. 3 only.
28. xiii. 32, 33. Acts xxiii. 20, xxv. 22. camel iv. 13. Exod. viii. 29.
m = ch. iii. 17 reff.
= Rom. xi.
pofy
as ee ' paywpev Kal Tl EV® ihacyanse?”
33. seeR
33 ' rAavacbs. " @0cioov- a. Ge -
om, iii.
f see note, and ch, iii. 3 reff. & here only f-
iIsa. xxii. 13. k adv., Matt. vi. 30. Luke xii
I ch. vi. 9 rett.
31. Steph ynuerepay, with A a (h! ?) k m 22. 4, 441, 51-6. 72}. 89. 120-2 lect-14 Orig.
rec om adeAgor, with DFL rel Orig Chr Thdrt Damase Ambrst :
17 vulg fri syrr coptt eth arm Dial Aug Pelag Bede.
(but «vpiw for xprotw) D-lat Ambrst.
32. om To D!F,
mediately or proximately at stake in the
matter, but much as we should say, ‘‘ As I
love you, it is true.’ He would not think
of deceiving those of whom he boasted be-
fore God in connexion with Christ.
iper. | gen. obj., see reff. vy, the affirma-
tive, as ud is the negative particle of adju-
ration: but val wa is often found in an
affirmative sense: see Kiihner, § 701.
32.| The stress of the first clause is on
Kata avOpwrov, and its meaning, merely
as man, i.e. ‘according to this world’s
views,’ as one who has no hope beyond the
grave ;’ see ref. If thus only he fought, &c.,
where was his profit (seeing he despised all
those things which kata &v@pwroy might
compensate for such a fight,—fame, praise,
&e.)? Therenderings, dcov 7d cis avOpa-
mous (Chrys.), i. e. ‘so far as one can be
said @ypiouaxeiy against men, —and kara
av0paTwv Aoyiopdy Onpiwy eyevdunv Bopa
(Theodoret),—‘exempli causa’ (Semler,
Rosenmiiller),—‘ut hominum more loquar’
(Kstius and Bloomf.), are all constrained,
and scarcely to be extorted from the words.
eOnptopaxynoa| I fought with beasts
(aor. referring to one special occasion).
How ? and when? Most ancient and mo-
dern Commentators take the expression
figuratively, as used in Appian, B. C. ii. p.
763 (Wetst.), where Pompey says, ofos
Onplois waxdueba,—and Ignat. ad Rom. 5,
p- 689 f., amd Supias méxps “Pouns Onpro-
wax bia yijs x. Oardadoons, Sedemevos Sexa
Acordpdois, 6 eoTioTpatiwtiKoy Tdyua. So,
of our text, Tertull. de Resurr. 48, vol. ii.
p- 865: “ Depugnavit ad bestias Ephesi,
illas scilicet bestias Asiaticze pressure.”
And this explanation must be right :
for his Roman citizenship would have
precluded his ever being literally thrown
to beasts : and even supposing him to have
waived it, and been miraculously rescued,
as Ambrst., Theodoret, Erasm., Luther,
Caly., al. suppose, is it conceivable that
such an event shoyld have been altoger
ins ABKXN m
om ing. Tw kv. nu. D!, so
ther unrecorded in the Acts? Adopting
the figurative rendering,—we cannot fix
on any recorded conflict which will suit
the words. His danger from Demetrius
and his fellow-craftsmen (Acts xix.) had
not yet happened (see Prolegg. § vi. 2):
but we cannot tell what opposition, justi-
fying this expression, the avtixe{wevor ToA-
Aot of ch. xvi. 9 may ere this have made
to his preaching. et vexp.| If dead
men rise not, i.e. ‘if none of the dead
rise. These words are best joined with
the following, as Chrys., Theophyl., Beza,
Bengel, Griesb., Meyer, De Wette, al.,—
not with the preceding, as Theodoret,
Grot., Est., Luther, al. For kata avOpo-
mov already expresses their meaning in
the preceding sentence; and the form
of ver. 29 seems to justify this arrange -
ment, besides that otherwise gay. k.
Tiwuev, &e., would stand awkwardly in-
sulated. gay. x. miwpev . . .| In Isa.
the words represent the recklessness of
those who utterly disregard the call of God
to weeping and mourning, and feast while
their time lasts. Wetst. has collected very
numerous parallels from the classics. The
most striking perhaps is Herod. ii. 78.
33.] The tendency of the denial of the re-
surrection, represented by the Epicurean
maxim just quoted, leads him to hint that
this denial was not altogether unconnected
with a practice of too much intimacy with
the profligate society around them.
#7) wAav., as in ref., introduces a warning
against moral self- deception. bcip.
Hon . .| These words (according to the
reading xpijo@, which is not, however,
well supported) form an Jambic trimeter,
and occur in this form in a fragment of
the Thais of Menander; but Clem. Alex.
Strom. i. 14 [59], p. 350 P., says, mpds
youv Kopiv@lovs . . iauBelw ocuvyKéexpntat
Tpayex@—but this may be a mere inac-
curacy. Socrates, Hist. Eccl. iii. 16,
quotes it as a sufficient proof that Paul
614
IIPOS KOPINOIOYS A.
ae:
h lv. n? oO Sa) € ' , 34 q ’ , r ,
ninewionlys |. Oa. nOn Xonota opiAtat Kakal, exvypare diKkatwe,
on
xi. 30. Luke
vy. 39. vi. 35.
Rom. ii. 4.
Eph. iy. 32.
1 Pet. ii. 3)
only. Jer.
XXIV. 2.
p here only.
xod. xki.
10. Prov.
vii. 21.
Wisd. viii. 18 only.
2 Tim. ii. 26.
81 Pet. ii.15 only. Job xxxy.16. WIsD. xiii. 1 only.
only. Ps. xxxiv. 26. v James ii. 18.
y Rom. iv. 17 reff. z = John xii. 24.
, a 36 x
OWMATL EOKOVTAL 5
= 2aN ‘ Y Ad , A
TOUITAL, €aVv PY atofavy
w ver. 4.
oe (mat. Kal un auaoTavere® * ayvwatay yap Qeov TWwec éXovow.
moog “ EvrpoTny vu Aadw.
35° ANN’ © gpa tic Tlwe ” eystoovrat ot vexooi; Tol oe
appwy, ov O OTEIDELC, ov ¥ Zwo-
37 ‘ a , > \
Kat O OTELOELC, Ov 70
Hist only. Gen. ix. 24. 1 Kings xxv. 37. met., as here, Joel i. 5. avavijbss
r = here (Luke xxiii. 41. 1 Thess. ii. 10. Tit. ii. 12. 1 Pet. ii. 28) only. see Deut. xvi. 20.
ch. vi. 5
t = ch. vii. 35. xiv. 12 al. uch. ¥
Ps. xciili. 8.
x Luke xi. 40. xii. 20 al.
33. ree xpyo@ (to suit the metre: with none of our mss): txt ABDFLN rel Clem
Ath Chr Thdrt Damase (ic Thl.
34. rec Aeyw (negligence, the force of arw not being perceived), with AFKL rel
Chr Thdrt, dico flor(and F-lat) G-lat: txt BD k m 17 Dial, loguor vulg D-lat(and
fri spec) Ambrst.
35. adda B Orig.
36. rec appoy, with KL rel: txt ABDFX m 17.
was conversant with the tragedies of Euri-
pides. “ Perhaps,” says Dr. Burton, “ Me-
nander took it from Euripides.” The Apos-
tle may have cited it merely as a common-
place current, without any idea whence it
came ;—and xpyo7ad seems to shew this.
The plur. 6usAta points out the repetition of
the practice. Meyer quotes Plat. Rep. viii.
p. 550, dia 7b wh Kaxod avdpds civar Thy
prow, duiArtas S€ Tails Tay %AAwY kKakais
Kexpjobat. 34. éxvny.| Awake out
of (your moral) intoxication, already pos-
sessing you by the influence of these men.
Sixaiws| either, as is just,—as
you ought (Wahl, al.),—or, in a proper
manner (Olsh., al.),—or, emi cuudépovti
kal xpnoium (Chrys., al.), or so as to be
Sikator, as HE. V., Awake to righteous-
ness. The last meaning is well defended
by Dr. Peile by Thue. i. 21: amlotws em
Td mvd@des exvevixnkdta,—‘so as to be-
come incredible ;}—and seems to be the
best. The aor. imper. éxvjpare marks
the quick momentary awaking; the pres.
imper. 7) Guwaptavere, on the other hand,
the enduring practice of abstinence from
sin (Meyer). But that this must not al-
ways be rigidly pressed, see Kiihner,
§ 445. 2. Anm. 1. ayvactav | The
stress is on this word: for some (the
twes of ver. 12, most probably, are hinted
at, and the source of their error pointed
out) have (are affected with) ignorance
(an absence of all true knowledge) of
God. See ref. to Wisd. mpos évr.
up. A. shews that these tivés were éy duiv,
—not the heathen without:—the exist-
ence of such in the Corinthian church
was a disgrace to the whole. Aaho |
I am speaking; not merely I say this;
it refers to the spirit of the whole passage.
35—50.] The argument passes from
for Cwomorertat, Cwoyovertar A
the fact of the resurrection, already sub-
stantiated, to the MANNER of it: which is
indicated, and confirmed, principally by
analogies from nature. 35. | The new
difficulty is introduced in the form of a
question from an objector. This is put first
generally, 7és...., In what manner,—
and next specifically, roi@ 5€ (dé, ‘what I
mean, is... .’) odpati, With what kind
of body—épx., do they (pres. as transfer-
ring the action to that time,—as éyelpov-
tat before: so Meyer and De W.:—or
rather perhaps, as assuming for the mo-
ment the truth of the resurrection as a
thing actually happening in the course of
things) come (forth at that time) ?
36—41. | Analogies illustrative of the ques-
tion just asked: and first, that of seed sown
in the earth (386—88). 36.| Meyer
would point this, &ppwy ov, 6 omelpets .. .;
because according to the common punctua-
tion there is necessarily an emphasis on ot,
which the context does not allow. But on
the other hand, it seems to me, there is an
objection to the introduction of a new
matter so lamely as by 0 omelpers. Besides
which, the emphatic ov does not necessarily
require any other agency to be emphatically
set against it, but may imply an appeal to
the objector’s own experience (as Billr. in
Dr. Peile) :—‘ thow say this, who art con-
tinually witness of the process, &e.?? And
let it be remembered that we have another
oreipey below, vv. 42—44, which may be
set against thy sowing. I retain therefore
the stop at &pPpwy (nom. for voc. as freq.
See Luke xii. 20; Mark ix. 25; Luke viii.
54, al., and Winer, edn. 6, § 29. 2), and
the emphasis on ov. The similitude was
used by our Lord of His own Resurrection,
ref. John. ov fLwororettar| Its life is
latent in it; butis not developed into quick
b4—40.
IIPOS KOPINOIOY= A.
615
a = here only.
~ N , ! Oe a S b 7
Ow"a TV yevnoopEevov OTElpetc, a a upVvOV KOKKOVD, b Matt. xiii.
D , det q - - . 98e args '
“a “ rvyot, ° olTov H rivoe trav Aowtorv’ 0 oe Bede Sidwouv
,’ - ~ A ’ A > J. -~ ‘
aUT® cwpa kafoc nOéAnoev, Kal EKaoTW TwWY oTEPLATWY
39? - ‘ € ae , aaa? my SY opt., 1 Pet.
ov jaca caps nN autTy oa9§ adAa adXn ail.
ey ig
(OLOV OWLU.
pe avOpwrwy, aAAn 6é caps ‘ernvav, adAn 6: capt
40 pat owpara ' eovoavia, o= ver, 23.
& arnvav, adAn ot “ty Odwr.
f Luke x. 34. Acts xxiii. 24. Rev. xviii. 13 only. Num, xx. 4, 8,11.
i 1 h Matt. vii. 10 al. epp., here only.
xvii. 15. 2 Macc. iii. 39 only. Dan. iv. 23 (26) Theod-A & edd.
89. 108! Epiph, and(but not ad loc) Chr,
aft arodavn ins mpwroy D: pref, F latt(not fri) Dial
Aq. Xen. Cyr. i. 4.11.
marked for erasure) X?.
Iren-int.
37. om 2nd omeipers N!: ins N-corr!.
3l |. xvii.
20 |. John
xii. 24 only.
ech. xiv. 10
only (reff).
John xii. 24.
Acts XXVii.
38 al. epp.,
here only.
Acts i. 25 al.
here only+. Jobv.7
g
i John iii. 12. Phil. ii. 10al. Ps.
(ovp., F. vat.)
Thdrt,. aft (wom. ins es Tyv (but
38. rec autw bef d:5wowv, with DFKL rel fri Chr Thdrt Ambrst: txt ABN bd mo
17 vulg(and F-lat) syrr (copt) Orig, Dial Epiph Damasc Tert.
rec ins To bef id.07,
with KLN® rel Orig Chr Thdrt Damase Thl Ee: om ABDFR' 17 Epiph.
39. om 2nd capt F Chr-2-mss (not F-lat).
om adda D! fri eth Dial Chr.
ree (aft aAAn wey) ins capt (with none of our mss) : om ABDFKLX rel syr copt th gr-
lat-ff.
Chr Tert.
avOpwrov D! Syr Dial Tert.
ktynvovs D!F Syr Tert.
om 3rd capt D!F 17 latt(exe fri) Syr
rec 1x@vwv addAn Se mrgvwv, with FKL
rel syr Thdrt Ge: txt ABDN 17 vulg fri Syr copt eth arm Orig Chr (Damasc) Thl
Tert.
rec om 4th capt, with AKL rel fri syrr Chr Thdrt Aug Pelag: ins BDFN
(17) am(with demid fuld harl tol) copt (Damasc) Thi Tert Ambrst.
and lively action without the death of the
deposited seed,—i. e. its perishing, disap-
pearing from nature. The same analogy
was used by the Rabbis, but to prove that
the dead would rise clothed : ‘ ut triticum
nudum sepelitur et multis vestibus orna-
tum prodit, ita multo magis justi,’ &e.
37.]| Before, the death of the seed was in-
sisted on : now, the non-identity of the seed
with the future plant. There is a mixture
of construction, the words 6 omelpeis being
pendent, as the sentence now stands. The
two constructions as De W. observes are,
ef Tt omelpeis, ov TH a. TH yev. oTElpers,—
and 8 omelpe:s, ov Td o. TH yer. EoTW.
He names the plant 73 cdpa Td yevnod-
pevov, having already in his eye the appli-
cation to the Resurrection. ei TUXOL |
if it should so happen,—peradventure :
not, ‘for example.’ See on ch. xiy. 10.
TOv AotTay, scil. orepudTwv. 38. | 79€-
Anger, willed, viz. at the creation: the aor.
setting forth the one act of the divine Will
giving to the particular seed the particular
development at first, which the species re-
tains: whereas @é¢Ae: would imply a fresh
act of the divine Will giving to every indi-
vidual seed (not éxdotm Tov oTEpUaTwY,
but éxdorw omépwari, or rather éxdorw
xékk@) his own body. But the whole gift
to the species being God’s, to continue or
withhold, the pres. 5é5wovr still holds good.
éxdot. tTav omepp.| to each of
the (kinds of) seeds; see above: 7éy is
generic. {rov cGpa] a body of its
own. Such then being the case with all
:
seeds, why should it be thought necessary
that the same body should rise as was sown,
or that God cannot give to each a resur-
rection-body, as in nature ? 39—41. ]
And the more,—because we have examples
from analogy of various kinds of bodies ;
viz. (1) in the flesh of animals (ver. 39) :
(2) in celestial and terrestrial bodies (ver.
40): (3) inthe various characters of light
given by the sun, moon, and stars.
adpé§| animal organism (De W.). Stan-
ley’s rendering of ov waca oapk, ) avTy
wap, ‘no flesh is the same flesh,’ is con-
trary to the usage of the passages which
he alleges to defend it, where the negative
is always attached to the verb; ov dikaw-
Ohaera aca odpt, Rom. iii. 20; Gal. ii.
16. See Matt. xxiv. 22 ||; Acts x. 14;
ch. i. 29; 1 John iii. 15; Rev. vii. 16;
ix. 4. On the other hand, where the
negative is attached to mas, as here, the
sentence is a particular negative, not an
universal: e.g. Rom x. 16, aA’ ov mWavTes
iwhxovoay: ix. 6,7; Heb. iii. 16; Matt.
vii. 21, od mas 6 Aéywv mot KUpLE KUpLE Eis-
ercboeTar eis THY BacgiAciay T@Y oUpa-
vav,—where Stanley’s rendering would in-
volve portentous consequences indeed. I
observe that Conyb. also, although disap-
proving on the ground of the sense, adds,
“the words of the Greek text no doubt
admit of such a rendering.” KTHVov |
properly (kréavos, kTdouat) animals pos-
sessed by man: but used in a wider sense
for quadrupeds in general. 40. ca-
para émoupdvia] not, according to our
616 {IPOS KOPINGIOYS A. xW.
\ ? Loos, 2.2 ea A c ~ 4?
ee By Kal owuata ~ emliyea’ aAXa eréoa pev y Twv 'émovod- Cpe
John iii. 12. o n
2 Cor. v. 1. , , eviay \ c — k ? , ” oe
Phil. ii, vlayy ™ Ooka, ‘eréoa O& H TeV ETUYELWY, 41 aXAn ABCDE
il. 14. James - A
ees ? eC , Mie tad , , an ,
i leonst ™ So€a Atov, Kat GAAn ™ doga “aeANvnc, Kat aAAn " Sd€acde te |
wy © Carépwyt ° aarn do °aargooc ? Stadion év ™SbEy. “oi7
eat eel: 9 4 i ‘ np a ? FREON tapes s U-
eT € ~ ~ T >
nile (7 OUTWC Kal “avastactc TwY 4 vekowv. ‘omelpeTtar Ev
ly. Acts = ’ ’ , ? ate ’ ’ ’ ’
nwret. °pOooa, &ystoerar ev ‘apBapoia’ *' omeipsrat ev “atta
o Paul, here u? C w?
sceonly. Exetoerat ‘ev ‘ Oosn’ ‘ omeloerat ev “ acOevela, é-yEtoerat
Mattie, © YElpeTat 1) Bete i pit dee
&c, xxiv.29 x? x 5 , - 44r ! = y Lae tee =
I Mk. Jude ~ €¥ * Ouvapet oTeoetat owua * WuyiKoy, eyEeloeTat wpa
13. Rev. i. , xo ~ , a \
Jats. Gen. “ TyevpaTiKOV. et EaTLV Gwua ” WuyLKor, Est Kal * mvev-
p=andconstr.,
Gal.iv.l only. (Rom. ii.18 al.) Dan. vii. 83(Theod.) q ver. 12 reff. r see ver. 36. s = Rom.
viii, 21. ver. 50. Gal. vi. 8. Col. ii. 22. 2 Pet. i. 4. ii. (12 bis) 19 only. Jonah ii. 7. t Rom. ii. 7
reff. u Rom. i. 26 reff. v = Luke ix. 3). 2Cor iii.7,&c. Phil.iv.19. Col. iii.4. 1 Tim.
iii. 16 only. L.P. w =ch. ii. 3 reff. (see note.) x Rom. i. 4 reff. y here 3ce. ch. ii.
14. Jamesiii.15. Jude 19 only +. z= here 4times only. (ch. x. 3, 4 reff.)
40. om 2nd owuara F Tert. (not F-lat.) [aAAa, so ABD!.]
41. aft Ist and 2nd addy ins be F: aft 2nd, lect-8(sic).—om Ka: F lect-8 vulg(and
F-lat) fri copt Orig-int, Jer.
44. rec om et, with D?3KL rel syrr Thdrt Phot-cat Jac-nisib,: ins ABCD!FX 17
latt copt eth arm Damasc Aug, Bede. (: is written above the line by N1(?)3.)—ree kat
bef eorw, with KL rel &e: txt ABCDFN 17 &c.—ree ins cwua bef mvevuatixov, with
KL rel syrr copt 2th Thdrt Phot-cat Jac-nisib,: om ABCDFX 17 latt arm. (Con-
formation to the foregoing assertions: or perhaps et overlooked from ectw following.
The 2nd coma was a gloss.)
modern expression, heavenly bodies,—for
they are introduced first ver. 41, and if we
apply these words to them, we must suppose
the Apostle to have imagined the stars to
be endowed with bodies in the literal sense :
for he is here comparing not figurative ex-
pressions, but physical realities :—nor (as
Chrys., al.) the bodies of the righteous, as
opposed to those of the wicked ; for in these
there is no organic difference whatever :
but, as Meyer and De Wette, ‘ the bodies
of angels, —the only heavenly organisms of
which we are aware (except indeed the
Resurrection-Body of our Lord, and that of
those few who have been taken into glory,
which, as belonging to the matter in ques-
tion, are not alleged) which will bear com-
parison with bodies on earth. 86fa
belongs to the érouvpdve more strictly than
to the érlyeia. In Luke ix. 26, we have
év 7H Sd&n advtod kal tod matpds Kal
TOV aylwv ayyéduwv. 41.] This third
analogy is suggested perhaps by 5déa just
before. ‘There is no allusion whatever here
(as some have imagined,—even Chrys.,
(Eeum., Theodoret, Calov., Estius, al.) to
different degrees of glorification of the
bodies of the blessed; the introduction of
such an idea confuses the whole analogical
reasoning: which is, that even various
fountains of light, so similar in its aspect
and properties, differ; the sun from the
moon and the stars: the stars (and much
more vividly would this be felt under the
pure sky of the Kast than here) from one
another: why not then a body here from a
resurrection-body,—both bodies, but dif-
Serent ? 42—44 a.| Application of
these analogies to the doctrine of the
Resurrection. 42.| ovrws, thus,
viz. in the entire diversity of that which
is raised again from the former body.
ometpetar| “Cum posset dicere
sepelitur, maluit dicere seritur, ut magis
insisteret similitudini supra sumtz de gra-
no.” Grot. év dOopq, év abOapaia | in
a state of corruption,—in a state of in-
corruptibility. 48. év aripia, év 8déy |
in dishonour (ri yap cidex@éarepoy vex-
pod diappvevros; Chrys. Cf. Xen. Mem.
i. 2. 53,—7Hs Wuxis eeAOovons,.... 7d
TGua TOU oikecoTatov avOpémov Thy Ta-
xlorny etevéyxavtes apaviCovo.w), — in
glory: regarding, as throughout this argu-
ment (see on ver. 24), only the reswrrec-
tion of the just : see Phil. iii. 21. év
aoGeveio] in weakness,—the character-
istic of the lifeless body, which is relaxed
and powerless. Chrys. understands ac. of
its inability to resist corruption: De Wette
would refer it to the previous state of pain
and disease : but it seems better to under-
stand it of the powerlessness of the corpse,
contrasted with év 8vuv., in vigour, viz.
the fresh and eternal energy of the new
body free from disease and pain. “ That
which Grot. adds: ‘cum sensibus multis,
quos nune non intelligimus,’ is very likely
in itself true, but is not implied in év
Suvduer,” Meyer, 44 a. cdp. rx. |
41—47, IIPOX KOPINOIOYS A. 617
45
a= Matt. ii. 5.
Luke xxiv.
46. Acts
xiii. 47 al.
b GEN. ii. 7.
constr., Acts
vy. 3€ ?
? a.@ \ , b? , e ~
MaTLKOY, OUTWC Kal ytyoamTat E-yévero 10) TPWTOC
avOpwroc "Adan "ac Puy ny Cwoav, 0 éoXaToc "Adan
, - y ~ >’ , > ~ ‘
” gic mvevna “Cworoouv. 4% aX’ ov TowTov TO * mvEv-
t
+]
z , c ver. <
TVEVUATLKOD. _ iy. 17 reff.
d here (4 times)
only ft.
,
patikov, adda ro * Yuytkov, Erara To
47 e ~ ” i) ’ ~ d We te e 8 ,
Oo mpwrog avloewmog eK Yyn¢ XOlKOC, O OEUTEDOS
45. for ovrws kat, kadws F fuld arm Ambrst. (not F-lat nor arm-ed-1805.) om
av0pwros BK Did Iren-int Tert.
46. adda D!.
47. aft o mpwros avOpwros add aday Cl. rec ins o kupios bef ef oup. (gloss),
with AD3KLN% rel syrr goth Orig, Chr Cyr, Thdrt Ps-Ath Damase Thl ec Orig-lat,
Maximin-arian (the insertion is ascribed to Marcion by Tert and in Dial): om BCD!
X117 latt copt «th arm Orig, Hip-ms Ath Bas Nys Naz Isid Cyr Apollinarist and
an animal body, of which the Wux4, the what has been just said. The citation
animal soul, was the acting and informing
power. This soul having departed out of
it, does not do away with the correctness of
the predicate: its whole organism which
still remains when it is sown, is arranged to
suit this predominance of the animal soul.
oGp. mvevpatikdy] Theophyl.,
© ¢
having explained cép. Wuy.,—év & #
Wuxn 7d Kipos Kal Thy jyeuoviay exer,—
proceeds mvevuatinoy 5€, 7d Thy Tod Gylov
mvevuaTos KaTamAouToby évépyeav, Kab
bm’ exelvou Ta mayTa Sioikovpevorv. ei
yap Kal viv ev huiv evepyet Td mvedua,
GAN’ obX obTwS, OVSE Gel. adimTaTta yap
GuaptavévTwy. Kal Tov mvevparos dé map-
évtos, 4 Wuxyh Sioike? 7d cauat TéTe SE
dinver@s Tmapamevel tots cdmact Tov b-
kalwy To mvetua. But this is not quite
enough :—for thus the body might remain
as it is, sin only being removed: whereas
it shall be no longer a body in which the
vx predominates to the subordination of
the higher part, the mvedua, but one in
which the zvedua, and that informed fully
by the Spirit of God, shall predominate,—
its organism being conformed not to an
animal, but to a spiritual life: see on ch.
vi. 13. Some understood mvevuarikdy,
atherial, aery, kovpétepov kat AewTéTEpoy,
kal ofov kal em aépos dxeto@a (Chrys.), or
as Origen, dep@des x. aid€piov (see Theo-
phyl.), but the other is certainly right.
44b—49.] Reassertion and Con-
JSirmation of the existence of the spiritual
body. 44 b.]| If there exists an animal
body, there exists also a spiritual: i. e.
it is no more wonderful a thing, that there
should be a body fitted to the capacities
and wants of man’s highest part, his spirit,
than (which we see to be the case) that there
should be one fitted to the capacities and
wants of his subordinate animal soul. The
emphasis is both times on éotw.
45.| Confirmation of this from Scripture.
ovTws, thus, viz. in accordance with
extends only to the words éyévero 6 &vOp.
eis ux. (@oav: mpatos and ’Addu are
supplied, as are also the concluding words,
in which lies the real confirmation. The
words quoted serve therefore rather for the
illustration of man being a Wvx%, than for
a proof of the existence of the spiritual
body. éyévero | by his creation,—by
means of God breathing into him the
breath of life. eis W. Lao0.] becoming
thereby a capa WuxiKdy. 6 éox.
*ASdp.| This expression was well known
among the Jews as indicating the Messiah.
The Rabbinical work Neve Shalom ix. 9
(Schéttgen), says: “ Adamus postremus est
Messias :” see other instances in Schéttg.
ad loc. éxxatos, as being the last
HEAD of humanity,—to be manifested in
the last times : or merely in contrast to the
Jirst. eis av. Cwom.| scil. éyévero—
became a quickening (life-bestowing)
spirit. When? This has been variously
answered : see De Wette and Meyer. The
principal periods selected are his Incarna-
tion, his Resurrection, and his Ascension.
But it seems to me that the question is not
one to be pressed : in the union of the two
natures, the second Adam was constituted
a life-bestowing Spirit, and is such now in
heaven, yet having the resurrection-body.
The whole complex of His suffering and
triumphant state seems to be embraced in
these words. That his resurrection-state
alone is not intended, is evident from é
ovpavov, ver. 47. He was a mvedua
(woody, even while in the cua Wuxi-
«év ; and is still such in the céua mvev-
hatindv. The life implied in (worotody,
is the resurrection-life: see John v. 21,
28; Rom. viii. 11. 46.| But in the
natural order, that which is animal pre-
cedes that which is spiritual (15 Wvx.,
7 Tvevp., not cdua, but abstract and
general) : as in ver. 45, 6 mpa@tos—é
érxXaros. 47.| So exactly in Gen. ii.
618 IIPOX KOPINOIOY= A. XV.
48
e ver. 40 reff.
f Rom. xiii. 4
reff, e) 4d. Sg ’ ‘ ka thy 2g: 3, , - \
g Rom. viii. 29 Ol Kolko, Kat Oloc O ETOVOAVLOC, TOLOUTOL Kal
if.
= ed coy 7 = \
oltocg O xelkoc, TOLOUTOL KQL
£
ol
” 24 > ~
avOowmoc e& Ovupavou.
Te ’ ~
h =ch. vii. 29. © ¢ id - 49 \ » £ > t nN g ,
Seu 12. ETOUPAVLOL Kal kaQwe Epopecauev THV €LKOVa TOU
i = Matt. xvi.
- ~ ff , ‘ a g , 4 -~ e > ,
y Xolkou, popeconev Kal THY © &tKOVa TOU — ETOVPAaVLOU.
* 50h
xiv. 18.
k ch. vi. 9, 10
reff.
I ver. 42 reff.
m Rom. ii. 7
reff.
n = Matt. xiii.
11. Rom. xi. 25. Dan. ii. 18 al.
rouTo oé ” gnu, adeA pot, ort ‘cape Kat aiua : Bact-
Astav Oeov ‘ kAnpovonnoat ov Ovvavrat, ove 7 ' pOopa
. ? ’ k - InN AN , c 7
thy "apPaoaiay ~ kAnoovopel. 5] ised " voTNOLOVY YLLY
Photin in Epiph Orig-int, Tert Cyprsepe Hil. aft ovpayov add o ovpavos F vulg
lat-ff.
48. aft ro.ovro: ins ovra C.
for emoup., ovpayvios and ovpayior D'F.
49. popecwuer (from a desire [as Chrys below] to turn what is really a physical
assertion into an ethical exhortation: see note at Rom v. 1) ACDFKLN rel latt copt
goth Thdot Czs Bas Cyr Mac Meth(pref wa) Chrexp:(totr’ eoriv, &piota mpdimper.
ouuBovaevtikas eisdyer Tov Adyov) Epiph Ps-Ath Damasc Iren-int Tertexp, Cypr
Hil Jer: txt Bae g 17 syrr eth arm Thdrtexp:(7d yap popécoper mpoppntiKkas, ov
mapaweTiK@s etpnrev) Thlexpr Meexpr-
50. for KAnpovounoa ov duvavtat, ov KAnpovounoovow (see ch vi. 9, Gal y. 21) F 42
copt Mac Chr Tert,. KAnpovounoer (see as above) C'D'F latt copt.
om Ist ka: F vulg-mss(not F-lat) Iren-int,.
7. God made man yodv AaBov amd ris
yins- Meyer has some excellent remarks
here, with which I entirely agree: —“ Since
the body of Adam is thus characterized as
a WuxiKby oda, as ver. 45, and psychical
organism involves mortality (ver. 44), it is
clear that Paul treats of Adam not as created
exempt from death: in strict accordance
with Gen. ii. 7; ili. 19. Nor does this
militate against his teaching that death
came into the world through sin, Rom. v.
12. For had our first parents not sinned,
they would have remained in Paradise, and
would, by the use of the Tree of Life,
which God had not forbidden them (Gen.
ii. 16,17), have become immortal (Gen. iii.
22). But they were driven out of Para-
dise, eve yet they had tasted of this tree
(Gen. iii. 22), and so, according to the
record in Genesis also, Death came into
the world by sin.” See also some striking
remarks on the verse in Genesis in Stier,
*Andeutungen fiir glaiibiges Schriftver-
standniss,’ pp. 202, 3. é— ovpavod |
either, in this glorified Body, at his
coming,—as Meyer: or, in his whole Per-
sonality (De W.) as the God-man: this
latter seems more probable from John iii.
13, where 6 vis Tov av@pérov is desig-
nated as 6 ék Tod ovpavod karaBas.
48.]| 6 xoixds, Adam; ot x., his posterity
on earth: 6 éwoup., Christ: ot éw., His
risen people. See,as admirably illustrating
this verse, Phil. ili. 20, 21. 49.| For
the reason of keeping dopéwopev, see var.
readd. As we (Christians) bore in this
life ; the time imagined is when this life is
past, and the resurrection instant...
50—54.] The necessity of the change of
the animal body into the spiritual, in
order to inherit God’s kingdom. The
manner of that change prophetically de-
scribed: and the abolition of Death in
victory consequent on it. 50. | Tovto
8. $., see reff. It calls attention to some-
thing to be observed, and liable to be
overlooked. Not only is the change of
body possible, and according to natural
and spiritual analogies,—but it is NECES-
SARY. aap— Kal aipa] TOue.
Wuxikdy, the present organism of the
body, calculated for the wants of the
animal soul. thy Ovnthy tow Kader
advvarov 5& tavtTny ere Ovnrhy otcav Ths
emoupaviov BactAelas tuxetv. Theodoret.
H $9opa.... Thy addapciay,
the abstracts, representing the impossi-
bility of the ¢@aprév inheriting the &p0ap-
Tov 2s one grounded in these qualities.
KAnpovopet, pres., sets forth the
absolute impossibility in the nature of
things. d1.] He proceeds to reveal
to them something of the process of the
change at the resurrection-day. This he
does under the name of a pvorypiov, a
hidden doctrine (see reff., especially Rom.).
mavres ov Koip.] See var. readd.
Meyer maintains that the only ren-
dering of the words which is philologi-
cally allowable (the ordinary one, re-
garding mdvres [wey] ov as = ov waves
[uv ],—we shall not all sleep, being inad-
missible, here and in other instances where
it has been attempted, see Winer, edn. 6,
ABCDF
KLN ab
edefg
hklm
017
48—d4. IIPOX KOPINOIOYS A. 619
eyo.
mavrec ov °KomnOnoducba, mavrec é P addayn- erro
2 ue ? « ~ 9 - » mies p here bis. Act
ooueba, © ev Tarouw, ev * pury opPadpov, ev 7H éoyary vis Rom.
: ) \ : \ - i. : rom
‘oadmyye * saAmice yao, Kal ol veKoou “ éyepOnoovrat aaa eto
yo 0 Nene, - PoXA , 0 53 ¥ SF ‘ \ Heb. i. 12 —
aplaoror, Kat nuetc * adAaynooucba. gL yap TO (trom bs. ch
’ p0aptoy rovro * evdvoasbat ™apbagciay Kai ro ¥ Ovnrov Lev. xavii.
~ 2 Ce z > ’ buf \ ‘ ¥ bs here only +.
rouro *évoveas0a *afavactav. “bray 88 To pOaproy f here only +,
Eur. Iph.
Taur. 885. (-2itecw, James i. 6.) sch, xiv. 8 reff. 1 Thess. iv. 16. t Matt. vi.2. Rev.
viii. 6, &c. (6 times.) ix. 1,13. x. 7. xi. Monly. Num. x. 3—8. u ver. 4
x Rom. xiii. 12,14. Eph. iv. 24. vi.11. 2 Cor. v. 3.
zherebis. 1 Tim. vi. 16 onlyt. Wiad. viii. 13 al4.
v Rom. i. 23 (reff.).
w = Acts iv. 12 reff. ‘Col. iii. 10. Ps. cxxxi. 9.
y Rom. vi. 12 reff.
51. rec aft mavres ins wey (on acct of the Se following), with AC?2D°KLX rel vulg
syr copt Dial Orthod Cyr Cxs Tert: wey ovy F: d¢ k: om B(C?!)D'(and lat) Syr
wth Orig, Jer(on the testimony of the greek mss: for after stating that the lat mss
read omnes quidem resurgemus, he says all the greek have either omnes dormiemus or
non omnes dormiemus) Jacob-nisib. ins ot bef maytes, twice, A; but 2nd o corrd
into ov Al. for koiunOnooueba, avacrnooueba D!(and lat) vulg(and F-lat) arm-marg
lat-mss mentioned by Jer Aug Pelag Ruf Gennad Jacob-nisib Hil,epe Ambr Aug.
kounPnooucda bef ov (thus reading mdytes [wer] KorunOnodueda, ov mdvtes St GAAaynob-
pe@a) A'C-(D')FR 17 and greek mss mentioned by Jer Aug Pelag Ruf Qe, also vulg
eth arm Cyr-jer Did Max-conf(treats of both this reading and txt): ov kom. ov A, the
1st ov is written over the line in small letters A!: txt BD?3KL rel and greek mss
mentioned by Jer Acac Did Pelag Gennad (Ec, also syrr copt goth «th-pl Thdot Orig,
(and twice more in Jer) Thdor-heracl Diod-tars Apollin (these three in Jer) Dial
Orthod Tit Nys Cxs Chr Thdrt, Andr Max-conf Damase Thl (ce Orig-int, Tert Jer,.
(The variation has prob arisen from the apparent difficulty of reconciling mavtes
[mev] ov kom. with the fact that St. Paul and his readers had all died. Hence the
negative particle was transferred to the other clause, to the detriment of the sense.)
52. ins ws bef ev purn C. for pirn, porn D'¥ 67? Dial and greek mss mentioned
by Jer(pirn s. porn utrumgue enim legitur, et nostri interpretati sunt in ictu s. in
motu). for eyep8., avaornoovrat ADF Chr, Damase Thl-marg: txt BCKLMX rel
Orig, Dial Chr, ), Cyr Thdrt Cosm.
53. om 2nd Touro F. ins tnv bef abavaciay Ip.
54. om To POapr. Tour. evd. afd. kat (i.e. to POapr. to To OvyT.) C1N! 64. 71 vulg
copt goth eth Mcion-e Ath Iren-int(citing from oportet enim, ver 53, to victoria tua,
§ 26. 1), is this, ‘we all (viz. as in 1
pet of the Apocalypse ;—nor pressed too
Thess. iv. 15, ques of GSvtes of mept-
closely as if there were necessarily no trump
Aeumdpevor eis THY mapovolay Tod Kuplov,
—in which number the Apostle firmly
believed that he himself should be, see
2 Cor. v. 1 ff. and notes) shall not sleep,
but shall all be changed’ But we may
observe that this would commit the Apos-
tle to the extent of believing that noé
one Christian would die before the zap-
ovota;—and that it is besides not ne-
cessary, for the emphasis is both times
on mavtes—‘[ All of us| shall not sleep,
but [all of us| shall be changed :’ i. e.
‘the sleep of death cannot be predicated of
[all of us], but the resurrection-change
can, 52.] év arépw, in a point
of time absolutely indivisible, év fimrh-
pati, Hesych. év TH éoyx. oddm. at
(in, as part of the events of) the last
trumpet-blowing. The word écy. must
obviously not be refined upon as some
(rwés in Theophyl.—and Olsh.) have
done, identifying it with the seventh trum-
after it,—but is the trump at the time of
the end, the last trump, in a wide and
popular sense. See ref. 1 Thess.
gaAdtioet| impersonal,—6é cadrryktihs,
scil. So Od. . 142, apEduevor Tod ydpou
d0ev TE TEp oivoxoever (scil. 6 oivdxoos) :
Herod. ii. 47, éwedy @von: Xen. Anab. i.
2.17, éwel eoddmiyée : iii. 4. 36, enipuéte :
—vi. 5. 25, Ews onuaivor TH odAmiyyt.
Kiihner, § 414. 2. cadmicw for car-
miyéw is reprobated by the grammarians :
see Wetst. pets, see above.
53.] Confirmation of kat Hp. aAAay., by a
re-statement of the necessity of putting on
incorruptibility and immortality. To
$9. tovto . . . Td Ov. Todo] this, indi-
cating his own body. évdvcacPar—see
note on the force of the aor. as indicating
that which is momentary, on ver. 34.
Compare on the figure of putting on, 2 Cor.
v. 3 and notes. 54.] Srav 8, Ke. is
a repetition, in a triumphant spirit, of the
620 IIPOX KOPINOIOY®S A. XV. 55—58.
~
a = Matt.v.18. T
Mark xi. 23. Orie
b Isa. xxv. 8
, ‘ ? \ 4 ON ~
*eydvontar ™ apBapsiav Kat to * Oynrov rovro
x ? , yet , , a , € ? e
evovontat * aBavaciav, Tore yevnoerac o Aoyog o
(Heb., not
LXX, but , b , € , , Al “2 m4
kar occ. YEYOALLMLEVOC, Karez60n 0 Oavaroc ‘tc “ vikoc. © Tov
ere As ¢ ‘ , ~ , X yd pi
= 2 Cor. (ii. = . °
7.) v. 4 (Mat, GOV, Oavate, TO KEvTOOV 3 WOU GOU, Oavare, TO VIKOC 5
Xxili. 24. iti NS oe C01 - 0 , t, wt ’ € 8: S
Heb. xi. 29. TO O& KEVTOOV TOV VavaTOU nH apmaoTla, NH CE OUVapmC
1 Pet. v. 8.
: os fc ’ 5 , ~- ~ ~ ,
ee 16) THC auaotiac 0 vouocg* 57 TW oe Dew yaptc TW ovdovre
c Matt. xii. 20 dy i 5 by - ’ eins ’ | - ~
only. 2 Kings viKoc Ola TOU KUOLOV TNuwWY INnoov yptoToU.
li. 26. .
: acer pot fLov
> , 1 , ae w - ,
AMETAKLYNTOL, TEPLOGEVOVTEG EV TW “EPYW TOU ™ KUOLOU
co N
Huw TO
eeier org
Xvi. 7.
d ae ahavelal were,
hie ' Le i=! '
ayaTnrol, edoator yiveoe,
here 3ce only. k ,
e here bis,
Acts xxvi. 14. , Wa e Cn 2 € ’ a re) X »
ole. Peale TAVTOTE, ELOOTEC OTL O KOTOC UULWV OUK EOTLY KéEVOC EV
xiii, 14. ser
f = Rom. vi. KUOLW.
17 rett. \ \ - ' - ’ . Fee Tes
g=ch.v. 8 XVI. ! TTepe de tHe P Aoytac tne Tee ToOUC aylouc,
reff.
h address, Paul, here only. James i. 16, 19. ii.5 only. (Eph. vi. 21. Col. iv. 7, 9. Philem. 16. 2 Pet. iii. 15.)
ich. vii.37. Col.i. 23 only ¢. Ps. lvi. 8 Symm. k here only t. 1 Rom. iii. 7. Phil. i. 26. 1 Thess.
iv. LN al. Tobit iv. 16. mch, xvi. 10. (Phil. ii. 30.) n 2 Cor. vi. 5 reff. o ver. 10
reff. p here bis only t. q = Rom. xy. 26. 2 Cor, viii. 4. ix. 13. r Acts ix. 13
reff. Rom, xv. 26.
ver 55) Hil Ambrst Aug, Fulg Oros Bede (in supplying the omission X3 has written
kat To, To being superfluous). in A arm, To $6. to apOapo. is put aft ro Oy. Tov.
evd. alavac. om Kk. To Ov. Tov. evs. aay. D!' (supplied in D-lat, a prima manu) 1.
Orig, : om a@avac. to abavac. F. ins tnv bef abavaciay &.
55. transp kevtpoy and vikos (so xxx) BCI,MN! 17 vulg copt «th arm Eus Ath,
Did Nys Cyr-jer, Bas-sel Cyr Damase Iren-int, Tert, Jer Ambr: txt A2DFKLN3 rel
syrr goth eth-pl Orig, Ath, Cyr-jer, Chr, Thdrt Eucher Thl Cc Iren-int, Tert, Cypr
Hil.—om ov gov 6. to vik. Al.—-[veikos, here and in vv. 54, 57 (confusion between et
and « as constantly elsw) BD'!& m, contentio Tert. | rec for 2nd @avare, adn (so
xxx), with A7KLMN3 rel syrr goth Orig Ath, Eucher: txt BCDFI,N! vulg copt «th-
rom arm Eus, Ath, Nys Iren-int, Tert, Cypr Ambrgepe Augsepe-
56. ins ecru bef n apapr. A.
57. for d:dovr1, Sovte D a b d1 0 Ath-3-mss Chr ec.
58. ins ka bef aweraxivnto: A vss Ambrst.
description of the glorious change.
yevjoetat| shall come to pass—really be.
The citation is from the Heb. with this
difference, that the active, ‘ He (Jehovah)
abolishes,’ y>3, is made passive, and nz),
‘for ever,’ is rendered (as elsewhere by
the LXX, e. g. ref. 2 Kings, but not
here) eis vtkos. eis v. ‘so as to re-
sult in victory. Wetst. quotes from the
Rabbis, ‘In diebus ejus (Messiz) Deus
8. B. deglutiet mortem, 55.| TRtI-
UMPHANT EXCLAMATION of the Apostle
realizing in his mind that glorious time :
expressed nearly in the terms of the pro-
phetic announcement of Hosea,—ob 7 din
cov, Odvate; mov TO KevTpoy Gov, Gdn ;
The figure of death as a venomous beast
is natural, from the serpent, Gen. iii. Num.
XX1. The souls in Hades being freed by
the resurrection, Death’s victory is gone:
sin being abolished by the change of the
animal body (the source of sin) to the spi-
ritual, his sting is powerless. For a discus-
sion of the quotation, see Stanley’s note.
56.] See above: and compare Rom.
v. 12, and vii. 57.]| For this blessed
ino. xp. bef tr. kup. nu. M.
ovr eat bef o kom. vuwy F.
consummation of victory over death, he
breaks out in thanks to God, who gives it
to us*( present, as being certain) through
our Lord Jesus Christ (the Name in full,
as befits the solemnity and majesty of the
thanksgiving).
the whole by an earnest exhortation.
dste] ‘gue cum ita sint,’ —seeing that the
victory is sure. €Sp., apetakiv.] a
climax (Mey.) ;—in reference, viz. to the
doubt which is attempted to be raised
among you on this matter. év TO
épy. Tov kup.| The work of the Lord is
the Christian life, with its active and pas-
sive duties and graces,—the bringing forth
the fruits of the Spirit. etddres |
Knowing (as you do—being convinced by
what has been said), that your labour
(bestowed on the épy. rod kup.) is not vain
(which it would be, were there no resur-
rection : see reff.) in the Lord. These last
words cannot belong to 6 «dros du., nor very
well to ov« for: kevds (as Meyer), but are
best taken with the whole sentence, your
labour is not in vain: so ch. ix. 1.
Cuap. XVI.] VARIOUS DIRECTIONS AND
58.| Conclusion of'
Nn @ava-
TOVeee
ABCDF
IbKL
Mr ab
edefg
hklim
nol7
XVI. 1—83.
IIPOS KOPINOIOY® A.
621
Acts xviii. 2.
) , - tt? ’ ~ , ¢ \ -
(WCTrEO * oéragéa tac * exKkAnatiate tHe T'aAdarttac, ovtwe Kat §°%. vi. 17.
€ - ,
UMELE TOIMOAaTE.
~ nN >)
“rap * eauTw rWérw ¥ Onoavoi@wr O TL av * Evoowral, iva
, 20 , p X ’ ,
pn, orav EXOw, tore Aoylat ywwvrat.
ay >.” b te
yévapat, oucg Eay Sokimaonre,
, d? Co SS e va € ~ > € , A
Téutbw aATEVEYKELY TNHV Xapiv UuUwWVY EC Isoovcadnp
w = Luke xviii. 12. Mark xvi. 9.
Rom, ii. 5. 2 Cor. xii. 14. James v. 3, 2 Pet. iii. 7 only. 4 Kings xx. 17.
aes
19,20. Luke xii. 21.
z Rom. i.10. 3 John 2 (bis) only. Gen. xxxix. 3, 23.
Xiv. 22 reff. c = Rom. ii. 27.
Sov U Ww ie vo e ~
2" kara ‘play “ cafsParov ekasTog Uw
L.P., exc.
Matt. xi. 1.
3 Kings xi.
18. Dan. i,
t plur., Rom.
Xvi. 16 reff.
¢ \
3 Grav os? Tapa-
u = Acts ii. 46
> ’ = ,
8. emtcroA@y TovTouc @:
v Mark xvi. 2.
Luke xxiv. 1.
John xx.1,
19. Acts xx.
x see Luke xxiv. 12] J. y Matt. vi.
aabsol., Acts xvii. 10 reff. b = Rom.
d Acts xix. 12 reff. e = 2 Cor, viii. 6, 7, 19.
Cuap. XVI. 2. rec caBBatev, with KLMN? rel copt goth Thdrt Damase: caBBatw
XN! m: txt ABCDFN-corr! 17 latt Chr lat-ff.
evodw0y ACI, KM &3(-5007) Damasc.
tepoooAuma A.
12) n.
3. for eav, av BD'F.
ARRANGEMENTS (1—18). SALUTATIONS
(19, 20). AUTOGRAPH CONCLUSION AND
BENEDICTION (21—24). 1—4.] Di-
rections respecting the collectionand trans-
mission of alms for the poor saints at Jeru-
salem. 1.] The construction is as in ch.
vii. 1; viii. 1; xii. 1;—the wep) 5¢... rather
serves to introduce the new subject than
to form any constructional part of the sen-
tence. Similarly in ver. 12. Aoytas |
Aoyla, oudAdoyh, Hesych. Aoylay, Thy
avaAdoyhy Tav xpnudtwy Karct, Theodoret
(Wetst.). The word is said in the Lexx.
not to be found in classic writers.
eis tT. Gy.| = cis Tod’s mrwxobs 7. aylov
tav év ‘lepovoadnu, ref. Rom. See also
2 Cor. viii. 1 ff.; ix. 1 ff.: and on the
poverty of the church at Jerusalem, note
on Acts ii. 44. That poverty was no doubt
increased by the continual troubles with
which Jerusalem was harassed in this, the
distressful close of the Jewish national his-
tory. See other causes in Stanley. That
the mother church of Christendom should
be thus, in its need, sustained by the
daughter churches, was natural ; and it is
at the same time an affecting circumstance,
to find him the most anxious to collect and
hear to them this contribution, whose for-
mer persecuting zeal had doubtless (see
Acts xxvi. 10) made not a few of those
saints widows and orphans. Gstrep
S.ér.] We do not find any such order in the
Epistle to the Galatians: ch. ii. 10 there
being merely incidental. It had probably
been given during his journey among them
Acts xviii. 23,—or perhaps by message (?)
from Ephesus. Not as E. V., ‘as I have
given order, but as I gave order. He
refers to the occasion, whatever it was,
when that order was given. Bengel re-
marks : “ Galatarum exemplum Corinthiis,
Corinthiorum exemplum Macedonibus, Co-
rinthiorum et Macedonum Romanis pro-
eav BI,M.—6r7’ Gy (and so vv. 3, 5,
ponit. 2Cor.ix.2. Rom.xv.26. Magna
exemplorum vis.” 2. plav oaPf. |
For this Hebraism, and caf. in the sin-
gular, signifying week, see reff. On the
observance of the first day of the week, see
notes, Acts xx. 7, and Rom. xiv. 5. Here
there is no mention of their assembling,
which we have in Acts xx. 7, but a plain
indication that the day was already consi-
dered as a special one, and one more than
others fitting for the performance of a reli-
gious duty. map éavt@ 718.) let
each of you lay up at home (reff.) what-
soever he may by prosperity have ac-
quired (lit. ‘whatsoever he may be pros-
pered in:’ i.e. the pecuniary result of any
prosperous adventure, or dispensation of
Providence): not, as Bengel, al.: ‘quod
commodum sit, — ameaning which the word
will not bear. wa py, .. |] that
there may not, when I come, THEN be
collections to be made. His time would
be better employed in imparting to them a
spiritual benefit, than in urging them to
and superintending this duty. 3. |
“Vide quomodo vir tantus nullam suspi-
cioni rimam aperire voluerit.” Grot.
8 émtotoAav cannot belong to Soximdonre
(as Beza, Calv., Wetst., E. V.,—for what
need of letters from them bray mapayé-
vepat, or before his coming, if the person
recommended were not to be sent off before
his arrival ?), but is emphatically prefixed,
as the safe and proper way of giving cre-
dentials to those sent ;—tovTous Téenppo,—
the alternative which follows, of himself ac-
companying them, being already inthe mind
of the Apostle. émioToAGy, plur.,—
not of the category merely, meaning one
letter,—but meaning, either that each
should have his letter of credentials,—or
more probably, that Paul would give them
letters to several persons in Jerusalem.
Meyer well remarks: ‘“ Hence we see
622
IPOS: KOPIN@IOY®S A.
XVI.
ay \ ” 3 - aN , ‘ ’ \ A
f=andeonstr., 4 cay $2 f a&eov n ®rov Kame mooevecGat, ovv Euor TopEv-
nee guly: if ’ Ps ;
= exXXiv. > \ ‘ € Ce
ee Se ; oovTal. 5 eAcvoopat Oe Tooc UUaC, OoTaVv Makedoviay
h Acts xiii. 6 h 4 , ‘ b , 6i N [ ie n
ree witn, ~OlEAOw* ~ Makedoviay yap ° duepyomar moog vuac o&
66. Johni. k ‘ 1 Tri Ne eek on , oa € ee
1,2. Gali, TUXOV TapaMEevwy NN Kal TaoayEelaGw, iva UpEsIC ME
18. 1 Joho i. 9 , PAE Te Ke - rake r x ec ~
a ene AO: Toomeupnre ov tav TOpEVHLAL. ov bAw yao vpac
k here only. oy Zoe atD 2 zi RCS et , S Z SHG |e oe
Kens Anan aorTe Be Tragedy Lely eAmicw yao Sata ine ea ale
. 9. 20. i = * 7 q =
h. - 10.
ehiy;d?) vat mpoc vmac, tay O KuUptoc emitpewy. ETIPMEVW
Heb. vii. 25. James i. 25 only. Gen. xliy. 33. m ch, ix. 8 reff. n Acts xxvii. 12. xxviii.
11. Tit. iii. 12 only t. © Acts xv. 3 reff. p hereonly. Gen. xxxviii.14. Polyb. v.68. 8.
q Acts x. 48 reff. r Acts xxvi. l reff. Heb. vi.3. Esth. ix. 14,
4. ree bef akéiov, with DF KLN! rel syrr goth Chr Thdrt Damasc: txt ABCI,Mx?
n yir §
am 17 vulg(and F-lat).
6. kataueyw BM 672: maparomeww F. om 7 F 2. (not F-lat.) om kat
BM 3. 116 Chr-2-mss.
for cay, av DIF.
7. for Ist yap, Se Ip.
for wa, «x un F D-lat G-lat.
wa et Kat Tapax. D!.
rec (for 2nd yep) Se, with KL rel syr Thdrt: txt
ABCDFI,MR® latt Syr copt goth Chr Damasc lat-ff.
rec emitpetrn (the force of
the aor not being perceived: see note), with DFKL rel: ABCI,MX d m 17 Chr Thl-
mss, permiserit latt.
how common in Paul’s practice was the
writing of Epistles. Who knows how
many private letters of his, not addressed
to churches, have been lost? The only
letter of the kind which remains to us
(except the Pastoral Epistles), viz. that
to Philemon, owes its preservation perhaps
to the mere circumstance, that it is at the
same time addressed to the church in the
house of Philemon. See ver. 2.” Xapvy |
see reff. Meyer compares Plat. Def. p. 118,
E: xapis, evepyeoia éxovotos. 4.]
But if it (the occasion,—dependent on
the magnitude of your collection) be wor-
thy of my also taking the journey (i. e.
if your collection be large enough to war-
rant an apostolic mission in order to carry
it, —not said for security,—nor to procure
himself a fair reception at Jerusalem,—but
with a sense of the dignity of an apostolic
mission: “ justa sstimatio sui non est su-
perbia,” Bengel), they shall go in my
company (civ éuol 7. contrast to 6? ém-
oTohk@y mwéuw, and observing the same
order). This did apparently take place, see
Acts xx. 4 ff.
5—9.] Taking up értav mapayévwuat,
he announces his plan of visiting them.
5.| This plan was a change from
his former intention, which had been (see
2 Cor.i. 15, 16, and note), to pass through
them to Macedonia, and again return to
them from Macedonia, and thenceto Judea.
This he had apparently announced to them
in the lost Epistle alluded to ch. v. 9 (or in
some other), and he now tacitly drops this
scheme, and announces another. For this
he was charged (2 Cor. i. 17 ff.) with levity
of purpose :—but his real motive was, lenity
towards them, that he might not come to
them in sorrow and severity (2 Cor. i. 23;
ii. 1). The second plan he adhered to:
we find him already in Macedonia when
2 Cor. was written (2 Cor. ii. 13; viii. 1;
ix..2, 4),and on his way to Corinth (2 Cor.
xii. 14; xiii.1) ;—and in Acts xx. 1, 2, the
journey is briefly narrated. Maxed.
y: Suépx. is not parenthetical, but d:épx.
is opposed (by 8€) to rapapera. The
pres. implies, as in E. V., his now matured
plan,—not, as in the erroneous subscrip-
tion of the Epistle, that he was on his way
through Macedonia, when he wrote the
word. 6. wapapev@ | This, of which
he speaks uncertainly, was accomplished ;
he spent (Acts xx. 3) three months, and
those (ib. ver. 6) the three winter months,
in Greece (at Corinth). tpets, Meyer
justly remarks, is emphatic, and conveys
an affectionate preference, in his present
plan, for them. ov, with a verb of
motion. The account of this is that the
ideas of motion and rest are both involved
in the verb: rest, when the motion is ac-
complished. So Luke x. 1 ;—Soph. Trach.
40, ketvos & Gmov BéBnkev ovdels olde :—
Xen. Hell. vii. 1. 25, mov BovaAnbeterv
eteAOety. See Kiihner, § 623, Anm. 2.
Whither he should go from Corinth,
was as yet uncertain, see ver. 4. 7.]
For I am not willing, this time to see
you by the way. There is a slight, but a
very slight, reference to his change of pur-
pose (see above); but we must not take
apts with @éAw (which Meyer charges Ne-
ander with doing, but clearly in error, see Pfl.
u. Leit. p.415 note) : rather the &pr: refers to
the occasion, the newsfrom ‘them of Chloe,’
ABCDF
Lb
ABCDF ,
KLMNa 7
bedef
ghkl
mnol7
4—12.
de év "Edéow zwe tHe ° wevrnkooTnc’
TIPO KOPINOIOY®S A.
623
s Acts ii. 1 reff.
t = op ii. 12
9 Qioa yao pot
wp te ce A vy? , \ w? ’
avewyev bEeya q Kat EVEPYNCs Kal QVTLKELMEVOL n 2 Cor Ae
em
mwoA Aol. eb. te 41d
lo*Rs, st x , ae cha only f- Poly.
F i r
— de eX\Oy Tinobeoc, PrAemere wa Y apoBwe Tey.
‘ (ie ‘ ‘ ab»? a U b? ‘ -ynua, ch.
yévnrau * Tpoc vyuac TO yao Eoyov fy ge epyacerat xii. 6.
i Ze s NS cre , -yeta, Eph.
we Kayo" ynTiC OUV avuTOV eSovlevnay, ° mporeuipare eS: ea
dip? BG t Py] , . uke xiii. 1
d& avrov “ev sionvy, iva EXOy wedc ps © EKdEXomaL yao **1,1%,,G2"
ee, \ ~ , 8 at - i. 28. 2 Thess.
auTOov meta Twv adeAgwr. i 4. 1 Tim.
\ Nema \ a Qs - f ‘ ? 1.10. v.
12 Tepe 6: “AmwoAXw tov adeAgou, moAAa © raoeka- 3. LP.
x w. iva, Col. iv. 17 only. (see 2 John 8.) w. ms, Luke viii. 18. ch. iii.10. Eph. v.15. y Luke
i.74. Phil. i.14. Jude l2only. Prov. i.33. Wisd. xvii. 4 vat. aok F-youly. zch. ii. 3 reff.
ach. xv. b Acts xiii. 41 reff.
xvi. 36 (reff.). ch. vii. 15. James ii. 16 al.
ch. i. 10 reff. w. inf., Rom. xii. 1 reff.
10. ree kat eyw, with DF rel Chr(xadws k. ey.) Ec:
KXLN n Thdrt Damase Thl.
11. om ovy D'F D-lat G-lat goth arm Ambrst.
Damase. om peta tTwy adcAd. B.
12. om amoAAw N!: ins N-corr!.
lat-ff.
which had made it advisable that he should
not now pay them a mere passing visit.
yap | ground of od 6€Aw—but not the ulti-
mate one, see above. emiTpeyy | shall
have permitted me, i.e. ‘if it shall so tarn
out, in the Lord’s direction of my work, that
I shall then find my way open to do so.’
8,9.] His present plan regarding his stay
in Ephesus (where he was writing).
v. wevtTynk.| viz. that next coming. This
probably happened so, or nearly so, not-
withstanding the tumult of Acts xix.: for
he already (see there vv. 21, 22) was medi-
tating his departure, and had sent on two
of his company, when the tumult occurred.
Ovpa, see reff.: an opportunity of
action. peyaAn refers to the extent of
the action thus opened before him: évep-
yus, to its requirements : neither of them
(though peyéAn may be referred to @vpa)
properly agreeing with the figure, but both
with the reality. Meyer compares Plat.
Phedr. p. 245, A: povo@y éml mointikas
Ovpas aplknrat. GvtuK. twoAd.] See
Acts xix. 9, 23 ff. 10, 11.]
Recommendation of Timothy to their good
reception and offices. He had preceded
Paul (Acts xix. 22) 4 in the journey to Mace-
donia. From éav €\@y, it would appear to
have been probable, but not quite certain,
that he would visit them. In ch.iv.17, he
is described as sent on for that purpose:
so that the édy may merely refer to the
uncertainties of thejourney. 10. BA. tva
agpép. y.| There must have been some
special reason for this caution respecting
Timothy, besides that assigned by Meyer,
al., that he would naturally be depreciated
Judg. xviii. 6 vat.
f adv. (in gospp., Matt. ix. 14. Mark iii. 12 al5.) ver.19. James iii. 2. Eccl. xii. 10 (?).
d Luke ii. 29. Acts
e Acts xvii- 16 rett.
g constr.,
c = Rom. xiv. 3r
eyw, omg kat, BM 67?: txt AC
om de X!. eue BD'F
ins dnAw vu ott bef moAAa DF? latt goth
as only a subordinate of Paul, whom so
many of them opposed. His youth occurs
to us, mentioned 1 Tim. iv. 12: but even
that is not enough, and would hardly be
intended here, without some reference to it.
De Wette’s conjecture may not be without
foundation, that he was perhaps of a timid
disposition. Meyer objects that we have
no historical trace of this : but I think some
are to be found in 1 Tim. :—e. g. iii. 15 (see
note) ; v. 22, 23. TO Epyov Kup.| see
ref., note. 11. év eipyvq| xwpls
paxns Kal prroverkias, Theophyl., and
similarly Chrys. tva ehO. ] the aim of
mpoT eur. exdex. yap abr. | Kab
TovTo oBovvtos avto’s jv. iva yap
elddtes, OTL mMavTa ciphoeTar mpds avTody
Gmep by maOn, ememéotepo yévwrtat,
51a TovUTO mposeOnker” EKd. y. adr. Chrys.
Theophyl. adds, Gua 6& Kal aidecmmte-
pov avtby tov, elye otTws dvarykaioy
TovToy éxel, wste exdéxerOar avrdy.
By peta tov a8eApov it would appear,
comparing ver. 12, that more brethren be-
sides Erastus (Acts xix. 22) accompanied
Timotheus to Macedonia. It is hardly pro-
bable (as Calov. and De W., al.), that peta
7. a5. is to be taken with exdeXopar : Sak
and the brethren expect him.’ 12.
Of Apollos: that he was not willing at
present to go to them. dé, transitional.
On the construction of wept... . a8.,
see on ver. 1. mapekad. iva Eby |
ta denotes the aim, not only the purport
of the exhortation. See remarks on ch.
xiv. 13. *<Tdeo excusat, ne suspicentur
Corinthii ab eo fuisse impeditum .
Apud se querere poterant: Cur hos potius
“ee
624 TIPO KOPINOIOY®S A. AVE
* ML Uy 4 ‘ cr = ‘ = > oo
h aoe Exi. 22 Aeoa auTov, Siva EAOy Toeoc vuag META TWY adeA pw
Nobt 7 > is ikg- il - © , ,
rtsv cau mavtwe ovk ‘Hy AéAnua “iva vov EAOn, EAEvoerat
k of man, ch. le re ,
vii. 37 ref. OO OTAV ne eee
I see Matt. vii. 13 0 _
Sapte Tpnyopetre, ° ornKere ev 77 miar et, P avopizecbe,
m Mark vi. 31. ~
reer en ta q Koarawovole. lar wavta UuwY év ayary eee
re. nly.
pat . sili t '
Nee 15 ee oe wae, ade) pot" oloarte eu * oixtay
v- Gal. fr.
Ger. ¥.6) Zrepava, * Ore Eativ aTaox” mC “Axatac kat * ele ¥ dta-
o Rom. xiv. 4 2 ia te
p here only. Koviav Toc * ee Ages “trabay & eaurove" “2 iva Kai UMEIC
‘osh. i. 6. ~ b
Do-se ee ii. “Uroracanabe © TOLC ToLoUTroIC, Kal mavtt Tw “ ouvep-
0 ph. iii. ~
16 onl Lue } Arren? cit f ’
Neh it 18. youvrt Kal * Komimutt. Xalow be eTt TH Taoovola
(-os, 1 Pet. v. 6.) r constr., here only. s =ch. ix. 15, xiv. 26, 40. t ver. 12.
u = John iv. 53. Gen. 1. 8. vconstr., ch. iii. 20. Gal. i. 11 al. w Ron. viii. 23 reff.
x Acts xiii. 48 reff. y ch, xii. 5. Actsi.17. vi. lal.t z Acts ix. 13 reff. Rom. i. 7.
a Rom. viii.7, 20 reff. b ch. vii. 15, 28. c Mark xvi. 20. Rom. viii. 28. 2Cor. vi.1. James ii.
22onlyt. Esdr. vii. 2. 1 Macc. xii.1 only. (-yos, ch. iii. 9. dch. xv. 10 reff. € constr.,
ch. xiii. 6 reff.
13. om r7 F.
)
f = 2 Cor. vii. 6, 7. Phil. i. 26. ii. 12 al. 2 Mace. viii. 12. xv. 21 only.
ins kat bef kpataovobe AD vulg(and F-lat) Syr copt eth lat-ff:
om BCFKLN D-lat(with G-lat fri) syr goth Chr Thdrt Damase Thl e Ambrst-ms.
15. om de D!-gr 8! 71 goth eth.
eiov C\(appy) DF &c as above Orig-int.
16. om Ist ca: M.
quam Apollo nobis misit? Respondet,
minime per se stetisse, Kc.” Calvin. Meyer
remarks, perhaps the Corinthians had ex-
pressly desired that Apollos should be sent
tothem. peta. added. | perhaps, those
who went with Timotheus (see above):
perhaps, those who were to bear this letter
(ver. 17). kat] and, not, ‘but?
see John xvi. 32; Rom. i. 13. It merely
couples the exhortation with its result.
GéAnpa} Evidently the will of
Apollos, not, as Theophyl.: tovréoti, 6
Oeds ovK HOeAEv. étav evKatp.| The
present xatpos not seeming to him a suit-
able one: apparently on account of the
divisions hinted at in the beginning of the
Epistle. 13.] eita Secxvis Sti ovK ev
tots didacKkdAots, GAAa Kal ey ێavtots
apelAovor Tas eAmlbas Exew TIS TwTnplas,
grat: YPNY: K-T-A. Chrys., who adds: bud
Aéyet, yenyopette, @s KabevddvTwy’ oTr-
KETE, as Tarevouevwy avbpileade, Kpa-
Tarovade, os Haran Coueveoy. TavTa vp.
év ayatry yivécdw, as orac.a(duTwy.
avdpif.| Aristot. Eth. iii. 6. 12:—éua 5&
cal avdplCovra, ev ois eorw 4 &AKH, F
Karvy 7d amobaveiv. Wetst.: where see
other examples. 15—18.] Recommen-
dation of the family of Stephanas to their
honourable regard: and by occasion, ex-
pression of his own joy at the presence of
Stephanas and his companions. 15. }
Some expositors (Erasm., Wolf, al.) take
aft orepava ins kat poptovvatov DX? am(with
demid fuld harl) copt arm Thdrt Damase Ambrst-ms:
vulg-ed(with tol F-lat) syr-w-ast Ambrst-ed.— (Additions from ver 17.)
Kat popt. Kat axaikov CIF a
for ear,
aft kat komiwyTt ins ev vary F Ambrst.
otdare as imperative, and regard if as the
command : but the imperative use of ofSare
(for tore) seems to be without example.
We must therefore understand it as indica-
tive, and the construction is the well-known
attraction, olid ce tis ef (Meyer).
amapxy}] see Rom. xvi. 5: the first
Achean converts. érakayv, plur., refer-
ring to the noun of number, ofkia. This
family were among the few baptized by
Paul, see ch. i. 16. érafav Eavtovs |
So Demosth. de falsa legat.: BovrAoua Se
brouvnga eis tlya taki erakev éaurdy
Aicxivns, Wetst.: where see other ex-
amples. The éavtovs is not without mean-
ing—they voluntarily devoted their ser-
vices. eis Stax. Tois ayfots] to ser-
vice for the saints: in what way, does not
appear: but perhaps, from the fact of Ste-
phanas being at that time in Ephesus,—
for journeys and missions. 16.] kat
tpets, you in your turn,—in return for
their self-devotion. twotdod.]} viz.
in honouring their advice and being ready
to be directed by them : there is an allu-
sion to ératay éavtovs above. Tots
TovovTats | to such persons, meaning the in-
dividuals of Stephanas’s family, whom they
knew. See the usage of 6 ro:odros in reff.
ouvepyovvtt | viz. with tozs roodros.
17.) Perhaps Fortunatus and Achai-
cus were members of the family of Ste-
phanas. The Fortunatus mentioned by
ABCDF
KLMNa
bedef
ghkl
mnol7
13—22.
MIPO> KOPINOIOYS A.
625
=rspava kat Doprovvarov Kat Ayatkou, Ort TO 2 Umetepon sa ch. x¥. 31.
P X se M £p h 2 Cor, viii.
voTépnua avrot
euov ‘mvevpa Kal TO vuwY.
> rovovrouc.
19° Aawatovrat vpac at
Cerat vac * ev
Hee (Giese Gn
ouv °Ty kat ‘oikov autwv
ie © 9 \ ,
upac OL aceApot TAVTEC.
e /
MaTl aylw.
2 e tu ? ‘ tv = gt
1'O “aomacpoc “ry enn
v. 12.)
t Acts ii. 46 refi
n Rom. xvi. 16 reff.
s Rom. xvi. 16 reff.
Paul) as above (t) only. (gospp., Matt. xxiii. 7 J al4.)t
w Rey. xiv. 11
i: , é
aveTAnowoay
e ETLYWWOKETE
”" exxAnolat THC ‘Astac.
Sate " woAda "AxtXAac Kat IpickAXa,
VexxAnala.
M1 14S 1x12.
ie avéravaay yap TO xity. Phil.
b < ii, 30. Col.
1.24. | Thess.
— lii_ 10. P.,exe.
Luke xxi. 4.
Jadg. xviii.
ouy
> , 10.
ao7va- ge 16
k = Matt. xi.
Ze aaa
20
aomalovrat Phiten. 7, 20.
hron. xxii.
aotacacbe adAnAove Ev * ptAn- otek
fi rett.
Se vi. 9.
vy ‘ - Ta) Dicg aoe Dent. She
xetor Tlavdov. "et rig Es.
o Rom. xvi. 2, 8, = al. p ver. 12 reff. qo xvi. 5.
t Col. iv.18. 2 Thess. iii. 17. = (and
¥ as abose (t). Gal. vi. 11. Philem. 19.
17. rec povprovvarov, with K ‘rel Chr-ed Thdrt-ed: txt ABCDFLX e m 17.
rec (for vuetepov) vuwy, with AKLN rel Chr Thdrt Damasc :
txt BCDF m 17.
rec ovto:, with BCKLN rel Thdrt Damasc: txt ADFM vulg Syr Chr ec (di D-lat :
ipsi illi G-lat: ipsi vulg lat-ff).
18. ins ca: bef to euoy D'F latt goth Ambrst Pelag Bede.
19. om A 34.
aoma(ovTa (for -e-), with BFLM rel vss gr-lat-ff: txt CDKX ¢ goth.
ev kuptw M a 17. 74: om ev kup. 123 arm Ambrst.
for mpickiAAa, mpicxa BMN 17 am(with demid harl) fri copt goth Pelag.
aft a: exxAnowa add maca C 47 Syr Chr Bede.
ins map ois [ous F] «ar eviCouon DF latt goth Pelag Bede.
Clement at the end of his Ep. i. to the
Corinthians (c. 59, p. 328) may be the
same. mapovoia | viz. in Ephesus.
TO tpeétepov vot. | The want of
you (ref.): i.e. of your society. Grotius
interprets it, ‘Quod vos omnes facere
oportuit, id illi fecerunt: certiorem me
fecere de vestris morbis,’”’ and holds them
to have been of XAojjs of chap.i. 11. But
it is very improbable that he should men-
tion thusa family so distinguished as this:
he names them just after, ch. i. 16, as the
household of Stephanas :—and still more
improbable that one of so fine feeling
should add of the bearers of such tidings,
avémavoay K.T.A., Which would on that
hypothesis be almost ironical.
18. kal tpa@v] this is a beautiful expres-
sion of true affection used in consciousness
of the effect of this epistle on them: q. d.
‘it is to their presence here that you owe
much of that in this my letter which I
know will refresh and cheer your spirits.’
Theophyl. explains it: @etev abrots bre
h avtov avamavols, av’T@y eat. &sTE
érel, €uov avatav0eytos Tep) avtay, Kat
jucis exepdnoate avtTd TovTo, THY euhv
avaravaol, undev &Xapt rps avTovs TOUTOUS
évdelEnobe :—Grot., of the announcement
whicb they would make on their return
of Paul’s love for the Corinthians. But
Vou. II.
rec
moAAa bef
akvAdas bef roAAa D.
at end
this last can hardly be. errrylveaKeTe |
know, the prep. giving force, and slightly
altering the meaning to that of recog-
nition. Grot. and Theophyl.,—év tipf
auTous ExeTE. 19, 20.| Salutations.
19. év kupiw] see note; Rom. xvi. 2.
On Aquila and Priscilla, see Rom. xvi. 3,
4; Acts xviii. 2. They had removed from
Corinth (Acts xviii. 1) to Ephesus (ib.
26), and had there, as subsequently at
Rome (Rom. xvi. 8, 5), an assembly of
the faithful meeting in their dwelling.
ot 48. mavtes—the whole Ephesian
church. vy oir. Gy. |] see Rom. xvi.
16, note. 21—24.| Autograph con-
clusion. 6 aoTmacpés is the final greet-
ing, which, according to ref. 2 Thess.,
was always in his own hand, the rest
having been written (see Rom. xvi. 22)
by an amanuensis. TlavAov is in
apposition with éuod implied in éu7, as I.
p. 226, Suérepoy 5€ Exdotov Bupdy ackw:
€uds ToD aOAlov Bios, and the like. See
Kiihner, § 499. 4. 22.| He adds, as
in Col. iv. 18; Eph. vi. 24, some exhorta-
tion, or solemn sentence, zz his own hand,
as having especial weight. On the dis-
tinction between giAciy and ayamav see
notes on John xxi.15. The negation here
of the feeling of personal affection, “has
no love in his heart for,” is worthy of
Ss
626 IIPOZ KOPINOIOY®= A. XVI. 28, 24.
5 - a ” ry 4 -
ee al ov pire TOV KUOLOV, *ntw % avabena. : papavaba, 23 n cae
ox.31. S : . : rn ee
y Rimi. *yapic rov *xvotov ‘Insov *pcf vuov. 7 y ayann anes
ret, “ a zh if
er ei a > MOU META TAYTWY UmoV EV Xplore "Tnoov. [apnv. | nol7
(24). Rev.
in 2t al.
b ge. subi, TIPOS KOPINOIOYS A. and
Comoe
Philem. 5,7. Rev. ii. 4,19.
22. rec aft kupiov ins incouy xpisrov, with C3DFN3 e g m am syr copt goth: nue
ino. xp. KL rel vulg-ed(and some mss) Chr Thl Victorin: om ABC!MN! 17 fri xth
Chr-ms Cyr,.
23. aft xupiov ins nuwy AL b f k m0 17 vulg(not am) fri Syr copt Chr Thl Ambrst.
rec aft inoov adds xpiorov, with ACDFKLMN? rel latt syrr copt Chr Ambrst :
om BN! n 17 am(with tol F-lat al) goth Thdrt.
24. om pov A 73. om auyv BFM 17 fuld(and tol) fri: ins ACDKLNX rel vss.
SUBSCRIPTION: rec adds eypapy amo pidimmwy dia oTepava Kat houprovvaTov Kat
axaikov kat Tiwobeov, with KL a e f g k (m) n, similarly(but for piAimmwr, epecov)
dh: eypapn aro epecou B?: eypapyn amo pidimrwy paxidovos D?: eypapn amo acias
k.7.A., omg (as do also h m) mp. kop. tpwty, b o: om altogether M1: txt AB!CX 17,
and D'(adding exAnpw@n) F (prefixing ereAeo6n).
note, as connected with the curse which
follows. jTw avad.] On avabeua,
see note, Rom. ix. 3:—let him be ac-
cursed. papavada | An Aramaic ex-
pression, NON JV or NOX NIV) the (or our)
Lord cometh (or, is come, as Chrys., al.,
6 Kup. nu. HAWe: in 1 John iv. 2 the
same Syriac form is used to express
€AnAvédra): probably unconnected with
avdfeua: and added perhaps (Mey.) as
recalling some remembrance of the time
when Paul was among them: at all
events, as a weighty watchword tending
to recall to them the nearness of His
coming, and the duty of being found
ready for it:—not added, as Riickert, to
stamp genuineness on the letter,—for why
here rather than in other Epistles, espe-
cially as those who were to bear it were so
well known? See Stanley’s note.
24. 4 ay. pov| Because the Epistle had
contained so much that was of a severe
character, he concludes it with an expres-
sion of affection; so Chrys.: weta tocav-
THY KaTnyoplay ovK amooTpépeTal, GAA
kal pirct kal TepiAauBaver TOPpwey avTovs
éyras. év xp. “Ine.] rovréctiy,
ovdey avOpamivoy 7) capKikoy H wydrn mov
EXEL, GAAG TVEVMATIKH eoTL Kal ey XpLTTE.
Theophyl.
C kat er-
prnvn...
ABCDF
KLMNa
beefg
hklm
nol7
IPOS KOPINOIOYS B.
T, 1 TlavAoe amooroAoc XotsTou "Insov
* Sia OeAnmaroc * tee
~ b1Cor.i. 2
~ \ = - ~
ov, Kal Tiwo%eoc 0 adeA oc, Ty) » exkAnola tov ° Oeov cy ape
” , , c Q ~ ae¢ , ~ ~ = >
ovoy ev KopivOw Guv TO!LC aytolc Taolv TOLC OUVOLV EV
oAy TH “Ayata. 2
s e - \ , 2 ~ ~
TAaTOVC NUmVY Kal KUOLOU Inoov XeloTou.
c = Acts xxiii.
15. 1 Cor.
i. 2. Phil.
Owe Witt i Epa aor Geagidaceialts
Xapic uply Kal ~ ELipyvyn ao GUeou dAcisix.
e Rom. i. 7.
f Rom. ix. 5
~ reff.
f > ‘ e 4 \ ‘ - U €
3 KuXoynroc¢ (0) ® Ococ Kal 5 raTnp TOU KUpLoU HGH ie Rom ae
TITLE. Steph 7 mpos Tous xopivOiovs Sevtepa: elz mavAov Tov amoaToAov 1 ™pos
Kopw@tous emiaroAn Sevtepa, with rel: Tov ayiov amooToAov mavAov emioTOAN TpOS Kop.
B’ L (h)
: apxeTar mpos KkopwOous B’ DF (Seurepn): emtotoAn mpos Kop. Sevtepa k 1:
txt ABKN mn 0 17, and C at top of page.
Cuap. I. 1. ree inoov bef xpictov, with ADGKL rel vss Chr Damase: om iyo. Xp-
F(and lat): txt BMX 17 hal(and mar al) syr Thdrt Bede.
Cuap. I. 1, 2.] ADDRESS AND GREET-
ING. 1. 31a Ged. Beod] see 1 Cor. i.
1, note. Tipd0eos 6 45.] So of Sos-
thenes, 1 Cor. i. 1; ‘one of of GdeApol ;’
—hbut perhaps in this case with peculiar
emphasis: see 1 Cor. iv. 17; 1 Tim. i. 2,
18; 2 Tim.ii.1. On his being with Paul
at this time, see Prolegg. to this Epistle,
§ ii. 4. ov T. ay. Taéow....]| This,
and the Epistle to the Galatians, were cir-
cular letters to all the believers in the
respective countries: the variation of ex-
pression in the two cases (rats ex«Anolas
rT. Tadatias, Gal. i. 2) being accounted for
by the circumstance that the matter of this
Epistle concerned directly the church at
Corinth, and indirectly all the saints in
the province,—whereas that to the Gala-
tians, being to correct deep-rooted J udaizing
error, directly concerned all the churches
of Galatia. | Achaiacomprehended Hellas
and Peloponnesus; the province was so
named by the Romans because they be-
came possessed of them by subduing the
Achean league, Pausan. vii. 16. 7. On
the history of the province, see Acts xviii.
12 and note. 2.] See 1 Cor-i. 3.
3—il.| THANKSGIVING FOR DELIVER-
ANCE FROM GREAT DANGER OF HIS LIFE:
—IlIS ABILITY TO COMFORT OTHERS IN
AFFLICTION. Commentators have endea-
voured to assign a definite purpose to this
opening of the Epistle. De Wette thinks
that Paul had zo definite purpose, except
to pour out the thankfulness of his heart,
and to begin by placing himself with his
readers in a position of religious feeling
and principle far above all discord and
dissension. But I cannot agree with this.
His purpose shews so plainly through the
whole latter part of the chapter, that it is
only consistent with vv. 12—24 to find it
beginning to be introduced here also. I
believe that Chrys. has given the right
account: éAvme: Alay avTovs K. eBopiBet
rd wh mapayeverbar exer toy amdaToAoy,
Ka) TadTa emayyetAduevor, GAAG Toy GmavTa
évy Maxedovia avad@oat xpdvov, Kal Soke
aitay érépous mpoteTmnkevar. 51a TOUTO
mpos TovTo iatduevos Td avOoppoiv, Aeyet
Thy aittay 8° hv ov mapeyevero" ov mrjy _e€€
evOclas avThy TlOnow, ovdé Acyer STi olda
$s 2
628
IIPOS KOPINOIOY= B.
if;
= Eph. i.17. ” my ae
Jace i. 17. Incov KetoTov, Oo martip TWY ‘otk TI ReY Kat Oeoe maone
i Rom. xii.l. k , AGE No m
Phil. ii. 1. TapakAnoEwe, oO ‘ Tapaka WV nuac emt raoy 7
Col, iii. 12. ’ - = mn
Heb. x. 28
se x. 28 Orie NUWV, ELC TO Suvacian mac “Wapacadel Touc
Ixiii. 15. , , ' \ - z
k= Romexv. €Y Taoy OrAnpe sea tHe TapakAnsewc ° ne | Tapaka-
4. Acts Xv. , > Voore ‘ ~ ~ 5e . Pp , N
yas AovpeOa autoOl vTO TOU Ocov, OTL Ka Qoc TEOLOOEVEL TA
1 = Luke xvi. , ~ -~ r. 2 ed e say ~
os Actsax. | TaOnwata Tov yoisTou * Etc Nuac, vuTwe * eta TOU
iRATO BVA ~ p , LW Gate 7 lige Gutres
Sal Gen. YOloTOU © TWEMLGGEVEL Kal 1 TapakAnatc HMUwWY, ELTE
m = Mark xii.17. Rom. v.2. Matt. xiv. 14 al. fr. n Acts iii. 19. vii. 19 al. o constr., Rom. ii. 16.
p Rom. iii. 7 reff. q Rom. vii. 5 reff. (see note.) r= Rom. vy. 15. viii. 18. 8s = 1 Thess.
iy. 2. t constr., 1 Cor. xii. 26.
8. om 2nd o F. om yjuewv M Hil Ambr.
4. for em, ev Cl n Eus Chr Antch Procop. om ynuwy M Hil Ambr: vywyr 3.
for es, wa F.
for vio, amo F 109.
5. for ta wabnuata, To Tabnua D!.
Damase Ambrst-ed om rat below.)
mss) :
pev brocxduevos ikew, ered) 5é Sia Tas
OAltwers everodlaOnv, ovyyvwTe, K. BN
Karayvaré Tia dmepoplay q paduulay
NOV? GAN ET epws TOUTO K. Heyarompen és
TEpov K. _abvomia Tor Epoy KaTacKevd et, er-
aipwy ™m Trapapvdig 7b mpayna, va mndé
epwTGaot Aoumdy Thy aittay, OC hy borEepyoe.
Calvin, somewhat differently: ‘ Incipit
ab hac gratiarum actione, partim ut Dei
bonitatem preedicet, partim ut animet
Corinthios suo exemplo ad persecutiones
fortiter sustinendas: partim ut pia gloria-
tione se efferat adversus malignas obtrec-
tationes pseudapostolorum.” But this
does not touch the matter of the post-
poned journey to Corinth, which through
the latter part of the chapter is coming
more and more visibly into prominence, till
it becomes the direct subject in ver. 23.
3.] evA., Blessed (above all others)
IS ete sey. OCR LS ur ore opel pd
God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Here, as in ref. Rom., De Wette would
render, ‘God, and the Father’... ., which
grammatically is allowable; but I prefer
the other rendering, on account of its
greater verisimilitude and simplicity.
6 wm. T. oixtip.| oik7. can hardly be the
gen. of the attribute, as De W. and Grot.,
seeing that oi«r. is plural and refers to
acts of mercy; but as Chrys., 6 oixrippods
ToTOUTOUS emiberedwevos : see ref. James.
This meaning De W. himself recognizes in
6 0. mdons mapakA.,—‘ the God who works
all (possible) comfort,’ and refers to 6 6eds
7. eAmtdos, Rom. xv. 13. 4.| The
Apostle in this Epistle uses mostly the
Jirst person plur., perhaps as including
Timothy, perhaps, inasmuch as he writes
apostolically (cf. judas tobs amrootdAous,
of himself and Apollos, 1 Cor. iv. 9), as
ins kat bef avtos DF latt Ambr Bede (not fri Jer Ambrst).
aft ovrws ins «ca DF m 80 latt. (vulg
rec om Tov bef 2nd xpiorov (with none of our
ins ABCDFKMX rel Orig.—om from zrepioc. to mepioo. L.
speaking of the Apostles in common. This
however will not explain all places where
it occurs elsewhere: e. g. 1 Thess. ii. 18,
NOcAnTawev eAOEty mpds Buds, eyo jmev
TlavAos, kal &rak «. Sis,—where see note.
So that after all perhaps it is best to regard
it merely as an idiomatic way of spe: aking,
when often only the singular is intended.
In order that we may be able: not,
‘so that we are able.’ 81a TodTo yap map-
exdAeoeyv Nuas, pnoty, iva nueis GAAHAouS
maparar@uev. Chrys. Non sibi vivebat
Apostolus, sed Ecclesiz : ita quicquid gra-
tiarum in ipsum conferebat Deus, non sibi
soli datum reputabat, sed quo plus ad alios
juvandos haberet facultatis.” Calv.
qs, attr. for 7, or perhaps (Winer, edn. 6,
p- 148, § 24. 1) for hy (wapdrrnow mapa-
kaAety). 5.] ‘As He is, so are we in
this world :? 1 Johniv.17. As the suffer-
ings of Christ (endured by Christ, whether
in his own person, or in his mystical body
the Church, see Matt. xxv. 40, 45) abound
towards us (i. e. in our case, see reff.) ;—
even so through Christ our consolation
also abounds. ‘The form of expression is
altered in the latter clause: instead of 4
napdkAnols TOU xpioToD mepic. we have
nN Twapak. Nu@yv mepioo. dia Tod xpiorod.
And not without reason :— we suffer, be-
cause we are His members: we are con-
soled because He is our Head. There
is no comparison (as Chrys., ob yap boa
érabe, pnolv, emdbouev udvov, GAAG Kal
mepiooa) between the personal sufferings
of Christ, and theirs. 6.] And all
this for your benefit. But whether we
are afflicted, (it is) on behalf of your
comfort (cis Td SvvacOa K.T.A. ver. 4,
only now applied to the Corinthians) and
salvation (the great end of the mapd-
ABCDF
KLMNa
bcefg
hklm
nol7
4—8. IIPOS KOPINOIOY= B. 629
vii. 5.
{ ne ‘é ¢ Sp a = an Vere 1 Thess. iii.
THOMIG THGS EVES YOUMEVYGVEY” VITOMOYY TUV AUTEM) WAUY™ 4 a Thess.
v.10. Heb.
xi. 37 (Matt.
vii. 14. Mark
iii. 9) only.
77 7] e Ps. cxix. 1.
ELOOTEG OTL WC yee. vii. 5
oe * OA: Bouc0a, UTép TC ULwY * rapakAnsewe Kal owe ®=ch.iv.8.
, > aa \ € - , ‘ e ya \ ¢ —
fatwy “wy Kal Meg Tacyomev, Kat Y eA7ic Nuwy
‘ B<Pata
k
c ~
ULwY
ape ee ann 4 1 , eran ~
imio yor’ ‘cite ‘wapaxadovpeda, vmTEep THC
, \ '
TapakAnoewo Kal owTnplac, 7
Taoa- Ea ii. 7
x attr., Acts i.
b deel - q , 7] \ -
KOLVWVOL EOTE TWV waQnuatwr, OUTWC Kal THC
e o, > ~ >
kAnoewc. 8° Ov yao GéAopev vpacg “ayvoew, aceA pol, ete
~ = a. > ahs
“ Uréo me OXtbewe Huwyv tHE yevouevng ev TY Aotayt ee
XXViii. 20.
Phil. i. 20.
~ : menawe . fcmeN , g? , 7
OTL Kal umeoBoXAnv uTso Suvayw eBaonOnper, ee z = Rom. iv.
16 (reff.). Heb. iii. 14. vi. 19. ix. 17. a = Phil. i. 7. b 1 Cor. x. 18, 20 reff.
c Rom. i. 13. xi. 25. 1 Cor. x.1. xii.1. 1 Thess. iv. 13. d = Johni. 30. ch. viii. 23. 2 Thess. ti. J.
e Rom. vii. 13 reff. f = Acts xxvi. 13 al. g Matt. xxvi. 43 (|) Mk. v.r.). Luke ix. 32. xxi.
34, ch. vy. 4. 1 Tim. v.16 only. Isa. i. 4 Aq. Symm., &c.
6. for e:re, ec D! 32. om Ist ka: owrnpias B 176. for év, ws D'F. (G-lat
has both.) rec has e:te mapakadoupeda vmep THS vwY TapakKANTEwWS Kal TWTNPLAS
bef ka: cAms nuwy BeBoaa vrep vuwy (with none of our mss): e:Te Tapak., vmep T.
Up. TapaKANTEWS THS EVEpyoumeynS ev UTOMoyN TwY auT. TAB. wY K. NM. T. Katy EAT.,
omg Kat cwTnpias, ACMN am(with flor fuld harl tol') fri Syr copt zth (arm) Ephr
Antch, and, but insg ca: cwrnpias, m fuld!: sive consolamur pro vestra consolatione
sive exhortamur pro vestra exhortatione et salute vulg-ed(with demid): txt BDF KL
rel syr goth Chr Thdrt Damase Phot Thl Gc.
7. rec (for ws) wsmep, with D?-3KL rel Chr Thdrt: oc (= «?) F, si D-lat Syr :
G-lat : sicut F-lat: txt ABCD!MX& 17 Orig Ephr Damasc.
om ouvtws F D-lat(and G-lat).
eote DF latt.
om
tTwy wabnuatwy bef
8. for urep, rept ACDFN b m? o 17 Bas Chr Thdrt Antch: txt BKL rel Damase
Thl Qe.
Ambrst-ms: om ABCD'!FN! 17 latt Jer.
ree aft yey. ins nuw, with D3KLN3 rel vss Bas Chr Thdrt Damasc
for viep, mapa D!-rF. rec eBapnOnuev
bef urep duvauy, with DFKL rel vulg syrr copt goth Chr Thdrt Damase Tert Ambrst :
txt ABCMN m 17 fri arm Bas Jer.
KAnots), Which (viz. mapakAnots and ow-
tnpia) is working (not, as Chrys., Theo-
phyl., Estius, Beza, al., ‘ being worked :?
the passive does not occur in St. Paul) in
the endurance of the same sufferings
which we also suffer ;—and our hope is
stedfast on your behalf (that you w7// en-
dure hardness, and be consoled and saved) ;
—or whether we are comforted, (it is) for
your comfort and salvation. This place
of the words rka!—spar agrees best with the
sense, besides being in accordance with the
best MSS. Their position has perhaps been
altered to bring the two parts of the dilem-
ma closer together, and because éAmls 7uav
seemed to suit the part. «/5dres, and the
future supposed to be implied after ottws
cai (as in KE. V.). The objection to this is
(as De W.) that the éAmfs clearly must be
referred to cwrnpta, which however is not
hinted at in ver. 7. 7.| elddtes re-
fers back to mapakadovmeba:—we are
comforted with the assurance that &c.
After oftws kal understand not éceaGe, but
éote: heis speaking generally, of the com-
munity of consolation subsisting mutually
between himself and the Corinthians ; and
it was this thought which helped to console
him. 8.] see var. read. It is gene-
rally supposed that the tribulation here
spoken of was the danger into which Paul
was brought by the tumult at Ephesus, re-
lated in Acts xix. This opinion has been
recently defended by Neander, Wieseler,
and Dr. Davidson, but impugned by De
Wette, on the grounds, (1) that év 77 ’Acia
can hardly refer to Ephesus, which Paul
generally names, 1 Cor. xv. 32; xvi. 8;
(2) that he was not in danger of his life
in this tumult, The first ground is hardly
tenable: there would be an appropriate-
ness in éy 7H ’Agig here, as he has in
his mind an apologetic account of the
reasons which hindered him from leaving
those parts and coming to them. I own,
however, that the strong expressions here
used do not seem to me to find their justifi-
cation in any thing which we know of that
tumult or its consequences. I am unable
to assign any other event as in the Apos-
tle’s mind: but the expressions seem rather
to regard a deadly sickness, than a perse-
cution : see below, vv. 9, 10. Kad
tmepB, signifies the greatness of the afilic-
630
h ch. iy. 8 only. h
Ps. Ixxxvii.
15 only.
iconsir, see
Acts inl, 12
reff. o
j ist pers., ch.
fPOX KOPINOIOY®S B.
i.
, ~ cy ie \ j ~ aul = 9? ‘ > \ ?
eSarropnOnvat nuac Kat ‘tov Cyv 9adAa avrol év
j e - ye) , = ¢ 1? , m -“/ x
eavroic TO “aTwoKkomta Tov Davarov | eoynKamev, ™ wa py
, s Cras Mae ar: ~ > >
° gexoorec "wuev °ep ? eavtotc, adA °
’ ‘
e7t TW ew TW
iii. 1 refi. p2 ’ N , 10 8 ? q d , r 0 ,
; ie only t. EVELOOVTE TOUC veKoouc, OC EK THALKOUTOV avaTou
ch. il. 13. vil. Ae ce us Vs te t.* a tu ? , bu
aes Johnie sl éppvoaTto ynuac Kal puoéTal, étc Ov nAwikapev OTt
n Heb, ii. 13, er s <s llv , \ ¢ = © 5 18
from Isa. viii. KGL ETL puoeTat, GVVVUTOVOYOUVTWY Kal UULwY UTEO
17.
o constr., asabove(n), Mark x. 24. Luke xi. 22. xviii. 9 only. Ps. ii. 12. w. ace., ch. ii. 3 reff. p =1 Cor.
xv. 4 reff. q Heb. ii. 3. James iti. 4. Rev. xvi. 18 only +t. 2 Mace. xii. 3. r=ch. xi. 23. Ps.
lv.13. (see atoOvioKecv, 1 Cor. xv. 31.) s Rom. vii. 24 reff. t see Rom. xv. 12 reff.
a perf., 1 Cor. xv. 19 reff. v here only ft.
9. aft aAAq ims em D'.
pavtt b! 1! o Cyr Thdrt Thl.
10. for eppu., epvcato B!.
om ecxnkapev D!.
Oeov tov eyerpavTa F: eve-
rec (for puoerat) puetar (see notes), with DIFKLM
rel vulg-ed(with fuld F-lat) syr goth Chr Thdrt Thl @e Orig-int Jer: txt BCR 17
G-lat am(with mar tol) copt eth arm (Ath) Damase.—om ka: puoeta: AD! demid Syr
zth-pl Chr), Ambrst-ed.
vss Jer Ambrst.
11. quwy vrep vuwr A al.
tion itself, objectively considered: tmep
duv., the relation of it to our power of en-
durance, subjectively. Gste e€.] So
that we utterly despaired even of life.
Such an expression surely would not be
used of a tumult, where life would have been
the first thing in danger, if Paul had been
at all mixed up in it,—but to some wearing
and tedious suffering, inducing despondency
in minor matters, which even reached the
- hope of life itself. 9.| a\AG, more-
over,—carries on and intensifies the de-
scription of his hopeless state. We had
in ourselves the response of death, i.e. our
answer within ourselves to the question,
‘ Life or Death ?’ was, ‘Death’ So Vulg.,
Estius, Billroth, Riickert, Meyer, De Wette.
7T.amdkp. nay perhaps mean, the
“sentence, as Hesych.: amdéxpima, Kkatd-
Kpiua, Whpoy,—and most Commentators.
The perfect eoxjkamey is here (see
also ch. ii. 12, 13) in a historical sense,
instead of the aorist: which is unusual.
Winer, edn. 6, § 40. 4, illustrates the
usage by §AGev Kal eYAnpev (7d BiBAlov),
Rev. v. 7: see also Rey. viii. 5. tva
ph... | very similarly ch. iv. 7, €xouev
d€ Tov Onoavpdy TovTov ev daTpakivols
oxeverw, tva 7 bmepBodAh THs Suvauews
Y Ted Geod, xa pr €& Hpov. TO ey.
7. vekpovs| Our thoughts were weaned
from all hope of surviving in this life, and
fixed on that better deliverance which God
shall work when He raises us from the
dead. To see in this expression merely
« figure (De W.), and understand ‘ Who
raiseth the dead’ as =‘ Who delivers men
from peril of their lives?’ because such
peril is below and elsewhere (ch. xi. 23)
om ot: BD!M: kau bef or: F.
for umep, mept D'P.
om em: D?F hk
7 Senoet bef vrep vnwy C
called @dvaros,—is surely very forced.
Understanding it literally as above, I can-
not see how it can be spoken with reference
to the Ephesian tumult. If it alludes to
any external danger, 1 should be disposed
to refer it to the same obscure part of
Paul’s history to which he alludes 1 Cor.
xv. 32, where he also speaks of the hope
of the resurrection as his great support.
But there would be this objection, that
these two passages can hardly refer to the
same event ; this evidently had taken place
since the sending of the first Epistle.
10.| Who rescued us from so great a
death, and will rescue us,—on whom
we hope that He will also continue to
rescue us. The rec. peta: has been sub-
stituted for the fut. pdcera:, as more ap-
propriate. But 7¢ regards the immediate
future,—the rai éri pioera the continu-
ance of God’s help in time distant and un-
certain. The whole verse (as De W.
confesses, who although he repudiates the
Ephesian tumult, yet interprets the passage
as alluding to external danger) seems to
favour the idea of bodily sickness being in
the Apostle’s mind. 11. |] cuvutovp-
yovvtwy—with whom? From the similar
passage Rom. xy. 30, cuvaywvicacbal mot
ev Tais mposevxais bmép euod, it would
seem as if wot should be supplied ;—but
he himself could hardly be said broupyety,
though he well might aywricac@a. We
must therefore understand the preposition
either with Chrys., touvtéoriv, ebxowevwy
mavTwy iuav brep ijmuev,—or as merely
signifying coincidence with the purpose to
be accomplished, as im mh mposeavrTos
nNMGas Tov avéuou, Acts xxvii. 7, where see
d pverat
ABCDF
KLMNa
bedfg
bhklm
nol7
9—18.
eee = , ef
T}UWY TH Senoet, tva
nuac 7 yaotsua * dia ToAAw@Y ? eyaptornOy Uo or.
iu XA0lom xe Ub
12°
~ e on c ~ e ?
THC ~ GuveEt vit Nuwy, ore ev
nou cou, ouK« Ev soi ' SAOKIKN, aXX’ ev ! Xapere Ocoi,
IIPOZ KOPINOIOY®S B.
~ ex moAAwy *
2 S_¢ , ¢ - ¢ , ' .
H yap Kavynoig nuwy aury tortiv, ro
f ¢ 2
aylornre kat
\
mpocwTwy ro Yee
x= =e only.
Tposwm ov
a&.axpewy
TO TpvaTN-
aOmevov,
Pole: xV.25.
ud ,
pale ener
® tAtKkouvela
y = Acts xx.
21. xxiv. 24,
ch. ii. 4 al.
k 1
avesrpapniey év Tw Kou, eens oe mpoc UAC. 2 = Rom.v. 16,
16. vi. 23.
Qo
13 oy yap aXXa yoapomey vu ™arr 7 ava yivwakere , 220 alt
b 1 Cor, xi. 24 reff. constr., here only. c Rom. iii, 27 reff. d Matt. viii. dal. fr. Josh,
XXiv. 27. e = [John viii. 9.] Acts xxiii. 1. Rom. ii. 15 al. tr.t (Eccles. x. 20.) Wisd,
Xvii. 11 only. f Heb. xii. 10 only t. 2 Mace. xv. 2 only. g 1 Cor. v. 8. ch. ii,
17 only. (-18, Phil. i. 10.) h so dckatoa. Heov, Rom. iii. 21, 22. i 1 Cor. iii. 3 reff.
j= Rom.i. 5. 1 Cor. iii. 10 al. k = Eph. ii. 3. 1 Tim. iii. 15. 1 Pet. i.17. 2 Pet. ii. 18. Ezek. xix.
6. see Matt xvii. 22. Ich. ii. 4 al8., Paul. Heb. ii. 1. xiii. 19 (Wark xv. 14v.r.) onlyt. (-pos,
1 Cor. xii. 23, 24.) m Lake xii. 61.
vulg copt Chr, :
Nam. xiii. 29.
om Sedul, syr has it with ast.
n Acts viii. 28 reff.
for 1st nuwy, vuwy (but corrd) &!
e?, ev ToAAw mposwrw FM 67? Chr, tn multifacie D-lat, in multa facie G-lat.
vuas 17.
12. for 2nd yuo, ypor(but corrd) NX}.
vuov BDIFKL ce fghilmno Damase Phot(in ce).
rec (for ayorntt) amAorntt (see note,
and Eph vi. 5, Col iii. 22), with DF? latt syrr goth Chr Thdrt Thl Gc Ambrst :
txt ABCKMN! m 17 copt arm Clem Orig Antch Damasc, Anton.
rec om Tov, with FKL rel Orig Thl Ce:
ins kat bef ove BM a m vulg(and F-lat) syr Damasc.
om } &@ A17: om # 4, 219! Syr goth arm: om @ D!.
ecAucpivera A syr.
Damasc,.
13. om add’ B(Ble) F.
note. iva é« wodh@v TposdTrev .. «|
«Three constructions of this verse are pos-
sible: (1) to take é« moAA. mposm. as well
as Oia moAA@y with edxapiornOy,—® in
order that the mercy shewn to me may be
given thanks for on my behalf by many
persons with many words’ (Storr, Opuse.
ii. 253): but the rendering, ‘with many
words,’ is objectionable, see Matt. vi. 7 :—
(2) to take éx 7oAA. mposém. with edyxap.,
and 8:4 woAA@y with TO ets tu. xap.—- in
order that the mercy shewn to me by means
of (the intercession of ) many, may be given
thanks for by many persons on my behalf’
(Theophyl., Billroth, Meyer, who explain
€k @. mposém. ‘ex multis oribus:’ Stan-
ley, ‘from many upturned faces’): but
the position of the words is against this, —
and it is more natural that the mention of
the effect of the intercession should precede
that of thethanksgiving. (3) Consequently,
the best method is to take ék moAA. mposwr.
with 7d cis ju. xap., and 81a moAA@y with
evxap. (Beza, Caloy., Estius, Fritz., Riick-
ert, al.) :—in order that the mercy shewn
to us by the intercession of many persons,
may by many be given thanks for on our
behalf.” De Wette. The emphasis of
the whole being on the é« wodAG@v tpos-
otrev, he places it first, even before the
art., after which it would naturally come.
mposatwy, ‘persons,’ a later mean-
ing, which Phrynichus (see Wetst.) blames
as used by of dup) Tas Sikas phropes.
12—24.] EXPRESSION OF HIS CONFI-
DENCE IN HIS INTEGRITY OF PURPOSE
ins ev bef
ins ABCDMN am 17
capkivn FE.
TOWARDS THEM (12—14), AND DEFENCE
OF HIMSELF AGAINST THE CHARGE OF
FICKLENESS OF PURPOSE IN NOT HAVING
COME TO THEM (15—24). 12.] yap,
reason why they should help him with their
united prayers. kavxnots | viewed in
its ground and substance. But we must
not say that it is for Kavxnua: the Apostle
regards the paptipiov and the Kkavxnors
as coincident :—it is not the testimony,
&e., of which he boasts, but in which his
boasting itself consists. ayist.] amAd-
tyTt seems to be a gloss from Eph. vi.
5:—in holiness and sincerity of God:
i.e. either ‘ belonging to God,’ as 7 dikatoc.
avrTov, Matt. vi. 33, or ‘which is the gift
of God,’ as in ref. Rom.,—or better than
either, as E. V., ‘ godly,’ i. e. maintained
as in the service of and with respect to
God. Calvin interprets it, ‘coram Deo.
See on ch. ii. 17; and on the senses of
ayidr. and arAdr., Stanley’s note.
ovK év god. gapk.| which fleshly wisdom
is any thing but holy and pure, having
many windings and insincerities in order
to captivate men. GAA" ev Xap.
Geod } but in the grace of God, i.e. in
that xdpis: which he had received (ref.
Rom.) eis traxohy miotews ev maow Tots
€0vec.v—the grace of his apostleship. To
this he often i see Rom. xii. 3, xv.
15; Eph. iii. 2, al. Tepiroorepas |
«Non quod pan alios minus sincere con-
versatus fuisset ; sed quia majora sincere
sux conversationis documenta apud Corin-
thios ostenderat: ut quibus gratis ac sine
632
o1 Cor. ix. 8
reff,
p Acts xxiii.
28 reff.
q 1 Cor. i. 8
only (refi.).
r constr, see
1 Cor. xiv.
37.
s Rom. xi. 25
r@
IIPOX KOPINOIOYS B.
I;
xn \ , , ’ Ie \ e A / »
°n ° Kat ervywwokere, eXtidw dé Ort “Ewe “réAOvE ? Eem-
s 7) 14 OG \ pr ’ , € ~ git, \ Js ,
yrworole, “Kabwe kar eréyywre rac “amo * pépoue,
t , [Mees , , A Se = — ’ 4
OTe Kavynua vuwv eopev “ Kabareo Kat UuEIC NuwY EV TY
ve , ~ ’ € ~ > ~
need TOV Kvolov Huwv Inoov.
\ , _
15 kal ¥ TavTy TH * TE-
, 4, ~ - Cd
(reff). 9.15, Trodnoet eDovdrAouny T poTEpov T poe vac eA Dew, iva Seuté-
24 ch.ii
only.
v1 Cor. i. 8 reff. w dat., 1 Cor. ix. 7.
xi. Sal.
4only. P. 4 Kings xviii. 19 only.
t Paul (Rom. iv. 2 al8.) only, exc. Heb. iii.6. Deut. x. 21 al.
u Rom. iv. 6 reff.
xch. iii. 4. viii. 22. x. 2. Eph. iii. 12. Phil. iii.
om 7 kat emvywwokete Bo! 31. 41. 109. 238 Ee: om y K 114 latt copt arm
Ambrst.
D!FS 17 latt Damasce lat-ff.
rec ins kat bef ews, with D3KLM rel syr Chr Thdrt Thl Ge: om ABC
14. rec om last nuwy, with ACDKL rel goth Gc: ins BFMX m 17 vulg Syr syr-w-
ast copt Chr Thdrt Ambrst.
aft mo. add xpiorov D'FM3(but erased) b m o latt
Syr syr-w-ast copt goth Chr Antch Thl lat-ff.
15. cAdew bef mpos vuas DFKL rel latt Syr copt goth Chr-ms Thdrt Thl lat-ff: txt
ABCMRX (a) h m 17 syr Chr Damase e.—ree zpos vuas eAbew bef rpotepov, with (KK
h) copt Thdrt: eA@ew mpotepov mpos vuas a: txt ABCDFLMR-corr! m 17 (rel) latt
stipendio preedicasset evangelium, parcens
eorum infirmitati.” Estius. But perhaps
it may relate only to the longer time, and
greater opportunities which he had had at
Corinth for shewing his purity of purpose :
so Calv., De W. 13, 14.] Confirmation
of the foregoing assertion. For we do not
write to you any other things, except
those which ye read, or acknowledge (by
experience of facts), and I hope, shall
acknowledge to the end:—i.e. ‘my cha-
racter in my writings is one and the same,
not fickle and changing, but such as past
facts have substantiated it to be, and as I
hope future facts to the end of my life will
continue to do.’ dvaywécortes yap ém-
ywoonete, Ott & cinioTE Huiv ev Tots
Epyos, TadTa Kal ev Tots ypdupact A€yomer*
kal ovk évayTiodTa tuay 7 waptupla Tals
€migToAais, GAAG ouvdder TH avayvdce: 7
yraors, hv mpodkaBdvtes Exete wep) juar.
Chrys., who has the advantage of being
able to express in his exposition the play of
words in ava- and ém-yiwéoxere. As
also ye did partly (that part of you, viz.
which have fairly tried me: ard Mépous,
because they were divided in their estimate
of him, and those who were prejudiced
against him had shut their minds to this
knowledge. Chrys. refers it to what fol-
lows: petpid(wv elev: Theophyl. to the
not yet completed testimony of his évapérou
Biov: Estius and Calvin, to their inade-
quate estimation of him, which he blames :
but I much prefer the above. So most
Commentators) acknowledge us, that (not
‘ because,’ putting a colon at pépous, as
Luth., Griesbach, and Scholz: nor is it to
be joined with emyvécecbe, what follows
being parenthesized, as Theophyl., al.,
Meyer, Olsh.) we are your boast, as ye are
ours, in the day of the Lord Jesus. éopeyv,
‘present, as of that which is a settled re-
cognized fact. But this is no ground for
its being joined with éemyvdceade, as Olsh.
The experimental mutual knowledge of one
another as a kavxnuwa was not confined to
what should take place év 7H ju. T. kK.
*Inoov, but regarded a present fact, which
should receive its full completion at the day
of the Lord. 15—24.] His defence of
himself against the charge of fickleness of
purpose for not having come to them.
15.| ravr. +. wen., i.e. of my character
being known to you as that of an earnest
and sincere man. apotepov belongs
to éAdety, not to éBovAdunr. T™poTepov,
viz. before he visited Macedonia, where he
now was. iva Sevrépav xapiv oy7Te |
that you might have a second benefit (ef-
fusion of the divine xapis by my presence :
not= xapav as Chrys., see var. read.).
Seutépay, second, because there would thus
have been opportunity for ¢wo visits, one
in going towards Macedonia, the other in
returning. This is the interpretation of De
Wette, Bleek, and Wieseler, and I believe
the only one which the words will bear.
The other, according to which devrépay
xdpw would mean ‘a second benefit,’ by
my visiting you for the second time, is in
my view unnatural, and would hardly have
justified the use of devrdpay at all. For
come when he would, the xapis of the
second visit would be the Sevrepa yxaprs,
and the conferring a Sevrépa xdpis would
have been of no signification in the present
connexion, which is to state a purpose of
paying them two visits in one and the same
Journey. The first of these he characterizes
by mpdérepoy . . . €A@etv,—the second by
devtépa xdpts, implying also the first. So
«va M.
ABCDF
KLNab
cedefg
hklm
nol7
14—18. IIPOX KOPINOIOY®S B. 633
~ \ a “¢ ~ ~ ? Z
pav * yaow oynte, 1 cat? Ou Yuwv ™ duedOew * ee Maxe- y = here only.
\ ? ‘ ’ - as Z Acts ix. 3x
Soviay, Kat TaAwv ato Maksedoviac éAGeww To0¢ vuac Kat "i, Num.
Xx. 18, 2U.
OP Ce aa ~ ? Se ie ' (see Rom. xv.
up UMWwY mpotrenpOnva gic THY lovéaiay. 7 TOUTO OUV 28.) ei
a a Mark iv 36 |.
/ , cm ‘an. ’ e? , soe
. Acts &viii.
PBovAopevoc hy Tt aoa ™ eAapoia Ey Onoaunv Ste ope Ronics
af \ , g Ne fy , f ‘\, , 7 Boh » 12only.
a Bou eévomuat KaTa oapka Pov évOtal, tva Tao Amps vi. 2.
> \ i \ , \ ay bs ee 8k ‘ \ ce 5 b Acts xv. 3
€uol TO val val, Kat TO OU OU, TlOTOC Oe oO Ococ, + eg ae
Acts [vii. 1.] xxi. 38. d here only t+. (-dpés, ch. iy. 17.) e=ch. iii.12. (1 Cor.
vii. 2] reff.) fepp., here bis only. Acts v.33. xxvii. 39. gospp., Luke xiv. 31. John (xi.
g Rom. i. 3 reff. h = Rom. xii. 16 al.
§3v.r.) xii. 10 only. Isa. iii. 9 al.
i Matt. v. 37. k =1 Cor. i. 9 reff.
James v. 12.
syrr goth Chr Damasc lat-ff—o mporepov L rel Thl He: 70 devtepov K : om mporepor
NL for xapiv, xapav BLN? 31. 71-3. 80. 115 Thdrt. (Chr says: xdpw 6& éevraida
Thy xapav Ayer). rec exnte (probably from similarity of s and «. There is
nothing in what Tischdf says against oxijte as being conformed to the tense of
€Bovrduny, seeing that that word may be either imperfect or aor), with ADFKL rel:
txt BCX Thdrt, Damase.
16. for d:eA., aweAPew AD'F copt Chr, Damasc: eA@ew a b 0 vss Ee: proficiscerer
aut transirem G-lat : txt BCD3KLRX rel vulg syrr Chr, Thdrt Thl. (See Rom xv. 28.)
for up, ap D!F b1o Chr-mss Thdrt-ms.
17. for ovy, Se A; vero igitur goth.
rec BovAevowevos, with DK rel G-lat syrr
goth eth Thdrt @e Ambrst: BovaAevoouevos L: txt ABCFX ac h mo 17 vulg copt
Chr Damase Thl Bede.
that I do not believe this passage to be
relevant to the question respecting the
number of visits which Paul had made to
Corinth previously to writing these Epis-
tles. See on that question, Prolegg. to 1
Cor. § v. 16.| If this is the same
Journey which is announced in 1 Cor. xvi.
5, the idea of visiting them iz the way to
Macedonia as well as after having passed
through it, must have occurred to him
subsequently to the sending of that Epis-
tle; or may even then have been a wish,
but not expressed, from uncertainty as to
its possibility,—the main and longer visit
being there principally dwelt on. But
perhaps the following is the more likely
account of the matter. He had announced
to them in the lost Epistle (see 1 Cor. vy.
9) his intention, as here, of visiting them
on his way to Macedonia: but the intel-
ligence from “ them of Chloe” had altered
his intention, so that, in 1 Cor. xvi., he
speaks of visiting them after he should
have passed through Macedonia. For
this he was accused of levity of purpose.
Certainly, some intention of coming to
them seems to have been mentioned in
that lost Epistle: see 1 Cor. iv. 18. But
the mporeupOjva eis “Thy “lovdalay can
hardly but be coincident with the alms-
bearing scheme of 1 Cor. xvi. 4; in which
case the two plans certainly are modifica-
tions of one and the same. Pi ent:
Did I at all use levity (of purpose)? tq
éAad., as 7 apetn, mlotis,—the art.
being generic. Olsh., De Wette, Billroth,
take it to mean ‘the levity of purpose
om t7 F Thdrt.
which has been laid to my charge : Winer,
‘the levity of purpose inherent in human
nature. Or those things which I plan,
do I plan according to the flesh (i. e. ac-
cording to the changeable, self-contradic-
tory, and insincere purposes of the mere
worldly and ungodly man), that there may
be with me (not, so that there is with
me: he is speaking not merely of the re-
sult, but of the design : ‘do I plan like the
worldly, that Imay shift and waver as suits
me?’) the Yea, yea, and the Nay, nay
(i.e. both affirmation and negation concern-
ing the same thing)? Chrys., Theodoret,
Theophyl., c., Calv., Bengel, Billroth,
Winer, al., take it thus: ‘ Or those things
which I plan, do I plan after the flesh (as
fleshly men do), so that my yea must (at
all events) be yea, and my nay, nay ?’ i.e.
as worldly men who perform their promise
at all hazards, and whatever the conse-
quences, whereas I am under the guidance
of the Spirit, and can only journey whither
He permits. But this explanation is
directly against the next verse, where va)
kal ov is clearly parallel to val val ka) od o¥
here, the words being repeated, as in ref.
Matt., without altering the sense: and in-
consistent with ver. 23 and ch. ii. 1, where
he says that his alteration of plan arose
Srom a desire to spare them. See the
whole discussed in Stanley’s note. 18. }
Such fickleness, you know, was not my
habit in preaching to you. Chrys. gives
the connexion well: Kad@s dayriderw
avakUmTOVcay KaTaAvel. € yap bmoaxXo-
bevos, nal, mapayevécOar bwepebov, Kat
634
i constr., see
IIPOS KOPINOIOYS B.
I. 19—24.
lg e U ee = e ‘ ena. ? v { \ Af, bor
1. OoTt O Aoyoc HM@Y O Teoc Uuac OUK EOTLY Val Kal OU.
Rom. xiv.1
Judith ii, 4. (? ~ ~ . en ? ~ ‘ € m? Ca ,
m1 Tim. fi 16, 196 rov Oeov yao voc Insove yototoc o ™ ev vty &
n=Actsviii.5 . ’ 55 = \ = \ ’
refi. mo. x
0 ftstry matt, MOY" KnovyOeic, de EMoU Kat TiAovavov Kat Trnoléov,
x. 14. > La ie i \ A > x \ ’ > = , *
pActsi.dref. OUK EYEVETO Val Kal OU, a\\a vat ev auTW YEyOVED
q Matt. xix. 18. 20% ‘ p? , ~ 5) 2m ques or ! S) ‘ \
tice “~ Oca yao emayyed tat Oeov, EV QUTW “TO val, O10 Kal
Heb. xii. 27. ~ > “ ‘ ? BS s a = ‘ 5 , > c -
reeeRev.i7, Ol autou °ToO * apy tw Oem mooc *dofav ov nue.
XXii. 20, :
ssee Rom, xv. 7,9. ch. iv. 15. viii. 19,
18. om o bef zpos D!.
rec (for eariv) eyeveto (corrn to suit the supposed refer-
ence to the past ?), with D3KLN3 rel Chr Thdrt Damasc, fuit syrr: txt ABCDFN! 17
latt goth Cyr Thl-marg.
19. rec yap bef rou cov, with DFKL rel Chr Thdrt: txt ABCR m 17.—om Tov F.
xpiot. bef ino. ACR!.
oiABavov DF.
ins o bef 5° nuwy F, qui per nos D-lat G-lat fuld.
for eyeveto, eati C.
20. ins tov bef @eov Af o 48. 72. 106 Thdrt.
rec (for 510 kat 5 avTov) kat ev
avtw, with D?3KL rel syr Chr Thdrt Thl Ge: ka 3? avrov, omg 3:0, D'(and lat)
Epiph(appy) : txt ABCFN m 17 vulg G-lat Syr copt goth Mcion-e Damase Pelag Fulg
B
ede.
the greek in F.)
ovk Eat. mapa oot val, val (predicate in
Chrys.’s interpretation ; see above), sal
od, o}, GAA vov & A€yels GvaTpemets jmeTa
TavTa, Hstep emi THs os emidnulas eroln-
gas" oval juiv, wh mote Kal ev TE Knpvy-
Matt ToUTO yeyovev. iv ody ph TaiTa
évvoaot, unde OopuvBavTat, pol mords
dé 56 Beds x.7.A. Hom. iii. ToT.
Sé 6 6., drt] a form of asseveration: see
reff. The 6€ follows on the denial of
the preceding question. 6 Noy. |
Our doctrine (which we preached, cf. 6
Adyos 6 to cravpod, 1 Cor. i. 18), to you
is not (present, inasmuch as the cha-
racter of the doctrine was present and
abiding. The pres. has been altered in
rec. to the easier éyévero) yea and nay
(i. e. inconsistent with itself). 19.]
Confirmation of the last verse, by affirming
the same of the great Subject of that doc-
trine, as set before them by Paul and his
colleagues. Xptotdés, personal—not
for ‘doctrina de Christo’—Hr Himseir
is the centre and substance of all Christian
preaching: see 1 Cor. i. 23, and note at
ii. 2. 6 Tov Beod vids is prefixed for
solemnity, and to shew how unlikely fickle-
ness or change is in Christ, being such as
He is. Cf. 1 Sam. xv. 29, ‘the Strength
of Israel will not lie nor repent.’
LtAovavod | sol Pet. v.12; = Silas, see
Acts xviii. 5 and al. He names his com-
panions, as shewing that neither was he
inconsistent with himself, nor were they
inconsistent with one another. The Christ
was the same, whether preached by dif-
ferent persons or by one person at dif-
ferent times. GAAG val év air.
yey.) ‘Christus praedicatus, i. e. pradi-
om 6: bef nuwy CL.
aft dofay ins ka tiwny D3F. (not vulg nor F-lat, but honorem per nos over
eatio nostra de Christo, facta est ne in
Ipso Cnrristo.” Bengel. This seems to me
far better than with De-Wette, al., to
make val the subject, and yéyovey pre-
dicatory. The absence of the art. before
vat, as well as the sense, stamps it as the
predicate. ‘Christ preached as the Son of
God by us, has become yea in Him,’
i. e. has been affirmed and substantiated
as verity by the agency of the Lord Him-
self. 20.) Scat yap... is an inde-
pendent relative clause, as in ref.,—not the
subject answering to év aiT@ 7d val asa
predicate, as E. V.:—For how many so-
ever be the promises of God, in Him is
the yea (the affirmation and fultilment of
them all); wherefore also through Him
is the Amen, for glory to God by our (the
Apostles’) means. This reading, which
has the stronger external authority, may
have arisen from an idea that the clause
had reference to the Amen uttered at the
end of prayers. So Theodoret, ob 5}
xdpw Kal B¢ adtod roy Tis evyapiorias
avT@ mpospéepomey buvov, from which com-
ment De Wette thinks the reading has
sprung. The apparent objection to it is,
that then qpov must mean judy Kal
juov, which without notice it perhaps
could hardly do. In the next verse,
when such is about to be its meaning, we
have first qpaGs odv dpiv, and then in
ver. 22, judas ... jua@y in the general
sense: but here, without any such pre-
paratory notice, 5? juey must signify ‘ by
means of us Apostles,’ ‘by our work in
the Lord.’ Thus a&uhv will be merely a
strengthening of vaf—the affirmation and
completion of God’s promises.
ABCDF
KLN ab
edefg
hkim
nol7
mt.
IIPOS KOPINOIOY®S B.
635
c = ~ ~ , ‘ A
216 8: * BeBarov nuac ouv uw ELC YOlOTOV Kal z Xpisac fRom: xy. 8
mac Oc, 70
. x et a ~ ~ ,
TOV appaBova TOU TVEVMATOC
23 "Kyo of Y waptupa tov Qeov
Kal ’ sppaytoanevoc nuac kat “ d0v0c
“ey talc Kapciaic Naor.
za? ~ aie? ‘ ‘
erikaAoumat él TV
reff.
u Acts iv. 27
reff.
v = John vi.
27. Eph.i.
13. iv. 30.
see Rev. vii.
3&c. Dan.
xii. 4, 9.
> ‘ , e b , ec ~ > , s ? , of
euny Woyny, ore PELOOMEVOS UAW OUKETL nNAGov sic Ko= w= eh. viii. 16
94c ? cf?
4 OvUX OTL
ow9ov.
ahra * y rake a Pd ghee a, ate OES ay
a a oul eoyot Eomev THC xaeac UPLWV ™) yao TLOTEL
e , é h¥ Wal
®eornxare’ LI. 1 exowwa O&
see Acts xxv. ll al.
¢ Rom. xvi. 3 reff. constr., here only.
reff. Tit. it. 14.
21. vuas coy qu C ado:
ins o bef kat xpioas D!.
d , e ~ ~ /
KUOLEVOMED UULw@Y TIC TLOTEWC, x
> k -~
EUaUTW TOUTO,
a=Lukeix.5. Acts xiii. 51.
e = John vi. 46. ch. iii. 5. Phil. iii. 12. iv. 11,17. 2 Thess. iii. 9 only.
f dat., Acts xxi. 21.
h = Acis xx. 16, 1 Cor. il. 2. v. 3. vii.37. Tit. tii. 12 al.
k so Rom. xiv.13. 1 Pet. ii. 19.
reff. Ezek.
XXxvi. 26.
ch.v. 5. Eph.
i. 14 only.
Gen. xxxviii.
| me R as 18, .0
only.
TO [A?) y Rom.i.9 reff.
z = here only.
b Rom. xi. 21 reff.
d Rom. vi. 9), 14 reff.
g=—Rom.v.2. 1 Cor. xv. 1.
i dat., Rom, xiv. 7
lart., Rom. xiy. 13 al.
2 Mace. xi. 25.
2 Pet. iii. 8.
upas ouv vuw B 115: nos nobiscum F-lat, so also b!.
22. om 6 AC'KN! ae mo 17 Syr copt goth Ps-Just Did Chr Damase: kat bef 6 F
tol demid. apaBwova FLX m.
23. for overt, ove F latt Syr copt Ambrst.
24. rns morews bef vuwy DF a latt Ambrst Aug.
21, 22.] construction as in ch. v. 5, which in
form is remarkably similar ; 21.] 6 dé
BeB.... Apas is the (prefixed) predicate,
and Qeds the subject. Bef. eis xpiotdy =
BeB. TH Tiare eis xpiotor, confirmeth us
(in believing) on Christ. xpioas npas,
after Hp. odv tpiv and the kal, cannot
refer (as Meyer, al.) to any anointing of
the Apostles only, but must be taken, as
Chrys., al., of a//, Apostles and Corinthians.
—éuod mpopjras K. lepets x. Baotrets
epyaCbuevos’ Tadta yap Td madaidy éxpl-
ero Ta yevn. Chrys. See 1 John 11. 20.
«Observe the connexion of xpiotds and
xpicas.” Stanley. 22.] oppay. again
cannot refer to the Apostles alone, nor is
ref. John any ground for such a refer-
ence,—but as in the other N. T. reff., to
all,—sealed by the Holy Spirit to the day
of redemption. Kat Sous... .| ‘And
assured us of the fact of that sealing :’ see
Rom. viii. 16. 7. app. 7. mv.| the
pledge or token of the Spirit: genitive of
apposition: the Spirit is the token. app.,
apddoua, Hesych. :—7% em tats wvais Tapa.
Tay avouvmevev SiSouevyn mpokaTaBoArH bmEp
aopadreias, Etymol. in Wetst., where see
examples. “It is remarkable that the
same word })292, is used in the same
sense in Gen. xxxviii. 17, 18, from 21,
to ‘mix’ or ‘exchange,’ and thence to
‘pledge,’ as Jer. xxx. 21; Neh. v. 3. It
was therefore probably derived by the
Greeks from the language of Pheenician
traders, as ‘ tariff ‘cargo,’ are derived, in
English and other modern languages, from
Spanish traders.” Stanley. 23, 24.]
His reason for not coming to them.
23. éwi.... vx.) against my soul,—
“cum maximo meo malo, si fallo.’ Grot.
erddpevos bp.| sparing you,—out
of a feeling of compassion for you.
ovKétt, ‘no more,’ viz. after the first time :
see Prolege. to 1 Cor. § v.6. The follow-
ing odx Sti Kup. seems to be added to
remove any false inference which might
have been drawn from Petdduevos as seem-
ing to assert an unreasonable degree of
power over them. But why buav ths
miotews? He had power over them, but
it was in matters of discipline, not of
faith: over matters of faith not even an
Apostle has power (‘fides enim prorsus ab
hominum jugo soluta liberrimaque esse
debet.’ Calv.), seeing it is in each man’s
faith that he stands before God. And he
puts this strongly, that in matters of faith
he is only a fellow-helper of their joy (the
xapa ev 74 morevev, Rom. xv. 18), in
order to shew them the real department
of his apostolic power, and that, however
exercised, it would not attempt to rule
their faith, but only to secure to them,
by purifying them, joy in believing. . He
proceeds to say, that it was the probable
disturbance of this joy, which induced him
to forego his visit. 7 wiore, dat.
of the state or condition in which: ef.
Rom. xi. 20. So Polyb. xxi. 9. 3, éoTn
TH Savoia.
Cuap. II. 1—4.] FurTHER EXPLANA-
TION ON THE REASON OF THE POSTPONE-
MENT OF HIS VISIT. 1.] 8€ is merely
transitional, and does not imply any con-
trast with what has preceded. épauTa,
not = trap’ éuavré (as most Commentators
636
m =) Cor. iv.
21 reff.
n Matt. xix. ec - oO ’ ay nee
22. Rom. uudac, Kat Tic O
xiv. 15 al.
act., ver. 5 : te
, ver. 6 =
(bis). ch. vii. EMOU 4
8(bis). Eph. g ~
iv. 80 only. oXw
Job xxxi. 39,
© interrog., 1 Cor, vy. 2 reff. see Phil. i. 22.
yg = ch. i. 11. iii. 5.
27 only. t constr., Phil. iv. 11.
IIPOS KOPINOIOY®= B.
madw “ev AdTY TOO Vuac EADELW.
r see Acts xxiv. 15, 20. xxv. 2. ch. vii. 11 al.
] Pet. ii. 12. iii. 16. Ezek. xiv. 4.
it
2 yap eyo ” NuTo
UJ
, es 1 , q a4
eupoalywy pe & PY O Avrovmevog &
An of r ~ r 3 eS. pie £ ‘ s 4
Kal eyoapa TOUTO auTO, Wa pp) éA\Dwv Aborny
ne 1 ul ' Vv ‘ 9: ,
ap @vy EOEL pee KalpeEv, meToWwe é7l TWavTac
p Acts vii. 41 reff. act., here only. Prov. xv. 20.
s John xvi. 21, 22. Phil. ii.
u Acts xxvii. 21.
v constr., Matt. xxvii. 43. 2 Thess. iii. 4. w. dat., ch. i. 9 reff.
Cnar. II. 1. for Se, re D': yap m 17.
rec «Ade bef ev Aurn (with none of
our inss): eA@ecv bef pos uwas DF latt Syr goth Chr Thl: txt ABCKLN rel syr Thdrt
Damasce Cc.
2. [e in e is written over the line, and o inserted before Avrw but erased, by N'.]
rec aft ka: Tis ins eorw, with DFKLN? rel latt Orig Chr Thdrt: om ABCN!
Cyr Damase.
8. rec aft eypawa ins vuiy, with C3DFKLN? rel latt syrr goth Chr Thdrt Pelag: om
ABC'S! 17 am copt arm Damase Ambrst.
copt Damase: txt BDFKLN rel.
aft Avryv ins em Avryv (see Phil ii.
auto bef tovro C Chr Thl: om avto A
tovto avto bef eypava DF latt Pelag Bede.
27) DF a latt syr-w-ast Pelag Bede.
ree (for cxw) exw, with CDF KLN® rel Thdrt Damase: txt ABN! a d 17 Chr Thl e-
comm. (See var read, Phil ii. 27.)
and E. V.), but ‘dat. commodi,’ for my
own sake, as is evident by the considera-
tion in the next verse. Tovto refers
to what follows: see reff. TO pT
madi év Avwy mpds dpas ehGeiv| not
again to come to you in grief. This is
the only fair rendering of the words ; im-
plying, that some former visit had been
in grief. Clearly the first visit Acts xviii.
1 ff, could not be thus described: we
must therefore infer, that an intermediate
unrecorded visit had been paid by him.
On this subject, compare ch. xii. 14;
xiii. 1 and notes: and see Prolegg. to
1 Cor. § v. év Avy] is explained
in vv. 2, 3 to mean (so Kstius, Bengel,
Riickert, Olsh., De Wette, al.) in mutual
grief: ‘I grieving you (ver. 2), and you
grieving me’ (ver. 3): not, as Chrys., al.,
Paul’s grief alone, nor, as Meyer, al., grief
inflicted on them by Paul. 2.| yap,
reason why I would not come to you in
grief: because I should have to grieve those
who formed my proper material for thank-
fulness and joy. éy® has a peculiar
emphasis: ‘If Z cause you grief’... . im-
plying, ‘there are who cause you sufficient.’
kat prefixed to a question denotes
inconsequence on, or inconsistency with,
the foregoing supposition or affirmation :
so Eur. Med. 1388, 6 réxva oldrata!
“untpl ye, col 8 ov.” Kime’ %xtas;
see other examples in Hartung, Partikel-
lehre, i. p. 147. It is best expressed in
English by ‘then :’ who is he then, Xe.
as in E. V. The explanation of Chrys.,
who has been followed by Erasm., Bengel,
Olsh., al., is curious, and certainly incon-
sistent with the context: e/ «al Aura buds,
Xdpw po mapéxere nav TolTw peylorny,
for ag’, ep de F.
étt Sdkveabe bwd THY Tap euod Aeyoue-
vwv. Some of these Commentators refer
the singular to the offender, vv. 5—8.
But however the words may bear the mean-
ing, and however ¢rue the saying might be,
it is pretty clear that it would be beside the
subject : nay, would give a reason the other
way,—why he should come to them.
3.| €ypata tovTo avtd, I put in writing
this same thing, viz. the todro which I
éxpiva, ver. 1: the announcement of my
change of purpose in 1 Cor. xvi. 7, which
had occasioned the charge of fickleness
against him. The theories of Commenta-
tors have given rise to various interpreta-
tions of tovto cité: Chrys. understands,
ch. xii. 21 of this same Epistle :—Beza,
Meyer, al., my blame of you in the first
Epistle :—so Estius, especially 1 Cor. iv.
19, 21 :—Bleek supposes a lost Epistle to
be referred to: De Wette wavers, but is
disposed with Erasm., Riickert, al., to ren-
der avrd Ttotro ‘on this account, as Plat.,
Protag. p. 310, @AX’ adta Tatra Kal vov
fjew: but Meyer rejoins, that this idiom is
foreign to the style of Paul. I imagine
that two meanings are open to us: (1) as
above, the announcement which caused the
charge of fickleness : (2) the reproaches in
the 1st Epistle which grieved them. Of
these, specious as is the latter on account
of the following context, I prefer the former
because of the rodro in ver. 1. ad’
Ov, ellipt. for ard rovtwr, ad’ ay, see retf.
memo.las ....| having trust in (re-
posing trust on) you all, that my joy is(the
pres. expressing the purport of the trust
when felt) that of all of you: i. e. trust-
ing that you too would feel that there was
sufficient reason for the postponement if it
ABCDF
KLNab
edefg
hkim
nol7
2—7.
jpac Ore Henn yaoa TAVTWY VLwWY EOTLY.
modAne OAtpewes Kat * GUVOXNG Kapolac eyoaba Duy
~ , > /
TodA@y Sakpowr, ovx tva
/ ~ a /
wa yvwrte nV eX
, > > ‘
2 \NeNUTNKEV, OUK ELE
s e > ~ 4 ¢ ~
un ®éemBapw, Tavrac vpac.
h? ’ e fear & sk -
erityila auTy N UTO TWY
b ch. i. 12 reff.
e1 Thess. ii. 9. 2 Thess. iii. 8 only t-
reff. h here only +. Wisd. iii. 10 only.
ii. 22. k L Cor. ix. 19 reff. 1
4, wa yvwre bef thy wyarny Fil.
5. [adda, so ABCLN rel. }
6. om 7 vT0 Twy TAELovay F zeth.
interfered with our mutual joy. - Meyer
well observes, that wavtas duds, in spite of
the existence of an anti-pauline faction in
the Corinthian church, is a true example of
the love which mdyta motevet, TAT O
eamter, 1 Cor. xiii. 7. 4.| Explana-
tion (yap) that he did not write in levity of
purpose, but under great trouble of mind,
—not to grieve them, but to testify his love.
éx, of the inducement —8.4, of the condi-
tion: he wrote, out of much tribulation
(inward, of spirit, not outward) and an-
guish (cuvoxh, ‘ angusti@’) of heart, with
(q. ‘ through,’—the state being the vehicle
of the action, see reff.) many tears.
+. aydrny, before the conjunction iva, for
special emphasis: see reff. qrEpLooo-
tépws—‘ than to other churches (?)’—so
Chrys. (referring to 1 Cor. iv. 15; ix. 2),
Theophyl. : Estius thinks, the comparative
is not to be pressed, but understood as in
ver. 7,—<‘ exceedingly.’
5—11.] DiGRESSIVE REFERENCE TO
THE CASE OF THE INCESTUOUS PERSON,
WHOM THE APOSTLE ORDERS NOW TO BE
FORGIVEN, AND REINSTATED. From the
Avwn of the former verses, to him who was
one of the principal occasions of that grief,
the transition is easy. 5.]| 8é, transi-
tional. Now if any one hath occasioned
sorrow (a delicate way of pointing out the
one who had occasioned it), he hath
grieved, not me (not,—‘ not only me,’
which destroys the meaning,—‘ Tam not
the aggrieved person, but you’), but, more
or less (‘partially :’ ret.), that I be not
too heavy on him (refers to amd pépous,
which qualifies the blame cast on the
offender), all of you. The above punctua-
tion and rendering is adopted by Chrys.
(iva wh Bapnow exeivov Toy TopyevoayTa),
Beza, Calvin (but not in_his text), al.,
with Meyer, De Wette. But Theodoret,
Vulg., Luther, Bengel, Wetst, al., join
DPOS KOPINOIOY®S B.
i TEOLTTOTENWC “sic vac.
2 \ehumnkev, adda 4 ard * pepouc, wa
c Acts xx. 21. xxiv. 24. ch.i. 11 al.
f Luke xxii. 38.
637
w = 1 Cor. vii.
drefi, F
«. x Luke xxi. 2
y ola only. Job
Cd ‘
EK ya
XXX. 3.
= Rom. ii.
2\umnOnre, adda * THY aya ny § 37 ren.
’ Ds
, , 2 Tim. ii. 2.
5 Eu Pa TLC 2 ver. 2 reff.
a arrangt. of
words, Jolin
xiii. 29. Acts
xix. 4.
Gifs ‘ g = ¢ , yh
tkKavov Ti TOLOUTW YY Rom. x1. 31.
L t 1 Cor. ix. 15.
k r f (fy 1 ? xiv. 9. Gal.
TAELOVWY, WCTE TOUVVAV= i 10.
d Rom. xi. 25 reff.
g Acts xxii. 22
) i ellips., see 2 Pet.
1 Pet. iii. 9 only t¢. 3 Mace. iii. 22.
Gen. xxx. 15.
(-cov, 2 Mace. vi. 13.
Gal. ii. 7.
for evs, mpos F.
wa un emiBapov F.
(not F-lat.)
emiBapa TavTas Uf. thus: ‘he hath not
grieved me (alone and principally) but only
in part (having grieved you also), that
I may not lay the fault on all of yous,
which I should in this case do, by making
myself the only person aggrieved, and
classing you with the offender. But this
can hardly be; &AAd must be et #1.
Another way is adopted by Mosheim, Bill-
roth, and Olsh.,—to join advras with iva
bh émiB.,—‘S but in part,—that I burden
not all,—you :’-—émiBap@ being variously
understood, either (1) of including you in
the blame of the offender, or (2) as Olsh.,
of extending to them all the burden of this
sorrow ;—he supposes it to be ironically
spoken ;—their highest praise would have
been that alZ had been troubled. But
as Meyer remarks, irony is entirely out of
place in this part of the Epistle. The mean-
ings are well discussed in Stanley. 6. |
ixavey, sc. either eorw or oT. ™@
ro.ovTe | Meyer remarks on the expression
as being used in mildness, not to designate
any particular person : but the same desig-
nation is employed in 1 Cor. v. 5, mapa-
Sodvar Tov ToLOvTOY TH TaTaVvg.
4 emir. atin | This punishment (= em-
tiwuoy, see reff.) : what it was, We are un-
able with certainty to say; but 1 Cor. v.
seems to point to excommunication as form-
ingat least a part of it. But it was not a
formal and public, only a voluntary indivi-
dual abstinence from communion with him,
as is shewn by émd tav mredvev: the
anti-pauline party probably refusing com-
pliance with the Apostle’s command.
ixavev]| enough, not in duration, though
that would be the case, but in magnitude :
sufficient, as having produced its desired
effect, penitence. 7.] so that (con-
seq. on fkayév) on the contrary you
(should) [rather (than continue the pun-
ishment) | forgive and comfort him, Xc.
638
riov Bea oe vac
m = Luke vil.
42, 43. ch.
IPOS KOPINOIOY= B.
a a emantan Kal
rE
ies mara
xii, 18, Col. © ol °rwe TY * WEPLOGOTEDR omy 4 karamoBy © o ® rowouroc.
(bis). L.P.+ 2
(sit xii, 3al.) ® Oro * mapakad@ v vuac " Kupwsat €LC auTOV ayarny. 9tete
n—=ch. i.4, &c. ’
01 Gor. ix. 27 Touro yap Kal Eypaya, ¢ wa yuo TV
* Soxyuny vnov, El
reff.
p = Mark xii. * ste mavra " bancool ere. 10 @ ai TL ™ xapieoOs, Kayo"
40} L. 1 Cor, \
sil, 23 Ta Kal yap eyo 0 “KeXaptonat, el TL ihoie apoo 3 ou vpac,
(36) Theod. ’ ~
qi Gor. xv. 54 7 Ev * roocwry Xoelorou, ly va Hn * rrAcovextnO@uey vO
refi. ,
= w. inf. ~ ee > ‘ , ~ b? ~
"Rom, 2471 TOV oaTava’ OV yao auTOU Ta * vonuara ayvoounmev,
. 2 Macc.
ie 34. s Gal. iii. 15 only. Gen. xxiii. 20. Levit. xxv. 30 only. t Rom. xiv. 9 reff.
Vili. 23. ix. 8.
2 poe iii. 33.
v=ch.
signif., Acts xxvii. 24. Gal. iii. 18.
vii. 2. xii. 17, 18. 1 Thess. iv.6 only. P
only. P.t Baruch ii. 8 only.
u Rom. v. 4 reff.
b Acts xiii. 27.
Gal. v. 10 al.
. Ezek. xxii. 27.
w Acts vii. 39 reff. x act.
ych. iv. 6. Prov. viii. 30. see note. zch.
ach. iii. 14. iv. 4. x. 5. xi.3. Phil.iv. 7
7. om paddov AB Syr Aug Thdrt,;, Damase Thl Gc Ambrst: ins CKLX rel syr
copt Chr, and aft vuas DF goth Thdrt.
9. aft eypava ins vu F 31 copt Chr Thdrt Pelag Bede (vuwv| sic] vobis F and G).
ins mavtwy bef vuwy F. (not F-lat.)
for et, n (4?) AB.
10. rec kat eyw, with C'F KL * rel Thdrt : txt ABC?DN'a m 17 Epiph Chr Damasc.
rec et Ti Kexap. @ kexap., with DKL rel syr Thdrt Thl ec:
txt ABCFR® latt
Damase Jer, Ambrst Pelag Pac,.—om 6 D! eth-pl: # D% m g*(perhaps).
Meyer denies that dezv should be supplied,
and makes éste depend immediately on
ikavov,—‘ enough, for you to Sorgive and
console him. TH] Tepiocotépa ory |
not, as E. V., ‘by overmuch sorrow: but
(as Meyer), by the increase of sorrow
which will come on the continuance of his
punishment. Katatro@y does not set
any definite result of the excessive sorrow
betore them, such as apostasy or suicide,
but leaves them to imagine such possible.
8.| Kup@oat, hardly (as usually un-
derstood) to ratify by a public decree of
the church: if (see above) his exclusion
was not by such a decree, but only by the
abstinence of individuals from his society,
the ratifying their love to him would con-
sist in the majority making it evident to
him that he was again recognized as a bro-
ther. 9.| Reason why they should now
be ready to shew love to him again,—the
end of Paul’s writing to them having been
accomplished by their obeying his order.
For to this end I also wrote: the at sig-
nifying that my former epistle, as well as
my present exhortation, tended to this, viz.
the testing your obedience. Meyer (ed. 2)
explains the «af as implying that other
orders to the same effect were sent by word
of mouth. He alludes beyond doubt to the
former Epistle, ch. v. Yet the ancient Com-
mentators, Chrys., &e., and Erasm., Wolf,
Bengel, al. (not Olsh., as De Wette says),
interpret it of this Epistle: which certainly
is grammatically allowable (see 1 Cor. v. 9,
note), but opposed to the context (see vv.
3, 4, besides the manifest sense here, that
the object of his writing had been accom-
plished). That I might know the proof
of you, whether in all things (emphatic)
ye are obedient. This was that one among
the various objects of his first Epistle,
which belonged to the matter at present in
hand, and which he therefore puts forward :
not by any means implying that he had no
other view in writing it. 10. | Another
assurance to encourage them in forgiving
and reinstating the penitent ;—that they
need not be afraid of lack of apostolic autho-
rity or confirmation of their act from above
—he would ratify their forgiveness by his
sanction. 6 82. . .] ‘ Your forgiveness
is mine ? not said generally (as Mey: er), but
definitely, pointing at the one person here
spoken of and no other. Kaya, scil.
xaplCouat. Then he substantiates this as-
surance, by further assuring them, that his
forgiveness of any fault in this case, if it
takes place, takes place on their account.
Mey er’s (and Riickert’s) rendering of ke-
Xaptopar as passive, disturbs the whole
sense of the passage, besides being incon-
sistent with the N. T. usage of the word,
see reff. év Tpos@Tw xptorod | either
‘in the presence of Christ,’ as in ret. Prov.
(compare Matt. xxi. 42),—so Theodoret,
Erasm., Beza, Calv., Olsh., De W.,—or,
and far better, in the person of Christ,
acting as Christ, in the same way as he
had commanded the punishment, ev 7@
ovdouart Tov Kuplov judy *Incov, 1 Cor.
v. 4: so Vulg., Estius (who argues the
matter at some length), Wetst., al.
11. tva ph...) follows out the 3? Spas
—to prevent Satan getting any advan-
tage over us (the Church generally: or
better, us Apostles), in robbing us of some
of our people,—viz. in causing the peni-
ees
KLN
paces
hklilm
eee
8—14.
12’B\Oev 88 ete Hv Tpwada * eg TO evaryyéAtov Tov
Xptorov, kal * Qvpac pot
7
¢ Pah es © aveow
adda "
Titov tov adeApov pov’
K een AOov
TAaVTOTE
Winer, edn. 6, § 44. 6.
xi. 25 ret.
. gic Makééoviay.
1 Rom. vi. 17 reff.
12. da ro evayyeAtovy F Damasc:
kat Oupa por ny ewypevn FP.
18. for tw, rou N': ev tw D 17.
tent offender to despair and fall away
from the faith. Chrys. remarks: mAcov-
etlay eixédtws exddccer, Stay kal id THY
qmetépwy xKpath. Td yop SC ayaptias
AauBdvev, Wd.ov ate eorr Td mévTar bia
eravolas, ovKETL’ HmeTEepoy yap, ovK exel-
vou, TO OmAov. The word has yet another
propr iety : the offender was to be delivered
over T@ catava eis bAcOpoy THs capKds —
care must be taken lest we TAEOVERTNOGMEV
ind tov o., and his soul perish likewise.
ov yap ...] avtod before Ta vorp.
for emphasis:—such devices, a@s coming
JSrom him, are special matters of observa-
tion and caution to every Christian minis-
ter; much more to him who had the care
of all the churches. See 1 Pet. v. 8.
The personality and agency of: the Adver-
sary can hardly be recognized in plainer
terms than in both these passages.
12-—17.] HE PROCEEDS (after the di-
gression) TO SHEW THEM WITH WHAT
ANXIETY HE AWAITED THE INTELLIGENCE
FROM CORINTH, AND HOW THANKFUL HE
WAS FOR THE SEAL OF HIS APOSTOLIC
MINISTRY FURNISHED BY IT. The only
legitimate connexion is that with vv. 1—4.
Sé serves to resume the main sub-
ject after parenthetical matter: so Herod.
‘vill. 67,—émel @v amikato és Tas "AOhvas
mdyres ovuTot mwAnY Tlaplwy* Tapio: be
SroAeipbevtes ev KiOv@ exapaddxeoy thy
moAcuov KR amoBhoera ot 8€ Aorwoi as
amlkovto és To baAnpoy, k.T.A. See Har-
tung, Partikellehre, i. 174. 12.] To
Troas, viz. on his journey from Ephesus,
Acts xx. 1, 2; 1 Cor. xvi. 5—9. “ The art.
perhaps indicates the region of ‘ the Troad,’
rather than the city.” Stanley. €is TO
evayy. T. xp.| for (the purpose of preach-
ing) the Gospel of Christ. He had been
before at Troas, but the vision of a Mace-
donian asking for help prevented his re-
maining there. He now revisited it, pur-
posely to stay and preach. On his return
to Asia he remained there seven days, Acts
xx. 6—12. kal @Jpas...] and an
opportunity of apostolic action being
IIPOS KOPINOIOYS B.
,
* avewypivne ev Rugtes
f
TW Tvevpart hee, Frw uy evoelv ME
MT ~ os ew |
™ Moran Pevovte muag ev TH YoloTY Kal
h Acts xviii. 18 reff.
639
c Acts xiv, 27,
of Paul.
1 Cor. xvi. 9.
OvK Col. iv. 3. P.
Isa. xlv. 1.
oon i. Y. Vii.
13
- e Ait xxiv. 23
aurolc, oe oe xvii. 16
Xaptc TW g causal dat.,
here only.
THY Xen. Cree:
iv. 5. 9.
anorabausvog
i Acts viii. 5 reff. k = Acts
m Col. ii. 15 only t.
dia Tov evayyeAtov D: propter evangelium \att.
evpickew D!.
afforded me: év kvptw defines the sort of
action implied, and to which the door was
opened. It is remarkable that in speaking
of this journey, though not of the same
place, Paul uses this expression, 1 Cor. xvi.
9. Compare the interesting passage at
Troas on his return from Europe the next
spring, Acts xx. 6—13. 13. géoxnKa
avecty | perf. in the sense of aorist, as ch.
i.9. I had not rest for my spirit (not,
‘in my spirit :’? compare ovx etpotca 7
TeploTepa avdmavolw Tots Toaly avTiis,
Gen. viii. 9). He could not with any
tranquillity prosecute the spiritual duties
opened to him at Troas. TO py Evp. |
by (reason of) my not finding: see reff.
Paul had sent Titus to Corinth, ch. xii.
18, partly to finish the collection for the
saints, but principally to bring intelligence
respecting the effect of the first Epistle.
Probably it had been fixed that they should
meet at Troas. 7. adeX. pov implies
a relation closer than merely that of Chris-
tian brotherhood—my colleague in the
Apostleship. avtots] the disciples
there: understood from the context.
14—17.| Omitting, as presupposed, the
Sact of his having met with Titus in Mace-
donia, and the nature of the intelligence
which he brought,—he grounds cn these a
thanksgiving for that intelligence, and a
magnification of his apostolic office. Itis
evidently beside the purpose to refer this
thanksgiving to the diffusion of the gospel
in Macedonia (as Flatt), or in Troas (as
Emmerling), or to general considerations
(as Bengel):—both the context, and the
language itself (see below), shew that its
reference is to the effects of the apostolic
reproof on the Corinthians. 14. Oprap-
Bevovrt| leading us in triumph, see ref.
Two kinds of persons were led in triumph :
the participators of the victory, and the
victims of the defeat. In Col. the latter
are plainly meant ; here, according to many
Commentators (Calv., Elsner, Bengel, De
Wette, al.), the former : which however is
never elsewhere the reference of the word,
640
MPOS KOPINOIOY®S B.
II. 15—17.
, ‘ ~ , °o ’ ~ ~ , € ~ ’
nm here dee. "oomy THC yvwoEewS © avToU P paveoouvTt Oc Nuwy ev
oun 3. 6.
ma \ , a ~ > ’ , \ ‘24 - ,
Phiisis WAVvTl TOTW. 15 ore xXotcrou 3 evwola eapiv tw Dew * ev
only, Exod. - s ¢ , ais SO ~ t? , l6u 7
v.21. TOLC owlouévoic Kat “ev roic ‘amoAXvpévote, ole
enh. object,
as a = e: : p Rom. i. 19 reff. q Eph. v.2. Phil. iv. 18 only. Ezra vi. 10. r= 1 Cor.
ii. 6. s 1 Cor, xv. 2 reff. t Rom. ii. 12 reff. n 1 Cor. xi. 21 reff.
14. [s of rys is written over the line by XN! or-corr!.]
but it always implies ¢xiwmphare de aliquo.
Wetst. quotes this sense, BaoiAe?s epidu-
Bevoe, Plut. Rom. p. 38 D, and in four other
places :—and the Scholiast to Hor. Od. i.
37. 31, who relates of Cleopatra, ‘ invidens
Privata deduci superbo Non humilis mulier
triumpho,” that she refused the terms of-
fered her by Augustus, saying, od @piau-
BevOhooua. Meyer in consequence under-
stands it in this sense here: who ever
triumphs over us, i. e. ‘ who ceases not to
exhibit us, His former foes, as overcome by
Him :’—and adds in a note, “‘ Remark the
emphatie wdyrore, prefixed, to which the
similarly emphatic ev maytt tém@, at the
end, corresponds. God began His triumph
over the juects at their conversion ;—over
Paul, at Damascus, where he made him a
servant, from being an enemy. ‘This tri-
umph he ever continues, not ceasing to
exhibit before the world these His former
foes, by the results of their present service,
as overcome by Him. This, in the case
before us, was effected by Paul, in that (as
Titus brought him word to Macedonia) his
Epistle had produced such good results in
Jorinth.” And I own that this, notwith-
standing that De W. objects to it as a
strange way of expressing thankfulness for
deliverance from our anxiety (but zs if so
to those who look beneath the surface ? In
our spiritual course, owr only true triumphs
are, God’s triumphs over us. His defeats
of us, are our only real victories), yet ap-
pears to me to be the only admissible ren-
dering. Wemust not violate the known
usage of a word, and invent another for
which there is no precedent, merely for the
sake of imagined perspicuity. Such is that
of ‘to make to triumph’ (Beza, Estius,
Grot., al.) :—padntevew, Matt. xxviii. 19,
and BaotAevew, 1 Kings viii. 22, are not
cases in point, their sense being, to ‘make
a disciple,’ ‘to make a king,’—whereas that
required for @piauBevew, would be, ‘ t7i-
umphatorem facere. xopevew, for ‘to
make to dance,’ is more to the point : ofarw
KaTamavicouey povoas, al mw’ exdpevoay,
Eur. Here. Fur. 688,—rdxa 0° ey waAAov
xopevow, ib. 873 :—but the Apostle’s own
usage in ref. Col., in my mind, decides the
question. See also the following context.
év T® xp., as usually, in our con-
nexion with, ‘as members of, Christ:
not, ‘by Christ.’ TH dopyv| The
similitude is not that of a sacrifice, but
still the same as before: during a triumph,
sweet spices were thrown about or burnt
in the streets, which were @uu:auatwv
mAnpets, Plut. Aumil. p. 272 (cited by
Dr. Burton). As the fact of the triumph,
or approach of the triumphal procession,
was made known by these odours far and
wide, so God diffuses by our means, who
are the materials of His triumph, the sweet
odour of the knowledge of Christ (who is
the Triumpher, Col. ii. 15). TAS
yveo.] genit. of apposition: the odour,
which, in the interpretation of the figure,
is the knowledge. avTov,—xpioToo,
ef. next verse. 15.] Here the pro-
priety of the figure is lost, and the source
of the odour identified with the Apostles
themselves. For we are to God a sweet
savour of Christ (gen. object., of that which
was diffused by the odour, viz. the Anow-
ledge of Christ. ‘ Instar fragrantis cujus-
dam unguenti, seu florum aut herbarum,
famam nominis ejus, velut bonum et sua-
vem odorem, .. . . spargimus apud omnes.”
Estius) among those who are being saved,
and among those who are perishing (cw(.
and amoAA., see note, 1 Cor. i. 18). Kav
cdé(wytal tives, Kav GmoAAvwyTa, Td
evaryyéAtov sever Exov Thy oikelay apeTHy,
K. Hmets méevouey ToUTO bytes Omep eouer,
Theophyl., mainly from Chrys., who pro-
ceeds nal Kkabdrep Td pas, Kav cKoTICy
Tous aodevets, das eott, Kaltor oKoTiCov"
k. 7d méAt, Kav mikpoy F Tots vooovat,
yAuKY Thy piow eorly ottw Kal Td evay-
yéAwov evades ott, Kay droAAtwyTal
Ties amorovvres. Hom. vy.
16 a.| to the one (the latter) an odour
arising from death and tending to death:
to the others (the former) an odour
arising from life and tending to life.
The odour was, CHRIST,—who to the
unbelieving is Death, a mere announce-
ment of a man crucified,—and working
death by unbelief: but to the believing,
Life, an announcement of His Resurrec-
tion and Life,—and working in them life
eternal, by faith in Him. The double
working of the Gospel is set forth in
Matt. xxi. 44; Luke ii. 34; John ix. 39.
16 b.| In order to understand the
connexion, we must remember that the
ABCDF
KLN a b
edefg
hkim
nol7
REE) 4.
IIPOX KOPINOIOY®S B.
641
\ n? Ct eat , v? , u 7? Ven 2 was A
nev “oopy ex Oavarov ‘ee Oavarov, “oic d& " Oonn EK ¥ = Acts xi. 18.
= coe , ‘ow . = , e ys Aa
Zwnc ‘ere Cwnv. Kat moog Tavta Tic “tkavoc; 7 op ret, =
, » c xy che Vy , ‘ z , ~ Wisd. xviii.
yap eomev we * ot * woot * KaTnAEvOVTEC TOV AGyov TOU 12, Xen.
z ~ ’ ’ ros b 2 , > Sit Van, € ’ ~ aC ys
Beov, adr ta eucowvelac, axk mer exe Gsou, oe
Bie age Fras] Ocov ° év Xorory Danvasen
reff.
y here only t.
see note.
e é x ‘i ;
III. 1" Apyoucba madw EAUTOUC ' cuvioTravew eg ewer eT
29. Jobni. 14. bch. i, 12 reff. € Rom. iv. 17 reff. d= 1 Thess. iv. 1.
€ Ist pers., Rom. viri. 23. xv.1. 1 Cor. xi. 31. ch. i. 9. iv. 2,5. x. 12, 14. 1 Thess. ii.8. f (-avecw)
ch. v. 12. x. 12, 18 only. see Rom. iii. 5 reff.
16. ocuny (twice) D.
Th! Ke latt-ff :
corrd) &}.
17. for woAAo, Aowror DFL def
cetert aut plurimi G-lat. ahra B.
om 2nd add’ F fuld(and demid) syr Iren-int.
mov, With DFKL rel Bas Chr, Thdrt Damasc :
Chr-ms.
Damase.
om tov bef @eou (to corresp with ex Oeov before :
significant as giving solemnity) ABCD'!&! m 17 Bas:
rec om ex (twice), with DFKL rel latt syrr Thdrt, Cyr,
ins ABCX m 17 copt «th Clem Orig,
Dial Nys. (@nv (Ist; but
@ hin syrr Chr Thdrt.: plurimi vulg(and F-lat) ;
om ws F latt copt goth Iren-int lat-fi.
rec (for katevayTt) kaTevo-
txt ABCN! m 17 Did
but the art here is
ins D3FKLN? rel Chr Thdrt
evwriv >:
Cuap. III. 1. for cumortavew, cvvictay BD! 17: cumorava F Thdrt: txt ACD2-3
KLNX rel.
purpose of vindicating his apostolic com-
mission is in the mind of Paul, and
about to be introduced by a description
of the office, its requirements, and its
holders. This purpose already begins to
press into its service the introductory and
apologetic matter, and to take every op-
portunity of manifesting itself. In order
then to exalt the dignity and shew the
divine authorization of his office, he asks
this question: And (see remarks at ver.
2) for (to accomplish) these things (this
so manifold working in the believers and
unbelievers,—this emission of the evw-
dia xpictrovd every where), who is suffi-
cient? He does not express the answer,
but it is too evident to escape any reader,—
indeed it is supplied in terms by ch. iii. 5,
ovxX StL ikavot eopev Aoyloacbal Ti ap’
éaut@y ws ée& éavT@y, GAN % tkavdtns
Tu@v eK TOU Oeod, Meyer remarks that
mpos Tavta is put first, in the place of
emphasis, to detain the attention on its
weighty import, and then t/s purposely
put off till the end of the question, to
introduce the interrogation unexpectedly ;
as in Herod. v. 33,—o0) 5€ Kk. Tot’Toor
Toit mpnyuaot th éort;—Plat. Symp.
p. 204, 6 ép@v Tav Kada@v Tl épa ;
17.] ot mwoddot here points definitely at
those false teachers, of whom he by and
by, ch. x.—xii., speaks more plainly.
éopev . . . kamnAevovtes| are not in the
habit of adulterating (the word xd-
mnados (Sir. xxvi. 29] originally signifies
any kind of huck ster or vender, but espe-
cially of wine,—and thence, from the fre-
quency of adulteration of wine, karnrcbw
Vou. II.
rec (for 1st }) «, with AKL rel Chr Damasc: txt BCDFX! af m 17
implied to adulterate: in Isa. i. 22, we
have of kdmnAot cov ployouvot Toy oivov
vdaTt: in the Etymol. (Wetst.) Kdandos,
6 oivoréAns ...6 8 AicxvdAos Ta SdAta
mayTa KaAee Kanda’ ‘KdmwnAa mpode-
pov texyjuata:’ in Lucian, Hermotim.
59 (ib.), Bre Kal PiAdcopot arodidovrat
Ta pabjuata, &smep of KdmNAoL, KEpa-
oduevol ye of moAdAol, kal SodAdouyTes,
Kal KakoweTpovytes. See many more
examples in Wetst. The same is ex-
pressed ch. iv. 2, by 80A0dvres 7. Ad-yor
7. Oeov) the word of God, but as (‘ut qui’)
from sincerity (the subjective regard of
the speakers), but as from God (the objec-
tive regard—a dependence on the divine
suggestion) we speak before God (with a
consciousness of His presence) in Christ
(not ‘in the name of Christ, Grot., al.,
nor ‘concerning Christ, — Beza, al.: nor
‘according to Christ, Calv.: but as usual,
in Christ; as united to Him, and mem-
bers of His Body, and employed in His
work).
Cu. III. 1— VI. 10.] Beainnine WITH
A DISOWNING OF SELF-RECOMMENDATION,
THE APOSTLE PROCEEDS TO SPEAK CON-
CERNING HIS APOSTOLIC OFFICE AND HIM-
SELF AS THE HOLDER OF IT, HIS FEEL-
INGS, SUFFERINGS, AND HOPES, PARTLY
WITH REGARD TO HIS CONNEXION WITH
THE CORINTHIANS, BUT FOR THE MOST
PART IN GENERAL TERMS. 1— 3.
He disclaims a spirit of self-recommenda-
tion. 1.] apx., are we beginning?
maAwy, alluding to a charge probably made
against him of having done this in his
former epistle : perhaps i in ae sec-
T
642 IIPOS KOPINOIOY®S B. Ill.
. 7 ~ ’ ~ a
g Rom, xvi. 2 pn § xpuZouer we “twee | ovotatikwy émiotoA@y 7 00¢
h = i Cor. iv. € Dac ’ ee (Sieh c ~ ’
5 ret vpac, n UMwY : n EemtoToAn Ld VULEIC EOTE,
Arrian,
boc 3, ey yeyoanmern ev Taig Kapolatc Naar, bios: Kal
“ e Dis, LUK
x.Bonlyt. AVAYLWWSKOMEYY UTO TAVTwWY avbooruwr, pavepovmevor
1 Mace. xiii. 5 . a - nt oe el ie k-?
1 Atonlte N Ore ate emisroAn Xetsrov ° Stakovnfeica up mor, ey-
30 (reff.). : > ’ ‘ , ~ ~
mo Rim. 119 yeypaupevn ov ®péXam, adda twredvmate *Aeov “Covroc,
ret.
cot , v\ 9 r
Pa gone 18: oux ev “ wAakiv ° ABivare, aAvX’ Ev
0 pass., ch. viii. 19, 20. act., 2 Tim.i. 18. 1 Pet. i. 12. iv. 10.
q Acts xiv. 15 note. r here bis. Heb. ix. 4 only.
only. Exod. 1.c. al. t Rom. vii. 14 reff.
vss Thdrt lat-fi. for ws, wsrep AD’ m. rec at end adds ocvatatixwy, with
DKL rel syrr goth Thdrt-ms Damasc; ovoratixwy emorodwy F, the words commenda-
ticiis epistolis are written over the greek in F (as also in G, the latin being there always
so written): om ABCN 17 vulg(and F-lat) copt arm Chr Thdrt(exe ms,) Ambrst. (cvv-
DF: -cratixas D'.)
2. for rayvtwy, Tw F. (omnibus vulg with F-lat.)
38. ins kat bef eyyeypaumevn B a? 677.74 vulg arm Jer Pelag Bede. rec Kapdias
(see note), with FK rel latt Syr copt goth Orig Dial Eus Chr Cyr, Thdrt Damase Iren-
int Hil: txt ABCDLN rel syr Qe.
wrakiv Kapolaic : oac-
p= 2John 12. 3 John 13 only t.
Exon. xxxi.18. s John ii. 6, Rev. ix. 20
xxvili. 21. The plural seems to be used,
as so often in this Epistle,—see e. g. ch.
tion, and in some passages of 1 Cor. v., ix.
and xiv. 18; xv. 10 al.: see our ch. x. 18.
4 ph xp-] Or do we want (the
ph gives an ironical turn to the question,
which is more strongly expressed in the
rec. reading ef u4,—‘ unless it be thought,
that’ ....) as some (so tives, 1 Cor. iv.
18; xv. 12; Gal. i. 7, of the teachers who
opposed him. Probably these persons had
come recommended to them, by whom
does not appear, whether by churches or
Apostles, but most likely by the former (et
bug@v), and on their departure requested
similar recommendations from the Corinth-
ian church to others), letters of recommen-
dation to you (emor. cvorartinal are fully
illustrated by Suicer, Thes. in voce. Among
other passages he cites the 13th canon of
the council of Chalcedon : Eévous KAnN-
pikovs kai ayvdarous ev ET Ep méAEL
dixa TVTTATiKGY ypop.LdTwvy Tov idiov
émiokdmou nde bAws pndauod Aevroup-
yetv; and Epist. eclxxi. [al. xi.] of Basil,
vol. iv. p. 417, which has this inscription :
EvceBly étalpw ovotatixh em) Kupioxd
mpeaButéepw, “ KEusebio sodali commenda-
titia Cyriaci presbyteri”) or from you?
The rec. cvoraricn@y at the end, as well
as ouvot. émiatod@y, have probably been
glosses, inserted (the ancient MSS. having
no stops) to prevent ef bu. being taken
with 4 émor. following. 2.) Ye are
our epistle (of commendation), written on
our hearts (not borne in our hands to be
shewn, but engraven, in the consciousness
of our work among you, on our hearts.
There hardly can be any allusion, as Olsh.
thinks, to the twelve jewels engraven with
the names of the tribes and borne on the
breast-plate of the High Priest, Exod.
vil. 3, 5,—of Paul himself only), known
and read (a play on yw. and avayw., as at
ch. i. 13) by all men (because all men are
aware, what issue my work among you
has had, and receive me the more favour-
ably on account of it. But ‘all men’ in-
cludes the Corinthians themselves; his
success among them was his letter of re-
commendation ¢o them as well as to others
Jrom them), 8.] manifested to be
(that ye are) an epistle of Christ (i. e.
written by Christ,—not, as Chrys. al.,
concerning Christ :—He is the Recom-
mender of us, the Head of the church and
Sender of us His ministers) which was
ministered (aor.) by us (i.e. carried about,
served in the way of ministration by us as
tabellarii—not, as Meyer and De W. and
al., written by us as amanuenses: see
below), having been inscribed, not with
ink, but with the Spirit of the living
God (so the tables of the law were yeypau-
fevat T@ SaxTvAw Tov Ocod, Exod. xxxi.
18), not on stone tables (as the old law,
ib.), but on (your) hearts, (which are)
tables of flesh (Meyer calls the reading
Kapdlus a mistake of the pen. But surely
internal as well as external evidence is
strong in its favour, the correction to kap-
dias being so obvious to those who found
the construction harsh), The apparent
change in the figure in this verse requires
explanation. The Corinthians are his Epis-
tle of recommendation, both to themselves
and others ; an Lpistle, written by Christ,
ministered by Paul; the Epistle tlself being
now the subject, viz. the Corinthians, them-
selves the writing of Christ, inscribed, not
ABCDF
KLNab
edefg
hklm
nol7
2—6.
kivac. 4" [leroifnow 8
pitrou :, To00¢
¥oytoac8ai re
XQ ,
rov Ocov' >”
Z ap
b? - ~
eK ne Acov,
Sa nenc,
cet , c ~
LKAVOTNG Tuwy
. U ~
*Staxovove fKawne !
IIPO2 KOPINOIOY® B.
?
TOLAUTHY
>
OU
aes ee e x
EAUTWVY WC
6 a \
oc a
a 4
— i 15 reff.
EX OueV dua Tou Se Ramee
es
EOMEV wend reff.
e Xch. ii. 16.
1.Cor. xv. 19
reff,
“Ore *ikavol
>e& *gautwyv, addr
“ikavwoey nuac ¥ pay Ger x
ou ” ypauuaros ada z Lake; xii. 57.
30.
john v. 19.
h me eS Sh i
TWVEVUATOC TO yao ypauma aToKTévvel, TO oe 2 TEU x. 18. xvi. 13
al.
a Ist pers., ver. b =ch,i. 1). ii. 2. c here only t. d Col. i. 12 only t.
e = Eph. iii. 7. col. i. 23 al. f 1 Cor. xi. 25]. Heb. viii. 8 (frown Jer. xxxviii. [xxxi.J 31). ix. 15.
g Rom. ix. 4 reff. h Rom. ii. 2Y. vii. 6. i (-Krevy-) Matt. x. 28. Mark xii. 5. Luke xii.
4. Rev. vi. 11.
4. for exouev, exw A.
5. AoyiLecOar CDF 1 n.
rec af’ eavtwy bef Aoyioacda Tt, with KL rel syr Did
Chr Thdrt Damasce : bef :xavor eowev BCR copt arm Bas Antch: bef ecuev m (attempts
to connect txavor and ap eavtwy): om 17. 139 Syr Aug, :
for 2nd eavtwy, avtwy BF.
om tt B. om ws C.
txt ADF latt goth lat-ff.
6. ree amoxrewe:, with B b d Orig: amoxteves ACDL rel Orig-ms (amoxréver D3L) :
txt FEN ef 1m? 17 Did Chr-2-mss.
on tables of stone, but on hearts, tables of
flesh. The Epistle itself, written and worn
on Paul’s heart, and there known and read
by all men, consisted of the Corinthian
converts, on whose hearts Christ had written
it by His Spirit. I bear on my heart, as a
testimony to all men, that which Christ
has by His Spirit written in your hearts.
On the tables of stone and of flesh, see
Exod. as above; Prov. ili. 3; vil. 3; Jer.
xxxi. 31—34, and on the contrast, also
here hinted at in the background, between
the heart of stone and the heart of flesh,
Ezek. xi. 19; xxxvi. 26.
4—11.] His honour of his apostolic
office was no personal vanity, for all the
ability of the Apostles came from God, who
had made them able ministers of the new
covenant (4—6), a ministration infinitely
more glorious than that of the old dis-
pensation (7—11). 4.| The con-
nexion with the foregoing is immediate : he
had just spoken of his consciousness of
apostolic success among them (which asser-
tion would be true also of other churches
which he had founded) being his world-
wide recommendation. It is this confidence
of which he here speaks. Such confidence
however we possess through Christ to-
wards God: i.e. ‘it is no vain boast, but
rests on power imparted to us through
Christ in regard to God, in reference to
God’s work and our own account to be
given to Him: 5.] not that (i. e. <I
mean not, that’ .. .:—not, ‘not because,’
as Winer in his former editions: see edn.
6, § 61. 4. f) we are of ourselves able to
think any thing (to carry on any of the
processes of reasoning or judgment, or
faith belonging to our apostolic calling:
there is no ellipsis, ‘any thing great,’ or
‘good, or the like) of ourselves, as if
from ourselves (aq éavr. and é& €avr. are
parallel : the latter more definitely pointing
to ourselves as the origin),—but our ability
(Aoyicac0a: ta mdvra) is from (as its
source) God, 6.] Who also (= ‘qui
idem ;? so Eur. Bacth. 572, tatta kal
Kadi Bpio” avrdéy, ‘hee eadem illi expro-
bravi. See Hartung, Partikellehre, i. p.
132) hath enabled us as ministers of the
(or, as Stanley, ‘““a:” but not necessarily
from the omission of the art.: cf. Heb.
xii. 24, kal diaOhens véas weoltyn “Inoov)
new Covenant (i. e. the gospel, Eph. iii. 7 ;
Col. i. 23, as distinguished from the law:
see 1 Cor. xi. 25; Gal. iv. 24.:—the mAdkes
AlOivar and odpkwa: are still borne in
mind, and lead on to a fuller comparison of
the two covenants),—not of (governed by
diaxdvous, not by kawis d1a0.—‘minis-
ters, not of’ ..... ) letter (in which, viz.
in formal and literal precept, the Mosaic
law consisted), but of Spirit (in which, viz.
in the inward guiding of the Spirit of God,
the gospel consists. Bengel remarks:
‘Paulus etiam dum hee seripsit, non
liters, sed spivitus ministerium egit. Moses
in proprio illo officio suo, etiam cum haud
scripsit, tamen in litera versatus est’): for
the letter (mere formal and literal precept,
of the law) killeth (as in Rom. vii.,—brings
the knowledge of sin, its guilt and its
punishment. The reference is not, as
Meyer, to natural death, which is the
result of sin even where there is no law ;
nor as Chrys. to the law executing punish-
ment), but the Spirit (of the gospel, i. e.
God’s Holy Spirit, acting in and through
Christ, Who éeyévero cis wvetpa Lwororodv,
1 Cor. xv. 45. See also below, ver. 17)
giveth life (not merely life eternal, but
the whole new life of ane man of God, see
Rom. vi. 4, 11; viii. 2,10). On the his-
ete 2
644
- “ = id A Ca ’ - va ,
ee © Cwomolel. Tt oe n Staxovia tov Qavarov év
1 Actsi. 17 al.
m here only t.
n Luke iy. 32
Elk elec
XXViii. 4.
o 1 Cor. xv. 43
reff.
p = Acts xxii.
ll ng
epp., here
2 and ver. 13
only.
10 reff.
(Exon.
Xxxiv. 29,
30.) |
rl Cor. i. 28
reff. part.
pres.s ib. ii. 6.
Kpicewc dota, * roddw
xi. 13. Judg. ix. ¥.
7. for @avarov, Geov &!: txt N-corr!.
IIPOS KOPINOIOY®S B.
t no? ) Lee a
Acts i. MATOC Eotat Ev “P oon :
via tne * dukatocbyne 0g).
sch. vii. 3onlyt. Numb. xiii. 33 alias in Hexapl.
u = Rom. iii. 7 reff. constr., ch. viii. 7 (wearer, K.-T.A.). Sir. xi. 12.
Hit.
G2 ‘ c iS , - s
él yao 1 takovila T1}¢ KaTa-
‘pardov “ reoisoever 1) '* Stako-
\ P
10 pal yao ov ~ 8ed86facrat
t Rom. v. 9, 10 reff.
v see ch. xi. 15. w = Kom.
rec (for ypaumatt) ypaupacww (see note),
with ACD?°KLX rel latt(litteris aut littera G-lat) syrr copt goth Orig Mac Chr Thdrt
Damase lat-ff: evyeypaupeyn 17: txt BD'F.
for evret., TeTuTwpevn F. rec
ins ev bef Ac@ors, with D?-3K LN? rel vss Orig, Mac Chr Damase lat-ff: om ABCD'FR!
17 G-lat Orig, 5, Did Epiph Thdrt Aug,.
for Tov, avtou(but av erased) XN}.
8. for ovx., ovd: &'(but x written above by N! or-corr').
9. for Ist n, 7m ACD!FN a 17 am syrr Orig Cyr Ruf Orig-int Ambrst Sedul: txt
BD? 3KL rel vulg(and F-lat) G-lat copt goth Mac Chr Thdrt Damase Aug Pelag.
aft dofa ins ect D'F vss lat-ff.
Ambrst: abundavit D-lat.
mepiccevoet D k o syrr Mac, abundabit G-lat
rec ins ev bef So0én ( prob from ev 5. above, ver 8, and
below, ver 11), with DFKLN? rel latt syr copt goth Mac Ambrst: om ABC 17 tol Syr.
—bota XN}.
10. rec (for ov) ovde (mistake, from de being the first syllable of the next word), with
h latt Thdot-aneyr (ovde yap) Thl-ed: txt ABCDFKLX rel syrr copt goth Orig, Mac
tory of this meaning of ypduua, see
Stanley’s note. 7—11.| And this
ministration is infinitely more glorious
than was that of Moses under the old
Covenant. He argues from the less to
the greater: from the transitory glory of
the killing letter, to the abiding glory of
the life-giving Spirit. 7.| But (pass-
ing to another consideration, —the compa-
rison of the two S:akoviat) if the minis-
tration of death in the letter (of that
death which the law, the code of literal and
formal precept, brought in. This not
having been seen, it was imagined that
ypdumate belonged to évyrerutwuévyn, and
hence it was altered, as more according to
fact, into ypduuwacw, the received reading.
No art. is required before ypduuart, as
Meyer objects,—on account of the prepo-
sition év) engraven on stones (it seems
strange that €vrer. Al@. should be the pre-
dicate of d:axovla; but the ministration
is the whole putting forth of the dispensa-
tion, the purport of which was summed up
in the decalogue, written on stones. The
decalogue thus written was, as in ver. 3,
StakovnPeioa br) Mwvoéws) was [con-
stituted | in glory (as its state or accom-
panying condition :—the abstract as yet,
to be compared with the glory of the
other :—the concrete, the brightness on
the face of Moses, is not yet before us), so
that the sons of Israel could not fix their
eyes on (they were afraid to come nigh
him, Exod. xxxiv. 30—so that uw} divacGat
is not said of physical inability, but of
inability from fear) the face of Moses, on
account of the glory of his face, which
was transitory (‘transitoria et modici
temporis,’ Estius ;—supernaturally con-
ferred for a season, and passing away when
the occasion was over), how shall not
rather the ministration of the Spirit
(=7 Siakovia ths Cwis ev mvedmarti, as
formally opposed to the other:—but not
so expressed, because the Spirit is the
principle of life, whereas the Law only
led to death) be (future, because the glory
will not be accomplished till the manifesta-
tion of the kingdom : according to Billroth,
‘esse invenietur si rem recte perpenderi-
mus :’ or as Bengel, ‘loquitur ex prospectu
veteris Testamenti in novum :’ but I much
prefer the above, as giving the contrast, by
and by expressed, between 7d katrapyov-
pevoy and 7d mévoyv) in glory? 9.]
For (an additional reason ‘a minori ad
majus’) if the ministration of condemna-
tion was (or, is) glory (the change of
7 Staxovia to the dat. has been made ap-
parently because a difficulty was found in
the ministration itself being glory), much
more does the ministration of righteous-
ness abound in glory. The ministration
of condemnation, because (Rom. vii. 9 ff.)
the Law detects and condemns sin :—the
h ,
yeoaupare A
, / , - ’ - a A ,
™ eyreruTm@pevn AOotc eyern On Beg? doy, were py Ov- cdetg
> ' A e ‘ , . , s ,
vaoBat Tarevicat trove viove IooanXd etc TO Tpocwrov nol7
L \ N P S4£ - , > - \ of
Movoiwe dia thv ? d0Sav tov mpocwzov avtov tH ‘ Kar-
, 8 ~ , \ aArX c DS t} ~ Pp ,
apyoupévny, ° Tw¢ ovxt wadrXov n dtakovia tov ? rvev-
BCDF
LNab
7—18.
N , ’ , ~
TO * dedokacpévon » ev ToUTY) TY)
Enc, ‘ ToAw *nadXov To
5 , ’ , ree ae ’
ovv totavtny eAmioa ToAAY Tappnoi * xpoueba, |
ov “xalarep Mavone erie | KadAuppa emt TO 7 pocwmov
BadXévtes, ch. xi. 23. -GodAN, ch. i. 8.)
i. 23, 25 (from Isa. x1, 8) al. fr.
Vii. 4. xvi. 29 only.) Acts ii. 29 al4,
i. 20 al. dch.i. 17.
Bas Chr-2-mss Jer, Aug.
F°GR g m Damase, jvexey 17.
ministration of righteousness, because
(Rom. i. 17) therein the righteousness of
God is revealed and imparted by faith.
10.] For (substantiation of the
foregoing moAAG waAdov) even that which
has been glorified (viz. the Siak. T. Kata-
Kpto., Which was ev 6d6&n by the brightness
on the face of Moses) is not glorified (has
lost all its glory) in this respect (i. e.
when compared with the gospel,—xata
Tov THS ouyKpicews Adyov, Chrys. De
W. takes ev r. TG pép. with dedoéacuevor,
‘that which was in this particular glori-
fied,’ viz. in the brightness on the face of
Moses :—but that would more naturally
be 7d ev to’tTw TH péper Sedotacmevoy :—
as it now stands, I cannot divide other-
wise than ov deddéaora | 7d Sedotaouévoy
| €v to’tm Te wéper. Meyer takes 7d
ded0é. as abstract, and éy TovTw TH méepet
as pointing to the concrete: ‘that which
has been glorified [general and abstract]
has in this particular department [con-
crete, viz. the Sak. 7. Kkataxplo. which
was dedofaou.| no glory: q. d. the glori-
fied is unglorified in this case. This may
certainly be, and is ingenious: but the
other is simpler) on account of (i. e. when
we take into consideration) the surpassing
glory (viz. of the other S:axovia:—pre-
sent, because spoken of qualitatively).
11.] For (a fresh ground of superiority in
glory of the Christian over the Mosaic
ministry) if that which is transitory (not
here, as above, the brilliancy of the visage
of Moses, for that was the Sdéa, but the
ministry itself, the whole- purpose which
that ministry served, which was paren-
thetical and to come to an end) was with
glory (da, see reff., of the condition or
circumstances in which a thing takes place),
much more is that which abideth (the
everlasting gospel) in glory. Lstius says,
“per gloriam (8:4 8.) innuere videtur
aliquid momentaneum ac transitorium : in
gloria, aliquid manens et stabile.” Simi-
larly, Olshausen : but it is quite in the style
of our Apostle to use various prepositions
to express nearly the same relation,—see
IIPOS KOPINOIOY= B.
y es ELVEKEV ™¢ * Umeo-
BadXotone SdEnc. Meat rer TO baaiig aos ale * oud os"
> uévor,
c (Gospp. mappneig, Mark viii. 32.
Paul, ch. vii. 4 al6.
e Rom. iv. 6 reff.
rec (for ew.) evexev, with CF!KL rel Orig: txt ABD
645
x Exon.
xxxiy. 30,
y ch. ix. 3.
Col. ii. 16
(1 Pet. ie 16
v.r.) only.
Segeiney zach, 1x.14.
Eph. i. 19.
ii. 7. iii. 19
only. P.t
2 Mace. iv.
13 al. (bmep-
b = Heb. xii. 27. 1 Pet.
John vii 13 al6. év m., John
Fieb. iii. 6 al3. 1 John ii. 28 al3. only. Prov.
fhere 4times only. Exop. xxxiy.33—35.
Pepe Soty.
3 kal
a= ch. ii 4. Vi '7.
Rom. iii. 22, 30; v. 10.
12, 13.| From a consciousness of this
superior glory of his ministration, the
Apostle uses great plainness of speech,
and does not, as Moses, use a vail.
12. édwida] viz. that expressed by éorax
ev 54&n, ver. 8: the hope of the ultimate
manifestation of exceeding glory as be-
longing to his ministration. Tap-
pnoia| mpds tiva, eiwé wou mpds Toy Gedy,
})} mpts tovs mabntds; mpbs vuas Tovs
paOntevomevous, nol’ Ttovtéoti, eT
eAcevbepias muvtaxov pbeyyducba, ovdev
GmokpumTéuevol, ovdev vmroaTeAAdmevol,
ovdev bdopdmevot, GAAG Tapas A€yorTes:
kal ov Sedolkauey mr TAHEWMEY bay Tas
ders, Kabamrep Moves Tas “lovdalwy,
Chrys. 18.] kat ov, and (do) not
(place a vail on our face,—so Mark xv.
8, 6 bxAos Hpkato aiteicOa | morety| Kaas
del é€mole: avtots. See Winer, edn. 6,
§ 64, i. 1 b.) as Moses placed a vail on
his face, in order that (see below) the
sons of Israel might not look on the
termination of the transitory (viz. his
diaxovia, see ver. 11, but spoken of as
dedotacuevyn: ‘the glory of his ministra-
tion’). A mistake has been made with re-
gard to the history in Exod. xxxiv. 33 —35,
which has considerably obscured the un-
derstanding of this verse. It is commonly
assumed, that Moses spoke to, the Israel-
ites, having the vail on his face ; and this
is implied in our version—‘ till Moses had
done speaking with them, he put a vail on
his face.” But the LXX (and Heb.) gave
a different account: ka) éredy katéravorev
addy mpds avrovs, ereOnkey em) Td Tpds-
wrov av’Tod KdAuuua. He-spoke to them
without the vail, with his face shining and
glorified :—when he had done speaking, he
placed the vail on his face: and that, not
because they were afraid to look on him,
but as here, that they might not look on
the end, or the fading, of that transitory
glory ; that they might only see it as long
as it was the credential of his ministry,
and then it might be withdrawn from their
eyes. Thus the declaration of God’s will
646
g constr., =
’ ~ g SN 4 x
i Thess. fi.9, 2UTOV “woe TO MN
. . , = ih ,
ners) ro 'réX\og tov " KaTapyoupevou.
i see Rom. x. 4. } , > ~
kRom.xi.7 yonmaTa avToy.
ci.
Ich. ii. 11 reff.
m = Rom. viii. 22 reff.
IIPOS KOPINOIOY®S B.
LEE
h? ' N Ge r) N ?
aTévioat TOVC VLOVC Iooand 1c
‘
ar “exwow0n Ta
13. rec eavtov, with DKN rel Chr Thdrt: txt ABCFL Frag-coisl ae d m 17 Chr-
z-mss Damase Thl (We. om to D'F.
Ambrst Bede. (finem is written over TeAos in the greek column of F.
for teAos, mposwrov A vulg(and F-lat)
The mistake
in A and vulg may have arisen from the eye of some scribe having passed to the rpos-
wrov in the line above: Tedos stands just below mposwrov in Matthei’s edn of G.)
14. adda B.
jer Bas Chr Thdrt Damasc Tert Archel:
to them was. not évy mappnoia, but was
interrupted and broken by intervals of
concealment, which ours is not. The op-
position is twofold: (1) between the vatled
and the wnvailed ministry, quoad the mere
fact of concealment in the one case, and
openness in the other: (2) between the
ministry which was suspended by the
vailing, that its réAos might not be seen,
and that which proceeds amd ddfns eis
ddtav, having no termination. On the
common interpretation, Commentators
have found an almost insuperable difficulty
in mpds 7d uw} at. The usual escape from
it has been to render it, ‘so that the
Israelites could not,’ as in ver. 7. De
Wette somewhat modifies this, and sees
in it the divine purpose: ‘in order that,’
but not in the intention of Moses, but of
God’s Providence. But both these render-
ings are ungrammatical. mpds 76 with an
infinitive never signifies the mere result,
nor, as Meyer rightly remarks against De
Wette, the objective purpose, but always
the subjective purpose present to the mind
of the actor : he refers to Matt. v.28; vi.
1; xiii. 30; xxiii. 5; Mark xiii. 22; Eph.
vi. 11; 1 Thess. ii. 9; 2 Thess. iii. 8; James
iii. 3 (rec.) ; and Matt. xxvi. 12 (see my
note there). [may remark also, that the
narrative in Exodus, the LXX version of
which the Apostle here closely follows (see
below on ver. 16), implies that the bright-
ness of Moses’s face had place not on that
one occasion only, but throughout his
whole ministry between the Lord and the
people. When he ceased speaking to them,
he put on the vail; but whensoever he
went in before the Lord to speak to Him,
the vail was removed till he came out, and
had spoken to the Israelites all that the
Lord had commanded him, during which
speaking they saw that his face shone,—
and after which speaking he again put on
the vail. So that the vail was the symbol
of concealment and transitoriness: the
part revealed they might see: beyond that,
they could not: the ministry was a broken,
rec om nmepas (as unnecessary, see ver 15), with KL rel Did Cyr-
ins ABCDFN m 13 latt copt Clem Cyr
interrupted one; its end was wrapped in
obscurity. In the réAos tov Karapy.
we must not think, assome Commentators
have done, of Chrisé (Rom. x. 4), any fur-
ther than it may be hinted in the back-
ground that when the law came to an end,
He appeared.
14—18.] The contrast is now made be-
tween the CHILDREN OF ISRAEL, on whose
he-rt this vail stillis in the reading of the
O. T., and Us Au (Christians), who with
uncovered face behold the glory of the
Lord. This section is parenthetical.
Before and after it, the mznistry is the
subject: in it, they to whom the ministry
is directed. But it serves to shew the
whole spirit and condition of the two
classes, and thus further to substantiate
the character of openness and freedom
asserted of the Christian ministry.
14 | But (also) their understandings were
hardened (on this, the necessary sense of
émwpoOn. see note, Eph. iv. 18). These
words evidently refer, as well as what fol-
lows, not to the réAos, which they did not
see, but to that which they did see: to
that which answers to the present avd-
yvwols THs madAaas SiaHKys, viz. the word
of God imparted by the ministration of
Moses. And by these words the transition
is made from the form of similitude just
used, to that new one which is about to be
used ; q. d. ‘not only was there a vail on
Moses’s face, to prevent more being known,
but also their understandings were dark-
ened: there was, besides, a vail on their
hearts” So that a@dAdAd = but also, or
moreover. To refer this aA’ éerwp. to
mappnola xpducba, to the present hard-
heartedness of the Jews under the freedom
of speech of the Gospel, as Olsh., De W.,
al., is, in my view, to miss the whole sense
of the passage. No reference whatever is
made to the state of the Jews under the
preaching of the gospel, but only as the
objects of the O. T. ministration,—then,
under the oral teaching of Moses,—now, in
the reading of the O. T. In order to
ABCDF
KLNab
cdefg
hklm
m ¥ ‘ ~ b , netis 17
ayoe y20e TIC ON MENOV neEpac no
n Matt. xxviii.15. Acts xx.26. Rom. xi.8only. Josh. v.9. Jer. i. 18.
14—16.
‘ aN HE ,
TO auto KaAvpma
* Sah :
watGnKkncg pmevel, UN
‘katagyetrau’ 15 adr
ud
EWC
~ f ,
yiwwoknrat Movone, |‘ Kkadunpa
Ketrat.
al. Lev. xxv. 22.
34. Dent. vii. 12.
iii, 2U. v. 1. vii. 1. viii. 3.
Ambrst. for em, ev DF Chr.
NIPOS KOPINOIOY®= B.
0? \ ~ > , ~ r -
émt 7 Pavayywoe tng * maXaac
’ ? e ,
S avakaAuTTomevoy ort EY YOLOTH
u , vc ob n w?
onuspov, nvika av ~ ava-
, \
* ETT
s here bis only. Job xii. 22 vat.
uhereonly. Sir. xlvii. 7. see Matt. xxvii. 8. Roi. xi. 8.
w constr., Ac's Vili. 28. (xiii. 27.) xv. 21.
y = 1 Thess. i, ¥. (Acts ix. 40.) Amos iv. 6.
647
o = Johniv.
27. ch. vii. 4.
~- Heb. ix. 15,
6.
p Acts xiii- 15.
L Tim. iv. 13
only. Neh.
‘ ! a eyos viii. 8.
THV Kaoolay QUTWYD gq here only.
see ver. 6.
16 Y ta a Y¢ é y ; 4 z r Rom. vi. 6.
Hvica 8 av ‘ emarpepy * mpoc Kupioy, * wEpt~ NCO y.7, 8
Isa. iii. 17 vat tvv.7 &.
v here bis only. Exod. xxxiv.
x so Actsx 17. xi ll. Rev.
z Acts xxvii. 20 reff.
15. rec om ay (from ay beginning avaywwor. ?), with DFKL rel Eus Cyr-jer Cs
Chr Cyr, Thdrt, Damasc :
ins ABCN Orig, Cyr, Thdrt,, eav 17.
YeC avaylwwoKeTat,
with FKL rel Eus Cyr-jer Ces Chr Cyr Thdrt, Damase Thl: txt A B(see table) CDR
em 17 Orig Chr-ms Cyr Thdrt, Cc.
16. for nvika, oray F Chry.
understand what follows, the change of
similitude must be carefully borne in mind.
To avTd KdAvpua| ‘the vail once on
Moses’s face,’ is now regarded as laid on
their hearts. It denoted the ceasing, the
covering up, of his oral teaching ; for it
was put on when he had done speaking to
the people. Now, his oral teaching has
altogether ceased, and the diakovia is car-
ried on by abook. But as when we listen,
the speaker is the agent, and the hearers
are passive,—so on the other hand, when
we read, we are the agents and the book is
passive. The book is the same to all: the
difference between those who understand
and those who do not understand is now a
subjective difference —the vail is no longer
on the face of the speaker, but on the
heart of the reader. So that of necessity
the form of the similitude is changed.
For (answering to an understood clause,
‘and remain hardened’) to the present day
the same vail (which was once on the face
of Moses) remains, at the reading of the
Old Testament (7 wad. Sia. here, as we
now popularly use the words, the book com-
prising the ancient Covenant), the dis-
covery not being made (by the removal of
the vail) that it (the O. T.) is done away
in Christ (that the Old Covenant has
passed away, being superseded by Christ).
This I believe to be the only admissible
sense of the words, consistently with the
symbolism of the passage. The render-
ings, ‘remains not taken away—for wt
(i.e. the vail) is done away in Christ,’
and (as E. V.) ‘remaineth . . untaken
away .. which vail (6 tt) is done away in
Christ,’—are inadmissible: (1) because
they make katapyetrat, which throughout
the passage belongs to the glory of the
ministry, to apply to the wail ; and (2) be-
cause they give no satisfactory sense. It
is not because the vail can only be done
away in Christ, that it now remains un-
om av C k Mac Bas:
keitat bef emt Thy Kapd. av. D'3F latt lat-ff.
de cay AN' 17.
taken away on their hearts, but because
their hearts are hardened. Besides, the
Apostle would not have expressed it thus,
but év xpiotG yap Katapy. The word
dvaradkum7 duevov has been probably chosen,
as is often the practice of the Apostle,
on account of its relation to kdéAvuma,
—it not being unvailed to them that
eo 15.] But (reassertion of a)
avakadumrdéuevov, with a view to the next
clause) to this day, whenever Moses is
read, a vail lies upon their heart (under-
standing. «etra: éwi w.acc.,—pregn., in-
volving the being laid on, and remaining
there). 16.| Here, the tertium com-
parationis is, the having on a vail, and
taking it off on going into the presence of
the Lord. This Moses did; and the choice
of the same words as those of the LXX,
shews the closeness of the comparison ;
Avica 8 av ciseropevero Mwvots evavTt
kuplou Aadciv adTd, Teprppetto TO KG-
Avppa. This shall likewise be done in the
case of the Israelites : when it (i.e. 77 kap-
8la avtaey,—not Israel, as Chrys., Theod.,
Theophyl., Erasm., al.,.—nor Moses, as
Calv., Estius,—nor tis, as Orig., al.) shall
turn to the Lord (here again éemorpéeyy
apés is carefully chosen, being the very ex-
pression of the LXX, when the Israelites,
having been afraid of the glory of the face
of Moses, returned to him after being
summoned by him :—e@oPBhOncav eyyiou
aitG’ Kal ekddecey avTovs Mavaijs, Kal
éreotpddnoav mpds aiTov.... .,—and
kiptoy appears to be used for the same
reason) the vail is taken away (not, shall
be, because 7 Kapdia is the subject, and
thus the taking away becomes an indivi-
dual matter, happening whenever and
wherever conversion takes place). Let me
restate this,—as it is all-important towards
the understanding of vv. 17,18. ‘When
their heart goes in to speak with God,
—ceases to contemplate the dead letter,
648
a Acts viii. 39
reff.
b Rom. viii. 21.
1 Cor. x. 24.
Gal. v. 1, 13.
Lev. xix. 2U.
c here only t.
(see note.)
d Rom. viii. 29
~ 4 fi ,
atpeirat TO KaAupma.
‘ avakekad é
1 UE BEV
reff. De >
A evil. 2 a fe i ,
emit xvii? Sone ec Ookav, *kalameo ©
xii. 2 only t.
Ps. xxxiii. ] Symm. f Rom. iv. 6 reff.
17. for 06, mov F.
IIPOS KOPINOIOYS B.
for kupiov, To aytoy Li.
TL. 17748.
7*O 8% KUpLOG TO TvEULA EOTLY’
ov 6& TO * mvEevpa 7 KuoLov, E eAevbepia. 18 jueic O& mavrec
Tpocwomw THY dsoéav Kuptov ° Kat-
omTptCouevol, THY auTHy
dye, e , DN
eLKOVa pstapoppoupueba avo
> \ U ,
avwO Kvolov) TvEUMATOC.
g = Acts ii. 22. Jamesi. 13 al.
rec ins exe: bef eAevepia (see
notes), with D?*FKLN? rel latt syr goth Ath Epiph Bas Chr Cyr, Thdrt Damase Orig-
int: om ABCD!N! 17 fri Syr copt Cyr Nyssen.
18. amomtpiCouevor F: evorrpi(oueba Mace.
int. Kabwsmep B.
and begins to commune with the Spirit
of the old covenant (the Spirit of God),
then the vail is removed, as it was from
the face of Moses.’ 17.] Now (dé
exponentis. tis 5€ obtos mpds ov Set
dmoBAéWat; Theodoret) the Lord is the
Spirit: i. e. the kvptos of ver. 16, is, the
Spirit, whose word the O. T. is: the
mveia,—as opposed to the ypaupua—
which (womore?, ver. 6. But it is not
merely, as Wetst., ‘Dominus significat
Spiritum,’ nor is +vedua merely, as Olsh.,
the spiritual sense of the law: but, ‘the
Lord,’ as here spoken of, ‘ Christ,’ ‘is the
Spirit,’ is identical with the Holy Spirit :
not personally nor essentially, but, as is
shewn by 76 mvetpa kuptou following, iz
this department of His divine working :—
Christ, here, is the Spirit of Christ. 'The
principal mistaken interpretation (among
many, see Pool’s Synops., Meyer, De Wette)
is that of Chrys., Theodoret, Theophyl.,
(Ecum., Estius, Schulz,— making 7d aveb-
pa the subject, and 6 Kvp. the predicate,
which though perhaps (but would d¢ then
have had its present position ?) allowable,
is against the context, 6 5&€ xvp. being
plainly resumed from 6 «dép. in ver. 16.
The words are then used by them as a
proof of the Divinity of the Holy Spirit.
But (d¢ appealing to a known or eyi-
dent axiom, as in a mathematical demon-
stration) where the Spirit of the Lord
(see above) is, is liberty (exe? has pro-
bably been inserted, as being usual after
ov : but,as Meyer remarks, not in St. Paul’s
style, see Rom. iv. 15; v. 20).
fettered in spirit as long as they are slaves
to the letter, = as long as they have the
vail on their hearts; but when they turn
to the Lord the Spirit, which is not rvevua
SovAetas but mv. viobecias, Rom. viii. 15,
—and by virtue of whom ov« €71 €7 5odA0s,
GAA vids, Gal. iv. '7,—then they are at
liberty. There can hardly be any allusion
to a vail over the head implying subjec-
tion, as 1 Cor. xi. 10, (Erasm., Beza, Grot.,
They are”
MeTapoppovpevor A 23 Mac Orig-
Bengel, Fritz.,) for here the covering of
the head with a vail is not thought of,
but merely intercepting the sight.
18.] But (the sight of the Jews is thus
intercepted ; in contrast to whom) WE all
(‘all Christians :’? not, as Erasm., Estius,
Bengel, al. m., ‘we Apostles and teach-
ers:’ the contrast is to the viot *IopanA
above) with unvailed face (the vail having
been removed at our conversion: the stress
is on these words) beholding in a mirror
the glory of the Lord (i.e. Christ: from
vy. 16, 17. Katomtpifw is to shew in a
mirror, to make a reflexion in a mirror ;
so Plutarch, de Placitis Philosophorum,
iii. 5: Anaxagoras explained a rainbow to
be the reflexion of the sun’s brightness
from a thick cloud, that always stands
opposite Tod KatomtpiCovtos a’Td aorépos.
In the middle, it is ‘ to behold oneself in a
mirror :’ so Diog. Laert., Plato, p. 115,
Tots weBvovor cuveBovAcve KaTomTpl(eabat ;
—but also, fo see in a mirror, so Philo,
Legis Allegor. iii. 33, vol.i. p. 107, uh yap
eupaviabeins wor BV ovpavod 7} ys 7) Udaros
}) dépos H Tivos amwd@s Tay ev yeveoel, unde
kaTomTpioaluny ev BAW TIL Thy ohv idéav,
} ev ool TG OeG. And such is evidently
the meaning here: the gospel is this mir-
ror, the evayyéAvov THs S6Eys TOU xpLoTod,
ch. iv. 4, and we, looking on it with un-
vailed face, are the contrast to the Jews,
with vailed hearts reading their law. The
meaning ‘reflecting the glory, &e. as
Chrys., Luth., Calov., Bengel, Billroth,
Olsh., is one which neither the word nor
the context [see above] will bear [see,
however, Stanley’s note]), are transfigured
into the same image (which we see in the
mirror: the image of the glory of Christ,
see Gal. iv. 19, which is more to the point
than Rom. viii. 21, cited by Meyer, and
1 John iii. 3. But the change here spoken
of is a spiritual one, not the bodily change
at the Resurrection: it is going on here
in the process of sanctification. No
prep. need be understood before t)v avriy
ABCDF
KLNab
cedefg
hkilm
nol7
We 4d; 2.
IIPOS KOPINOIOYS B.
649
i ] 8 s o vw Soh 8 , , 0 N
V. | da rovro ExovTec THY 'Ciakoviay Tavrnv, Kale b= Actsxx.
eff.
=o , ? k? ~
*nAenOnusr, ov‘ EYKAKOUMED, 2
m SES came | eed 4 <0 fs Oe)
KovmTTa THC aloyvvnc, wy ” TEOLTatOUYTEC © Ev ® TavOUp-
ii.13. 2 Thess. iii. 13 only. L.P.+ Prov. iii. 11 Theod.
n Luke xiv. 9.
m and constr., Rom. ii. 16 reff.
only. Ps. 1x xxviii. 45.
Pp 1 Cor. iii. 19 reff.
) \ 1 , , a aie *
adda ‘amemapeOa ra i Romi 80
k Luke xviii. 1.
ver. 16. Gal.
vi. 9. Eph.
lhereonly. 3 Kings xi. 2. Job x. 3 al.
Phil. iii. 19. Heb. xii.2. Jude13. Rev. iii. 18
o Rom. vi. 4. ch. x.3. Eph.v.2al. Prov. viii. 20.
Cap. IV.1. rec exxakouuev, with CD3KL rel: txt ABD!FX m 17.
2. [adda, so A(perhaps) BCDXN cde fghkIn.]
eixéva—the passive verb indirectly governs
the acc., as in amoréuvouar thy Kepadny
and similar cases) from glory to glory
(this is explained, either [1 | ‘from one de-
gree of glory to another ;? so most Com-
mentators and De Wette, or [2] ‘from
[by | the glory which we see, into glory,’
as Chrys., amd ddéns, Tis Tod mvevmatos,
eis Sdéav, Thy Nuetepay, Thy eyyiryvonerny,
—Theodoret, Gicum., Theophyl., Bengel,
Fritz., Meyer, al. I prefer the former, as
the other would introduce a tautology,
the sentiment being expressed in the
words following) as by the Lord the
Spirit. xvpiov mvevpatos = Tov kuptov Tod
mvevpatos,—the first art. being omitted
after the preposition, the second to con-
form the predicate to its subject, as in
amd cod matpds, Gal. i. 3,— and answers
to 6 5€ KUptos TO Tvetud ect above.
This seems the obvious and most satis-
factory way of taking the words, and,
from ver. 17, to be necessitated by the
context ; and so Theodoret, Luther, Beza,
Calov., Wolf, Estius, al. The rendering
upheld by Fritz., Billroth, Meyer, De Wette,
‘the Lord of the Spirit,’ i. e. « Christ, whose
Spirit He is,’ seems to me to convey very
little meaning, besides being an expression
altogether unprecedented. The trans-
formation is effected by the Spirit (rovro
fetauoppor, Chrys.), the Author and Up-
holder of spiritual life, who ‘takes of the
things of Christ, and skews them to us,’
John xvi. 14, see also Rom. viii. 10, 11,—
who sanctifies us till we are holy as Christ
is holy ; the process of renewal after Christ’s
image is such a transformation as may be
expected by the agency of (kabdmep amd, so
Chrys., cal to.adT ny ofav cixds amd...) the
Lord the Spirit,—Christ Himself being the
image, see ch. iv. 4. The two other ren-
derings are out of the question, as being
inconsistent with the order of the words :
viz.: (1) that of E. V. and of Vulg., Theo-
phyl., Grot., Bengel, ‘the Spirit of the
Lord, and (2) that of Chrys., Theodoret,
Calov., Estius, ‘the Spirit who is the
Lord, Meyer objects to the interpre-
tation given above as inconsistent with the
self-evident connexion of the genitives.
for kputTa, epya K.
How would he render ad 60d marpéds ?
IV. 1—6.]| Taking up again the subject
of his freedom of speech (ch. iii. 12), he
declares his renunciation of all deceit, and
manifestation of the truth to every man
(ver. 2), even though to some the Gospel be
hidden (vv. 3,4). And this because he
preaches, without any selfish admixture,
only the pure light of the Gospel of Christ
(vv. 5, 6). 1.] 81a totTo refers to
the previous description of the freeness and
unvailedness of the ministry of the Gospel,
and of the state of Christians in general
(ch. iii. 18). éxovtes T. 8. Tavr.
further expands and explains 5:4 toto.
kabas 7ey0.| even as we received
mercy (from God, at the time of our being
appointed ; cf. 7AenOnv, 1 Tim. i. 16): be-
longs to éx. 7. 8. ravr., not to what follows,
and is a qualification, in humility, of
éxovres— possessing it, not as our own,
but in as far as we were shewn mercy.’
ovK éykakodpev | We do not behave our-
selves in a cowardly manner, do not
shrink from plainness of speech and action.
eyrakéw is the opposite of tappnoid(w. ovK
éxkaxovuey would be, ‘we do not give up
through faintness or cowardice. It is
hardly possible to decide satisfactorily be-
tween the two readings. éyx. seems to be
universal, except in the N. T. (rec. text)
and the Fathers, which have éxx. Did the
Fathers borrow this form from the N. T.,
or was it the usual form of later Greek, and
as such introduced into the text by the
copyists ? In such doubt, I have followed
MSS. authority. But (cowardice alone
prompting concealment in such a case,
where it does not belong to the character
of the ministry itself) we have renounced
(so Herod. iv. 125, tév amermauevwy Thy
opetepny oumuaxiny: Milian, N. H. vi. 1,
Ti akdAacToyv KoiTHY amelnaTo TaYTEAOS
macav: and other examples in Wetst.) the
hidden things of shame (tie having any
views, ends, or practices which such as
have them hide through shame: not, as
De Wette, the hidden things of infamy or
dishonesty. aisxdtvn is subjective, =, as
Meyer, @dBos ém) mposdoxia adoklas, Plat.
Defin. p. 416. Itis plain from the context
650 IIPOS KOPINOIOY®S B. TV
’ \ - . , _ aur 5 A =
h ly. q
a here onty. yes unde 4% SoAovvTEC TOV doyov TOV Geos, adda 79
6 s
rior xi7 pavepwott tne aAnbelac pinmenia Bae EauToUg 7p0c
onlyt. Hier \
8 = Rom. xvi. maoav " cuvelonow avipimey & évwemtov tov Ocov. 3% et dé
Saeet ’ -
gfe deh? ieee fori kecaduppévoy TO " evayyédtov “ Huw, * Ev ToIc
lii. 1 reff. 5) , * *£ Nn ~
weh i 12reff. 9 nn END cory Kecadupmévon, 44 ey vic 0 *Oedc¢ Tov
Pau v d , ~ edi
che a: atwvoc ? rovrou ° étupAwsev Ta“ vonuata TwY °azloTWY,
- Sal.
wl Thess.i.5. f¢ » N Ne ge 8 oe Ne: San pS! ee ee , ee
hess. ii. lc TO au at TOV v TOU ‘EU ?
aeraes é Hn i yee OTe) O eva yeAtou TNC
‘ ’ ‘\
ee : oo&Sne Tov Xolorou, Oc tatty “sky tov Oeov. 5 ob yao
x=ch. ii. 15
y Rom. ii. 12 reff.
b Rom. xii. 2 reff.
e = Matt. xvii. 17 al. fr.
Acts xx. 11.)
14. lxxxix. 8 only.
1.26; 27.
z=1 Cor. iv. 2,6 al.
¢ John xii. 40.
f Rom. iv. 11 reff.
h here bis only.
i1 Tim. i. 11 only.
rec suvictwytes, With D?KL rel:
4. Stavyaoa A d 17 Eus Archel Cyr-jer Cyr, Damasc :
1 John ii. 1) only.
not in classics.
a here only. see John xii. 31, xiv.30. Eph. ii. 2. vi. 12-
Isa. xlii. 19 only. dch. ii. 11 refi.
g here only. Levit. xiii. 24, &c. xiv. 46 only. (-y%
Ieb iii. 9 vat. F.(not A.) Ps. xxvi.l. xliii. 3. xxvii.
k Col. i. 15. Rom. viii. 29. 1 Cor. xi.7 al. Gen.
ouvctavovtes B 672. 80: txt CDFX 17 Chr.
katavy. CD Orig, Eus, (both
glosses, further to particularize the simple verb): txt BFKLX® rel Orig, Dial Chr Cyr
Thdrt Damase Th], 3,
rec adds avros, with D?8KUL rel vss Orig, Chr; :
om ABC
D'FR 17 old-lat am(with demid fuld hal harl) Orig, Cyr-jer Epiph Cyr Tren-int.
for xptorov, kupiov C. for os, o F.
LX*aflm: pref spec syr arm Thl.
that it refers, not to crimes and unholy
practices, but to erooked arts, of which
men are ashamed, and which perhaps were
made use of by the false teachers), not
walking (having our daily conversation) in
craftiness (see ref.) nor adulterating (see
ch. ii. 17, note) the word of God, but by the
manifestation of the truth (as our only
means, see 1 Thess. li. 3, 4;—the words
come first, as emphatic), recommending
ourselves (a recurrence to the charge and
apology of ch. iii. 1 ff.) to (with reference
to,—the verdict of) every conscience of
men (every possible variety of the human
conscience; implying, there is no conscience
but will inwardly acknowledge this, how-
ever loath some among you may be out-
wardly to confess it. So that the expres-
sion is not exactly = mp. thy our. ravTwy
avOpsrav. Weneed hardly extend avOp.
so wide as Chrys., ob motots pdvov, GAAG
kal amtorots eomey KaTddnAo.:—he is speak-
ing as a teacher, and the men spoken of
are naturally his hearers and disciples),
in the sight of God (as ch. ii. 17: not
merely to satisfy men’s consciences, but
with regard to God’s all-seeing eye which
discerns the heart). ie: | But if
(‘ which I concede ;?—see note, 1 Cor. iv. 7)
it is even so, that our gospel (the gospel
preached by us) is vailed, it is among
(in the estimation of) the perishing that
it is vailed. The allegory of ch. iii. is
continued, —the hiding of the gospel by the
vail placed before the understanding.
4.| In whose case (it is true, that) the god
of this world (the Devil, the ruling princi-
aft Tov @cou ins Tov aoparou (see Coli. 15)
ple in the men of this world, see reff. It is
historically curious, that Irenzeus (Heer. iv.
39. 2, p.266), Origen, Tertull. (contra Marc.
iv. 11, vol. ii. p. 499), Chrys., Augustine
(e. advers. leg. ii. 7 [29], vol. viii. p. 655),
dicum., Theodoret, 'Theophylact, all repu-
diate, in their zeal against the Marcionites
and Manicheans, the grammatical render-
ing, and take tay amictwy Tod aidvos
tovtov together) blinded (the aor. of a
purely historical event) the understand-
ings of the unbelieving (i.e. who, the
aroAAvmevor, are victims of that blinding
of the understandings of the unbelieving,
which the Devil is habitually carrying on.
Meyer well remarks, that if it had merely
been 7a vohuara, it would have only ex-
pressed in the concrete the voju. of those
signified by év ofs,—whereas now, by the
addition of taév amtor., the blinding in-
flicted on the amoAd. is marked as falling
under its category. The rendering tév
amtatwy ‘so that they believe not,’ Fritz.,
Billroth, is out of all question) in order
that the illumination of (shining from,
gen. subj.) the gospel of the glory of
Christ, who is the image of God (recur-
rence to the allegory of ch. iii. 18 ;— Christ
is the image of God, dratyarua Tis ddéns
avToov, Heb. i. 8, into which same image,
Thy avuriy clitaborlg we, looking on it in the
oe of the gospel, are changed by the
Spirit; but which glorious image is not
visible to those who are blinded by Satan),
might not shine forth (‘unto them:’ aitots
was a correct gloss :—the rendering, ‘ that
they might not see,’ Grot., al., is inadmis-
ABCDF
KLNab
edefg
hklm
nol7
o—7.
le ‘
€auTOUC
‘eavrove 8: SovAove vaov "dia
° eimov Ex aKOrous PI bw 4 sea oc 4 EM aprpev ev Talc
IPOS KOPINGIOY= B.
™ Knpvocomer, ad\Xa Xosrov
"Inoovyv.
651
> ~ ,
U py* Ich iii.1 reff.
Inoo i oe m Acts viii. 5
iJ € ‘
6 orto Oede 6 yc ai.
o = James ii.
1h.
p a XRXVii.
Kagpoiate 7 mmo mpO¢ " pwrispov THe * yuwoEwe TNC * S0Ene , | 7 Aci <4
(re
TOU Qeov : ev , a i XeLorov.
Us Eyouev O& TOV * Gnoavooy TouTrov ev
t ch. ii. 10. Prov. viii. 30.
21. Luke vi. 45 al3.
Josh. vi. 19.
5. ino. bef xp. ACDN:
Damase Ambrst. quwr(sic) &.
xpiotov N-corr! 5.
6. om Ist 6 B(sic: see table) n.
u Epp., Col. ii. 3. Heb. xi. 26 only. Gospp., Matt. ii. 11 als.
v2 Tim. ii, 20.
aft e:mwy ins o (but erased) Xl.
eff... Isa.
Reeds
r=1 Serie vii.
” Ostoakivotc asec Hab. ii, 14.
Mark x.
w as above (¥) only. Levit. vi. 28.
kup. in. xp. F: txt BK rel Syr copt Cyr-jer Chr Thdrt
for inoovy (2nd), mcov A?CR! 17 Mcion-e, :
rec
Aaupar, with CD3FKLN? rel latt goth Mcion-e Epiph Dial Mac Ath Chr Cyr Thdrt
Damasce lat-ff: txt ABD!X!.
vuwy C 3 Chr.
om os D'!F old-lat demid(and harl) Chr Did Ambrst.
for tov @eov, avrov C'D!F wth Dial Cyr (‘Thl-comm) Tert :
txt ABC?D°KLX rel vss (Orig) Ath Chr Thdrt Damase Ambrst Ambr, (Tov @eov zs
certainly original ; for, as Meyer observes, had avrov been origl, it is hardly possible
that tov Oeov should have been a gloss on it, as o Bes occurs just before).
rec ins
inoou bef xp., with CKLN rel vss Orig, Thdrt Damasc: aft xp., DF latt Cyr lat-ff:
om AB 17 Orig, Dial Ath Chr Thl-comm Tert.
sible). 5, 6.| We have no reason to
use trickery or craft, having no selfish ends
to serve : nor concealment, being ourselves
enlightened by God, and set for the spread-
ing of light. 5.] For we preach not
(the subject of our preaching is not) our-
selves (Meyer understands xuplouvs, ‘as
lords ;? but as De W. observes, this would
anticipate the development of thought
which follows, the contrast between xp.
*Incovy as kvpiov, and ourselves as your
dovaAous, not being yet raised),—but Christ
Jesus as Lord, and ourselves as your ser-
vants for Jesus’ sake (on account of Him
and His work). 6.] Because (explains
and substantiates the last clause,—that we
are your servants for Jesus’ sake) (7 is)
God, who said Out of (not, ‘ after the dark-
ness ;* this meaning of éx, though allow-
able, e. g. ex kuudtwy yap avOis ad yaAnv
6p, does not occur in N. T.) darkness
light shall shine (allusion to Gen.i. 3:
the change to Aduia: appears to have been
made because the words cited are not the
exact ones spoken by the Creator), who
shined (Grot., Fritz., Meyer, would render
éAamwpev, ‘caused light to shine,’ using the
verb in the factitive sense, as dvaTéAAw,
Matt. v. 45, and @ Adurovoa métpa mupds
dixdpupoy cédas, Eur. Phoen. 226. But
this usage of the word seems entirely poeti-
cal, and the intransitive sense would as well
express the divine act) in our hearts (the
physical creation bearing an analogy to
the spiritual) in order to the shining forth
(to others) of the knowledge (in us) of the
glory of God in the face of Christ (= rijs
dotys T. Ocod THS ev mposdmm xp., ‘the
glory of God manifested in Christ’). The
figure is still derived from the history in
ch. iii., and refers to the brightness on the
face of Moses :—the only true effulgence of
the divine glory is from the face of Christ.
Mey er contends for the connexion of év
mposmm. xp. with gwricudy, but his ex-
planation fails to convey to my mind any
satisfactory sense. He says that when the
yv@ors is imparted by preaching, it shines,
and its brightness illuminates the face of
Christ, because it is His face whose glory is
looked on in the mirror of preaching. But
I cannot think that any thing so very far-
fetched would be in the Apostle’s mind.
As to the necessity of the art. ts before
év, none will assert it who are much versed
in the many varieties of expression in such
sentences in the Apostle’s style. 7—18.
This glorious ministry is fulfilled by weak,
afflicted, persecuted, and decaying vessels,
which are moreover worn out in the work
(7—12). Yetthe spirit of faith, the hope
of the resurrection, and of being presented
with them, for whom he has laboured, bears
him up against the decay of the outer man,
and all present tribulation (13—18). We
are not justified in assuming with Calvin,
Estius, al., that a definite reproach of per-
sonal meanness had induced the Apostle to
speak thus. For he does not deal with any
such reproach here, but with matters com-
mon to all human ministers of the word.
All this is a following out in detail of
the ove éyxarovmev of ver. 1, already en-
larged on in one of its departments,—that
of not shrinking from openness of speech,
—and now to be put forth in another, viz.
652
v y
822
x , A ec
OKEVEOLY, LVA 1)
\ ay 3, € . =
Kal wy e& nuwy
x Acts ix. 15
reff.
y Rom. vii. 13
reff. Joseph.
Antt. i. 13. 4.
ii. 2. 1.
z=ch. vi. 4.
vii. 6, 11.
viii. 7. xi. 6.
ach. i. 6 reff.
b ch. vi. 12 (bis)
only. Josh.
xvii. 15. Isa. ‘
xxviii. 20. xlix.19 only. (-péa, Rom. ii. 9.)
15 only. e = | Cor. iv. 12 reff.
31. 2 Tim.iv. 10,16. Heb. xiii. 5.
h = Matt. ii. 13 al. fr. i Rom. iv. 19 only t.
Nopevor aAX’ ovK
9. eykaraAmmavowevor F Kus Chr Max.
IIPOS KOPINGOIOY® B.
9° SwwKopevor adX’ ovK
” amoAAvuEvot,
c Acts xxv. 20 reff.
1 Chron. xxviii. 20.
LV:
~ L - ~
uTEoBoAn Tne Suvapewco y Tov Deov
év *wavrt “OA Bouevor add’ ov ” ore-
, (eed , aAX’ ? da ,
voywoovmevol, “ aTopovpEvat a ovk “ éGaToooupmevot,
eykataXeouevor, * KataPad -
10 7 re Oe
TAVTOTE THY VEKOWOLVY
dch.i.8 only. Ps, xxvii.
f Matt. xxvii. 44) Mk. Acts ii. 27 (from Ps. xv. 10),
g = here (Heb. vi. 1) only. 4 Kings iii. 19.
10. rec ins kupiov bef 1st roov, with KL rel syr goth Chr Thdrt Damase Ambrst-ms :
om ABCDF® 17 (latt) Syr copt eth arm Origsepe Cyr, Iren-int Did-int Tert.—xpiorov
bearing up against outward and inward
difficulties. If any polemical purpose is
to be sought, it is the setting forth of the
abundance of sufferings, the glorying in
weakness (ch. xi. 23, 30), which substan-
tiated his apostolic mission: but even such
purpose is only in the background; he is
pouring out, in the fulness of his heart,
the manifold discouragements and the far
more exceeding encouragements of his
office. 7.|] tov Ono. TovT., viz. ‘ the
light of the knowledge of the glory of God,
ver. 6. ézei5}) yap ToAAG Kal peyada, ele
rep) Ths dmopinrov dd&ns* iva wh Tis A€yn
Kal m@s tocattns dd&ys amoAatovTes mé-
vomev ev OvnTS cbmatr; pnolv Ott TovTO
bey ody abt) wdriord eott TH Oavpactdy,
Kal derypa wéyiotov Tis TOU Oeod Suvduews,
bri oKedos daTpdKivoy TocavTny jndvYviOn
Aapmpdrnta eveykety, Kal THALKOUTOV pu-
Adéat Onoavpdy. Chrys. Hom. viii. Some
(Calv., al.) think the @no. to be the whole
diaxovla: but it seems simpler to refer it
to that which has immediately preceded, in
a style like that of Paul, in which each
successive idea so commonly evolves itself
out of the last. The oxetos is the body,
not the whole personality ; the 6 &w dy-
Opwros of ver. 16; seever.10. And inthe
troubles of the body the personality shares,
as long as itis bound up with it here.
The similitude and form of expression is
illustrated by Wetst. from Artemidorus
vi. 25, Odvarov mev yap cikéTws eohpave
TH yuvatkl 7d elva ev dotpaklyy oKever,—
Arrian, Epict. iii. 9, Tatra éxw avti tov
Cpyupwudrwy, avtl Tay xXpvtwudtar’ od
Xpucad oxedyn. doTpakiwov 5é Tov Adyor, and
Herod. iii. 96, rodrov roy pdpov Onaaupt er
5 Bacireb’s tpdrw Toiwde. és wiBous Ke-
paulovs thkas Kataxéer, tAhocas 5& 7d
Uyyos mepiaipéet, emeay 5 5enOH xpnud-
Twv, KaTakdmTe. TocovTOY, baov by Exd-
orote dénTa. H vrepB. THs Suv.
not = 4 bwepBddAdAovoa Sivauis, but, the
dévauis contemplated on the side of its
jwepBorAh,—the power consisting in the
effects of the apostolic ministry (1 Cor.
ii. 4), as well as in the upholding under
trials and difficulties. The passage com-
monly referred to (even by Stanley) to
prove the hendiadys, may serve entirely to
disprove it: Jos. Antt. i. 18. 4, wabay dé
avTov To mpddumov Kk. THY brepBodrry Tijs
Opnokelas : “ the readiness and surpassing-
ness of his obedience.” q Tov Geod |
may belong to (i. e. be seen to belong to)
God. Tertull., Vulg., and Estius, render
it ‘ut sublimitas sit virtutis Dei, non ex
nobis,’ which is hardly allowable, and dis-
turbs the sense by confusing the antithesis
between 6 @eds and jets. 8—10.]
He illustrates the expression, ‘earthen
vessels,’ in detail, by his own experience
and that of the other ministers of Christ.
8.| in every way (see reff.) pressed,
but not (inextricably) crushed (or. ‘an-
gustias h. 1. denotat tales, e quibus non
detur exitus,’ Meyer, from Kypke) ;—in
perplexity but not in despair (a literal
statement of what the last clause stated
JSiguratiwely : as Stanley, “ bewildered, but
not benighted”’):—persecuted but not
deserted (eyxatadcimduevor, see reff., used
of desertion both by God and by man.
Hammond, Olsh., Stanley, al., would refer
to the foot-race, and render
it ‘pursued, but not left behind,’ as Herod.
vill. 59, of 3é ye eyKatademduevor od oTeE-
pavodyra, —but the sense thus would be
quite beside the purpose, as the Apostle is
speaking not of rivalry from those who as
runners had the same end in view, but of
troubles and persecutions): struck down
(as with a dart during pursuit: so Xen.
Cyr. i. 8. 14, Onpla....totedwy ral
akovTi(wy kataBadeis. It is ordinarily
interpreted of a fall in wrestling; but
agonistic figures would be out of place in
the present passage, and the attempt to
find them has bewildered most of the
modern Commentators), but not destroyed:
10.| always carrying about iu our
body (i.e. ever in our apostolic work
8—12.
IIPOS KOPINOIOY®S B.
658
m9 2 tm ba k p ” vide kee ae
rou ‘Inoov ) ev tw ) owpatt * rEepipEpovTec, tva Kal Cw §Gal. vi. 17.
k Mark vi. 55.
oes mes ~ s cAtR m Foie Lila ‘ Eph. iv. 14
tov ‘Incoov ev tw cwmate juwy ” paveowOy GEL YAP [Heb xii 9,
« Ps : 3 7 , yr <>? es and Jude 12
juste ot Cwvtec “atc Oavaroy " raoadidoueba ° dia [noovy, Fr only,
q Veco N a = x = as Rea:
iva Kat n 'Zwy tov ‘Incov ™ paveowOy ev ry ? Bunty 2 Mace. vii.
RG ~ Dre
OaOKl HUW. W@W
reff.
q Rom. vii. 5 reff.
n Matt. x. 2]. Mark xiii. 12.
D'F(and their lat): xp. imo. D* Tert.
Orig-int, lat-ff.
int Orig-int.—om tov F.
A vulg(not am fuld demid al).
11. for ae, ec Fk Tert Ambrst. (not F-lat.)
om ka C o 3 Tert.
e , ’ cu. oS,
ete 0 Oavaroc ev nut
Isa. liii. 12 a.
27 only.
? = € \
1 = Rom. yv. 10.
EVER Fae o: m Rom. i. 19
p Rom. vi. 12 reff.
q
o ver. 5.
aft Ist ocwmare ins nuwv DF vss Iren-int
aft 2nd [rov] mo. ins xpiorov D'F, and D-lat G-lat (spec) Iren-
ToL cwuacw XR.
pavepw0y bef ev Tw TwmaTt NUwY
for mapadid., didoueba F.
for Tov ino., ino. xpiorov D'F D-lat G-lat: tou xp. C.
12. o is written over the line by &}(appy).
rec ins ev bef @avatos (to correspond
to de below), with KL rel syr-w-ob Thl (Xe Ambrst-ms: om ABCDFN 17 latt Syr copt
goth Chr Thdrt Damase lat-ff.
having our body exposed to and an example
of: or perhaps even, as Stanley, “ bearing
with us, wherever we go, the burden of the
dead body.” But see below) the killing
(the word seems only to occur besides,
in ref. Rom., where it signifies, figura-
tively, utter lack of strength and vital
power, in a fragment of the Oneirocritica
of Astrampsychus (Meyer), vexpods dpav,
véxpwow €&eis moayudtwy, where the sense
is also figurative, and in its primary phy-
sical sense in the medical works of Are-
teus and Galen. But here the literal
sense, ‘the being put to death, must
evidently be kept, and the expression un-
derstood as 1 Cor. xv. 31, and as Chrys. :
of Odvatot of Kabnmepivol, b¢ ov Kal 7
avdotacts édeixvuto.. The rendering, ‘the
deadness of Jesus to the flesh, as opposed
to the vitality, 7 (wi) Tov *Incov below,’ —
see Dr. Peile’s Annotations on the Epistles,
i. 383,—is beside the present purpose,
and altogether inconsistent with de) eis
Odvatov mapadidducba Sia “Inoovv, ver.
11. See Stanley’s note) of Jesus (as 7a
rabhuata Tov xpictov, ch. i. 5 :—not
‘ad exemplum Christi,’ as Grot., al.), in
order that also the life of Jesus may be
manifested in our body: i.e. ‘that in our
bodies, holding up against such troubles
and preserved in such dangers, may be
shewn forth that mighty power of God
which is a testimony that Jesus lives and
is exalted to be a Prince and a Saviour ?°-—
not, ‘that our repeated deliverances might
resemble His Resurrection, as our suffer-
ings His Death,’ as Meyer, who argues
that the literal meaning must be retained,
as in the other member of the comparison,
owing to évy TG couatt ju. But, as De
W. justly observes, the bodily deliverance
is manifestly a subordinate consideration,
and the ¢(w4 of far higher significance,
testified indeed by the body’s preservation,
but extending far beyond it. 11.] Ex-
planation and confirmation of ver. 10.
For we who live (favres asserting that to
which death is alien and strange, an an-
tithesis to es @avaroy mapad., as in the
other clause (wh to év TH Ovnth capki.
No more specific meaning for (@vTes must
be imagined, as ‘tantis mortibus super-
stitem,’ Bengel, Estius, al..—or ‘ as long
as we live,’ Beza, al.,—or ‘ qui adhuc vint-
mus, qui nondum ex vita excessimus ut
multi jam Christianorum,’ as Grot.) are
ever delivered to death (in dangers and
persecutions, so ch. xi. 23, év Oavaro.s
moAAaKis) on account of Jesus (so in Rey.
i. 9 John was in Patmos da toy Adyor
Tov Ocov K. Sid Thy fpaptuplay ?Incod),
that also the life of Jesus may be mani-
fested in our mortal flesh (the antithesis
is more strongly put by @ynT# capKi than
it would be by @vnTG céuart, see Rom.
viil. 11, the flesh being the very pabulum
of decay and corruption). By this anti-
thesis, the wonderful greatness of the di-
vine power, 7 bmepBodA} Tis Suvducws,
is strikingly brought out: God exhibits
DeEATH in the Living, that He may exhibit
Lire in the dying. 12.] By it is
also brought out that which is here the
immediate subject,—the vast and unex-
ampled trials of the apostolic office, all
summed up in these words: So that death
works in us, but life in you; i.e. ‘the
trials by which the dying of Jesus is ex-
hibited in us, are exclusively and pecu-
liarly OUR OWN,—whereas (and this is
decisive for the spiritual sense of (wh) the
life, whereof we are to be witnesses, ex-
tends beyond ourselves, nay finds its field
of action and energizing IN you.’ Estius,
Grot., and apparently Olsh., take evepyei-
Tat passively, ‘is wrought’ (‘mors agitur et
654 IIPOS KOPINOIOY®S B&B. LY,
= 5 ee ~ ww A ‘ ae ~ ~
ee A Ae Cw ev vr. 18 EY OVTEC 6£ TO avTo * rvEvma THE TiaTEWC
reff. (xi ‘ ‘ / s? , ‘ IN \
wt), Kata TO ‘yeypaupevon Eziotevoa, O10 éXaAnoa, Kal
ag - A ‘ - > e
(exiv-10) ueie TL TEVOMEY, Ovo Kat AaXovper, 14 iddrec OTe O
t1 Cor. xv. 4
and passim.
Isa. XXvi. 19.
18. aft 1st d:0 ins kar &.
14. om xvpiov B 17. 71-3 vulg(with am fuld demid al, agst tol F-lat) arm Chr-comm
Damasc-comm Thl Tert Pelag Sedul Bede: ins CDF KLX rel D-lat(and G-lat, but not
fri) gr-lat-ff. ree (for suv) 51a (corrn, on account of the difficulty found in «vv
"Inaod being joined to a future verb, His Resurrn being past), with D'KLN? rel syrr
goth Thdrt Damase: txt BCDFN! 17 latt copt (Tert) Ambr Ambrst(not ed rom) Pelag
t? U ‘ 7, ’ - ANG): et Say? cel it 2 ~
eyelpac TOV [kuptov | Incovr Kat 1)uac Ou Inoov EVEPEL
Bede.—In § a superfluous + has been written and erased before ww.
suscitat et constituit goth.
exercetur. . . perficitur vita.’ Est.) : but it
is never so used in N. T. Chrys., Calv.,
al., take the verse ironically, 7a wey émexty-
Suva jucis bromevomev, TOv SE xXpnoTay
duets arodavete,—but such a sentiment
seems alien from the spirit of the passage.
Meyer, as unfortunately, limits (#4 to
natural life, whereas (as above) the context
plainly evinces spiritual life to be meant,
not merely natural. In Rom. viii. 10,
11, the vivifying influence of His Spirit
who raised Jesus from the dead is spoken of
as extending to the body also ; here, the up-
holding influence of Him who delivers and
preserves the body, is spoken of as vivifying
the whole man: LIFE, in both places,
being the higher and spiritual life, includ-
ing the lower and natural. ‘And, in our
relative positions,— of this life, yr are the
examples,—a church of believers, alive to
God through Christ in your various voca-
tions, and not called on to be @earpiCouevor
as WE are, who are (not indeed excluded
from that life,—nay it flows from us to
you,— but are) more especially examples of
conformity to the death of our common
Lord :—in whom DEATH WORKS.’
18—18.] ENcouRAGEMENTS: and (1)
FAITH, which enables us to go on preach-
ing to you. Meyer connects this verse with
n d& (wh ev tiv: for, he says, by means
of morevouey 51d kal Aadovduer, is that
(oy ev tu. evepyeirat, wrought. But,
not to mention that thus the context is
strangely disturbed, in which we and our
trials form the leading subject, it would
surely be very unnatural that €xovres 5¢€
should apply not to the principal but to the
subordinate clause of the foregoing verse.
But (contrast to the foregoing state of
trial and working of death in us) having
the same spirit of faith (not distinctly
the Holy Spirit,—but as in reff., not
merely a human disposition : the indwell-
ing Holy Spirit penetrates and character-
izes the whole renewed man) with that de-
scribed in the Scriptures (7d adrd Kara
eyiper D'F,
7d yeyp., i. e. either as Billroth, 7d adrd
[exelvw] wept ob yéypamra, or as De W.,
= 7d avTd as yéeyp., &swep being some-
times found after 6 avrdés, toos, and the
like, and card here being equivalent to it.
I prefer the former: but at all events the
connexion of 7d avrdé and Kata 7d yep.
must be maintained, and we must not, with
Meyer, connect kata 7d yeyp. . - . with
kal qets motevouev, which makes the
Apostle say that his faith is according to
the words of the citation, and thus con-
fuses the whole process of thought), I be-
lieved, wherefore I spoke (the connexion
of the words in the Psalm is not clear, nor
the precise meaning of °3, rendered by the
LXX 6:6. See Pool’s Synopsis in loc. for
the various renderings), we too believe,
wherefore we also speak (continue our
preaching of the gospel, notwithstanding
such vast hindrances within and without) :
14.] knowing (fixes, and expands
in detail the indefinite muctevouev, and thus
gives the ground of Aadotduer,—not as
commonly understood, the matter of which
we speak) that He who raised up (from
the dead) the Lord Jesus, will raise up us
also (from the dead hereafter, see 1 Cor.
vi. 13, 14:—not in a figurative resurrec-
tion from danger, as Beza, who afterwards
changed his opinion, al., and lately Meyer,
whose whole interpretation of this passage
is singularly forced, and his defence of it
unfair, see below) with Jesus (cbv *Incod
is not necessarily figurative, as Meyer; even
in the passages where a figurative sense is
the prevailing one, it is only as built upon
the fact of a literal ‘raising with Christ,’ to
be accomplished at the great day : see Eph.
ii. 6; Col. iii. 1,3; 1 Thess. v. 10) and
present us with you (i. e. as in Jude
24, TG Suvvaméevp . . . OTHTM kKaTevamiov
Tis Sdins abrov audmous ev ayadAdoes
..., and in reff., at the day of His coming).
Meyer’s objection to the meaning
above given,—that the Apostle could not
thus speak of the resurrection, because he
15—16.
\
Kat 1°
» Xapic * tXeovacaca ota
u f. ‘ eee
TAVAGTIGEL GUY UULLV.
th
TWY
Ul
oTlav
, ~ > , a’? a \ c
“eykaxoupev, AAX “a “Kat oO
, > ,
° StapBeiperar, avr
intr., Rom. v.15 al.
c Luke xii. 33. 1 Tim. vi. 6.
1 Cor. v.12 reff. [-Hev,
cii. 5.)
Zz ver. 1
16. rec exkaxoupey (see ver 1), with CD8KL rel: txt BDFN em.
for diapPeip., pOeperat KL 46!-7. 114 Thdrt,(txt,) Thl:
exw (for uniformity?) BCD'FX dm Orig Ath Chr ir
73. 137 Bas Thdrt,(txt,).
poewpera a® d.
Damase :
expected (1 Cor. xv. 51, 52; i.8; ch.i. 18,
14) to be alive at the day of Christ, is best
refuted by this very passage, ch. v. 1 ff.,
where his admission of at least the possibi-
lity of his death is distinctly set forth.
The fact is that the éeyepe? here, having
respect rather to the contrast of the future
glory with the present suffering, does not
necessarily imply one or other side of the
alternative of being quick or dead at the
Lord’s coming, but Babson all, quick and
dead, in one blessed resurrection-state.
This confidence, of being presented at that
day civ ipiv, is only analogous to his ex-
pressions elsewhere ; see ch.i. 14; 1 Thess.
ii. 19, 20; iii. 13. 15,| Explanation
of ovy bpiv as a ground of his trust: with
reference also to 4 5& (wt év tptv, ver. 12 ;
viz. that all, both the sufferings and victory
of the ministers, are for the church: see
the parallel expression, ch. i. 6,7. For
all things (of which we have been speak-
ing ; or perhapshyperbolically, ALL THINGS,
the whole working and arrangements of
God, asin 1 Cor. iii. 22, efre éveorta ctre
MéAAovTa, TdvTa bu@y) are on your be-
half, that Grace, having abounded by
means of the greater number (who have
received it), may multiply the thanks-
giving (which shall accrue), to the glory
of God. Such (1) is the rendering of
Meyer, and, in the main, of Chrys., Erasin.,
al., and recently, Riickert and Olshausen.
Three other ways are possible; (2) ‘that
Grace, having abounded, may, on account
of the thanksgiving of the greater number,
be multiplied (‘ rAcovdgw habet vim posi-
tivi: mepiooedw, comparativi,’ Bengel) to
the glory of God’ So Luther, Beza, Es-
tius, Grot., Bengel, al.:—(3) ‘that Grace,
having abounded, may, by means of the
greater aumber, multiply the thanksgiving
to the glory of God. So Emmerling and
De Wette :— (4) ‘ that Grace, having mul-
tiplied (see 1 Thess. iii. 12, for the transitive
ILPOX KOPINOIOYS B.
‘ ‘ ’ es Gs cd
Ta ‘yao TwWavrTa ou eae tva
w , ‘
TAELOVWY TYyV
y , ’ oy 80 ~ 6 ~
TEOLT DEVON ELC THY ocav TOU €Ou.
* zou Oev | nNuw@v
Rey. viii. 9. xi.18 only. 2Kingsi.14. Dan. vii. 14 Theod.
= Luke xi. 39, 40 only.]
esw0ev D°KIL rel Thdrt, Thl He.
latt(not G-lat) Syr copt goth Orig Ath Chr Thdrt, Thl Gc Tert, Lucif Ambrst :
(for uniformity ?) BCDFR® syr arm Thdrt,.
655
u =ch. xi. 2.
Eph. v. 27.
Col. i. 22, 28.
- Mot vy. 20
2 euxape (reff ). 5
LO ouK Fees pe Ay
() x Ket xxiv. 3
WTO re
av e ¢ y transit., ch.
© avakatvourat '%,°, Eph.
iii. 12 only}.
b here only. see Rom, vii. 22 refi.
d see
(-viGecv, Heb. vi. 6. Ps.
ew cov
a ver, 3.
e Col. iii. 10 only f.
efw0ev D'-r
(17 def.) rec om juwy, with KL rel
ins
sense) by means of the greater number the
thanksgiving, may abound to the glory of
God. This last has not been suggested by
any Commentator that Iam aware of, but is
admissible. I prefer (1), as best agree-
ing with the position of the words, and with
the emphases. If (2) had been intended,
I should have expected iva mAcovdcaca 7
Xapis,—TAcovdoaca in its present position
standing awkwardly alone. The same re-
mark applies to (3), and this besides, that
in that case I should expect mAeidywy, and
not T@y mX., in which the art. rather re-
gards the matter of fact, the many who
have received the grace, or who give thanks,
than the intention, to multiply the thanks-
giving by the (possible) greater number of
persons. If (4) had been intended, I should
have looked for tva 4 xdpis Thy ebyapi-
oTiav mAcov. 514 TOY TAEL., TEPLOO. K.T.A.
By adopting (1), we keep the words and
emphases just where they stand: tva 7
xdpis, TAcovdcaca did TOY wAcibvwY (not
dia 7. WA. TAcov., Which would give an un-
due prominence to 31a Tay wAcidv., whereas
those words only particularize mAcovdoaca),
THY EX. Teplagevon, cis THY Bd~ay T. Ocod.
As to the sense, (see the very similar senti-
ment, ch. i. 11,) thanksgiving is the highest
and noblest offering of the Church to God’s
glory (@vala aivécews B5otdoe: me, Ps. xlix.
23, LXX): that this may be rendered, in
the best sense, as the result of the working
of grace which has become abundant by
means of the many recipients, is the great
end of the Christian ministry.
16—18.] Second ground of encouragement
—HOPE. 16.] Wherefore (on account
of the hope implied in the faith spoken of
ver. 14, which he is about to expand) we
do not shrink (as in ver. 1: but now, owing
to despair), but (on the contrary) though
even (not ‘even if,’ putting a case; ef Kat
with ind asserts the fact, as in €i kal orev-
Somat, Phil. ii. 17) our outward man is
656
fic. oy
nHEpG.
kl
kal)
\
f here only. f nuéoa ‘ Kat
(see note.) -
g neut., 1 Cor,
! clin
rvxeret, OAtbewe Naw
h here only. m
Ps. Ixix. 3.
Tobit iv. 14
only.
i Matt. xi. 30
only. Exod.
XVili. 26.
"BXeromeva *
( sa ch. i.
k here only.
es = Rom. ii. 7 reff. o = Rom. iy. 15 reff.
4. (Rom. Xvi. 17 reff.)
17. ins mposkatpoy kat bef eAappoy D'F latt Syr goth arm lat-ff. (Thdrt says:
Tov mapauTina ederke TO Bpaxd Te Kal mpdskaipov.
om ets urepBoAnv C!X}(ins X-corr') 38. 80 Bas
18. for ckor. nuwy, cxorovytes D'F D-lat G-lat Orig, Ambrst-ed.
see Tischdf’s Cod Ephr) Chr.
katpa ins ertiy F, so also latt.
wasted away (i. e. our body, see Rom. vii.
22, is, by this continued véxpworts and éevép-
yea Tov Yavarov, being worn out :—he is
not as yet speaking of dissolution by death,
but only of gradual approximation to it),
yet (aAAa in the apodosis after a hypothe-
tic clause, introduces a strong and marked
contrast:—so Hom. Il. a. 81,—ezrep yap
TE XOAOV ye Kal avTiwap KatameWyn, GAAG,
Te Kal metémiabey exer KéToy, bppa TeAEo-
on: see other examples i in Har tung, Parti-
kellehre, ii. 40) our inner (man) is renewed
(contrast, subordinately to d:apdelperar,
but mainly to éyxarovuer) day by day
(nu. Kad ju., so Hebr. 0%) OY, Esth. iii. 4;
an expression not found [Meyer] even in
the LXX): i. e. ‘our spiritual life, the life
which testifies the life of Jesus, even in our
mortal bodies (ver. 11), is continually fed
with fresh accessions of grace: see next
verse. So Chrys.,—1@s dvakavotTal; TH
mloret, TH eAmtdi, TH mpoOuuta, TH Aovrdy
KaTaToAuay tay dewav. bow yap by
Muplia Taacxn Td oGua, ToTOUTH xXpHaITO-
Tépas €xer Tas eAmldas 7 Wuxi, Kal Aau-
mpotépa yiverat, Kalarep xpuoloy mupov-
mevoy émimAéov. Hom. ix. 17, 18.]
Method of this renewal. For the pre-
sent light (burden) of our affliction (the
adject. use of mapautixa is common with
Thueyd., e. g. ii. 64, 7 mapautika Aau-
apéTns, Kal és To emerta Sdka: Vill. 82,
Thy Te wapauvtixa eAtida: vii. 71, ev TH
mapautika, where Schol. ev 7@ eveor@tt
tire xpév~;—and with his imitator
Demosthenes, e. g. p. 72. 16, 9 map-
autly’ 75ovh Kx. pactdvn pmet(oy ioxver
Tov wo? torepoy cuvolaew pméAAovTos ;
—see also pp. 34. 24; 215. 10: and more
examples in Wetst. éXadpdy as a sub-
stantive, contrasted with Bdpos ; see reff.),
works out for us (‘efficit,’ ‘is the means
of bringing about’) in a surpassing and
still more surpassing manner (xaé. om.
eis brep. must belong to the verb, as
Meyer and De W.; for otherwise it can
IIPOS KOPINOIOY®S B.
17g
bs U7eoBoA nv * ELC aie alwyiov
Papoe " 8dEnc ° Katepyacerat ® 1 P
Naw ta ' Breroneva adda ra mm "BAerousva’ ra yao
r = Rom. viii. 24.
IV: 7,48
TO yao " wapavrixa ' ehagpov THe
18
le
‘intel un ToKoTovvrwy
mpocKatoa, ra OE uy " BX emoueva aimvia,.
1] Rom. vii. 13 reff.
m = here only. (Acts xv. 28 reff.)
p constr., see Acts xxi. 17 reff. q = Phil. ii.
s Matt. xiti. 21 | Mk. Heb. xi. 25 only fF.
yt
So also Thl.) om nuwy BC?(appy:
aft mpos-
only qualify aiévov, the idea of which for-
bids such qualification, not Bdpos, which
is separated from it by the adjective : —
i.e. so as to exceed beyond all measure the
tribulation) an eternal weight of glory
(aidéviov Bapos opposed to mapavtixa
€Aappor). 18.| Subjective condition
under which this working out takes place.
While we regard not (‘propose not as
our aim,’ ‘spend not our care about,’—
reff.) the things which are seen (ref. =
7a emtye.a, Phil. iii. 19. Chrys. strikingly
says, Ta BAewéueva mavTa, Kav xddAaots
H, Kav avdmavois Bste unre exeidev xav-
vovoOa, phre evTedvdey BialecOau), but
the things which are not seen (‘aliud
significat adpara, invisibilia, nam multa
que non cernuntur, erunt visibilia, con-
fecto itinere fidei.’ Bengel—pi Ba., not
ov, perhaps because »f stands with parti-
ciples in clauses of a subjective character,
SO OTHKETE.... My TTUpdmevor ev pundev)
» Phil. i. 27, 28. Winer, edn. 6,
§ 55. 5. g. 8,—or rather perhaps, as ib.
a, as hypothetic: 7a od BAérou. would
be the things which as a matter of fact
at any given time we do not see, cf. of
ovK HAenmévor, 1 Pet. ii. 10: Ta a) BA.,
generally and hypothetically, the things
not seen. So 6 ud dy mer’ éuod, Matt. xii.
30, in a case indefinite and hypothetical.
This amounts to much the same as when
in the ordinary account of such clauses, we
say that uh belongs to the subject, od to
the predicate,—but is a better explanation,
inasmuch as that account gives only the
logical fact,—this, the logical reason of the
usage): for the things which are seen,
are temporary (not ‘ ¢emporal,’ ‘ belonging
to time,’ but ‘fleeting,’ ‘ only for a time,’
see reff. ;—i.e. till the day of Christ): but
the things which are not seen, are eter-
nal. Chrys. again: k&yv Bactrela, Kay
KoAaocts i dste Kal exetdev poBijeat, Kar
évrevdey mpotpewacbat. Seneca, Ep. 59
(Wetst.), -has-a very similar sentiment ;
Wer ky 2:
ITPOS KOPINOIOY®S B.
657
/ wo ee 5) Sie >, 9 a er a 2
V. FF Sidanev yap ‘ore av 4 “ exiyetog Huwv “ otkla TOU ' Rom. vi14
, pg , .Y > ~ of 2h
* axnvoug ¥ kataAvOy, * o1xodouny ek Oeou exousv “ orKlav
> ’ >” > - > ~
“ayelooTOinTOV alwviov EV TOC OVPAVOIC.
only+. Wisd.ix.15 only. (-vwya, Acts vii. 46. -vovv, John i. 14.)
zZ = 1 Cor. iii. 9 reff.
Acts vi.14. Ezra vy. 12.
u 1 Cor, xv. 40
rett.
w = Jobiv. 19
2 , < 2 (Xxx. 23 :
Kat yao &v , eis”
y = Matt. xxvi. 6! |.
a Mark xiv. 58. Col. ii. 11 only t.
Cuap. V. 1. ins or: bef oxodounv DF latt Chr, Cypr Ambrst Pelag Sedul (not fri
Tert Aug al).
‘ista imaginaria sunt, et ad tempus aliquam
faciem ferunt. Nihil horum stabile nec
solidum est ... Mittamus animum ad ea,
que eterna sunt.’
Cuav. V. 1—10.] Further specification
of the hope before spoken of, as consisting
tn anticipation of an eternity of glory after
this life, in the resurrection-body : which
leads him evermore to strive to be found
well pleasing to the Lord at His coming :
seeing that all shall then receive the things
done in the body. 1.| For (gives the
reason of ch. iv. 17,—principally of the
emphatic words of that verse. ra6 b7ep-
Bodnyv «is brepB.,—shewing how it is that
so wonderful a process takes place) we
know (as in ch. iv. 14,—are convinced, as
asure matter of hope) that if (‘ supposing ;
—not = kay, ‘etiamsi,’ but indefinite and
doubtful: if this delivering to death con-
tinually should end in veritable death. The
case is hypothetical, because many will
be glorified without the kardAvois taking
place: see 1 Cor. xv. 51, 53) our earthly
tabernacle-dwelling (rot oxnvous is gen.
of apposition. The similitude is not de-
rived from the wandering of the Israelites
in the wilderness, nor from the tabernacle,
but is a common one with Greek writers,
see examples in Wetstein. “The whole
passage is expressed through the double
figure of a house or tent, and a garment.
The explanation of this abrupt transition
from one to the other may be found in the
image which, both from his occupation
and his birthplace, would naturally occur
to the Apostle,—the tent of Cilician
hair-cloth, which might almost equally
suggest the idea of a habitation and of
a vesture.” Stanley. Chrys. observes:
cima@v oiklay aKnvous, Kal Td evdicAuTOY
kal mpdskapoy Seltas evTedOev, avTEOnKe
Thy aiwviayy Td yap Tis oKnvijs ovoua
7 mpdskaipoy moAAdnis BSelxvuor) were
dissolved (‘mite verbum,’ Bengel: i. e.
‘taken down, ‘done away with:’ but
‘dissolved, as well as the vulg. ‘ dis-
solvatur,’ is right), we have in the
heavens (as Meyer rightly remarks, the
present is used of the time at which the
dissolution shall have taken place. But
even then the dead have it not in actual
Vou. II.
ins ovk bef axetporointov F (non manufactam).
possession, but only prepared by God for
them against the appearing of the Lord:
and therefore they are said to have it in the
heavens. Chrys., &c., Beza, Grot., al.,
join éyv rots ovp. with oixlay, which can
hardly be: it would be either érovpavioy
or ef ovpavod. The EK. V. according to
the present punctuation, yields no sense :
‘not made with hands, eternal in the
heavens’) a building (no longer a cxjjvos)
from God (‘in an especial manner prepared
by God,’ ‘pure from God’s hands :’ not as
contrasted with our earthly body, which,
see 1 Cor. xii. 18, 24, is also from God), a
dwelling not made with hands (here
again, not as contrasted with the fleshly
body, for that too is &xetporolnros, but
with other oixtat, which are xeiporolntot.
Remember again the Apostle’s occupation
of a tent-maker), eternal. A difficulty
has been raised by some Commentators
respecting the intermediate disembodied
state,—how the Apostle here regards it,
or whether he regards it at all. But none
need be raised. The ofxia which in this
verse is said, at the time of dissolution,
to be év tots ovpavots, is, when we put
it on, in the next verse, our oiknthpiov
To @& ovpavod. Thus the intermediate
state, though lightly passed over, as not
belonging to the subject, is evidently in the
mind of St. Paul. Some Commentators,
Photius, Anselm, Thomas Aq. (in Estius),
Wolf, Rosenm., al., understand these words
themselves (oik. &xetp. aidv. ev T. ovp.) of
the intermediate state of absence from the
body; Usteri and Flatt, of an immediate
glorified body in heaven, to be united with
the body of the resurrection. Calvin hesi-
tates: “ Incertum est, an significet statum
beatz immortalitatis, qui post mortem fide-
les manet, an vero corpus incorruptibile et
gloriosum, quale post resurrectionem erit.
In utrovis sensu nihil est incommodi:
quanquam malo ita accipere, ut initium
hujus eedificii sit beatus anime status post
mortem: consummatio autem sit gloria
ultime resurrectionis.” But if this be so,
(1) the parallel will not hold, between the
oixla in one case, and the oikia in the
other,—and (2) the language of ver. 2 is
against it, see below. a For also
U
658
se , b , Xe
b Rom. vil 23 rouTw " GTEVACOMEV, TO
r
cJude6only. g »
(Jer. XXxil.
[xxv.] 30
Ald.). d here bis only t.
4. Eph. iii. 2. iv. 21. Col. i. 23 only.
7
3. * cle
oamevo.
IIPOX KOPINOIOYS B.
erevevoaa0at * exitoNourtec’
(-d0rHs, John xxi. 7.)
etmep, Rom. viii. 9 reff.
V.
> , € ~ * > . -
OLKNTHOLOV HUwY TO é ovoavou
ries € ‘
Bt Fay ye Kal
ew. inf., Rom. i. 11 reff.
g 1 Cor. xv. 53, 54 reff.
f Gal. iii,
BDF 17 Chr(twés 5€ paow, d Kal mddtora eyxpitéov, Etrep kal évdv-
So also (Ee) Max-conf: «: yap 52: sz tamen latt Aug Pelag: si quidem Tert
Ambrst: e«« ye CKLN rel Clem Did Mae, Chr Thdrt Damase Th] Cc.
ekdugamevot
(see notes) D' Chr(explaining it k&v dro8ducba 7d cGua) Tert Ambr Paulin Primas
Quest, exAvoauevor expoliati F. (vestiti vulg with F-lat, expol. is written over the
greek in F.)
(our knowledge, that we possess such a
building of God, even in case of our body
being dissolved, is testified by the earnest
desire which we have, to put on that new
body without such dissolution taking place.
See the similar argument in Rom. viii. 18,
19) in this (viz. coxfver, as Beza, Meyer,
Olsh., al. The rendering év rot, ‘ where-
Sore, —some referring it to the foregoing, —
‘ propter hoc quod dictum est,’ Est., some
to the following,—is inconsistent with
tytes €v TG oxTvet, which is parallel with
it, ver. 4. The stress is not necessarily
on év, ‘in this,’ as contrasted with ‘out
of this,’ as Meyer, who joins cai with év
TovTw; but see above) we groan (see
Rom. viii. 23), longing (i. e. because we
desire, the reason of orevdouev. emi-
mo0., not ardently desire: the prep. does
not intensify, but denotes the direction of
the wish, as avéuov wh mposedytos, Acts
xxvii. 7) to put on over this (‘ swperin-
duere :? viz. by being alive at the day of
Christ, and not dissolved as in ver. 1 :—see
on ver. 4 below. The similitude is
slightly changed: the Zouse is now to be
put on, as an outer garment, over the
Jleshly body) our dwelling-place (‘oixla
est quiddam magisabsolutum, — oi«nrfpior,
domicilium, respicit incolam ? Bengel. So
Eur. Orest. 1113,—&s@ ‘EAAas atte opuic-
pov oixnthpiov) from heaven (i.e. = ék
Oeov ver. 1, but treated now as if brought
with the Lord at His coming, and put
upon us who are alive and remain then.
‘Itaque,’ says Bengel, ‘hoe domicilium
non est celum ipsum’): 3.] seeing
that (et ye [see var. readd.] is used ‘de re,
que jure sumta creditur :’ elarep, when ‘in
incerto relinquitur, utrum jure an injuria
sumatur.’ Herm. ad Viger., p. 834. So
Xen. Mem. ii. 1. 17, GAAG yap, & &., of eis
Thy Bacirikhy téxvnvy matdevduevol, Hy
Soxets wor od vouiCew eddamoviay elvat, Th
diapepovor Tay e& avdyKns KakonabotvTwr,
et ye mewhaovor Kk. Supjoovet, K.7.A.,—
‘if they are to hunger and thirst, &e?
And for etaep, Adsch. Ag. 29 f. etrep IAtov
méAts édAwkev, ws 6 ppuKTds ayyéAAwy
aperet, —‘if, that is, the city, &c.’) we shall
really (kal, ‘in very truth :’ so Soph. An-
tig. 766, du¢w yap aitad kal natakreivar
voeis ; ‘dost thou intend verily to kill
them both ?? and Asch. Sept. Theb. 810,
exeiOs niAOov ; ‘have they really come to
that?’ See more examples in Hartung,
Partikellehre, i. 132) be found (shall prove
to be) clothed (‘having put on clothing,’
viz. a body), not naked (without a body—
“éySuo., ov yuuy., as yadda, ov Bpayua, 1
Cor. iii. 2 and often, cf. ver. 7.” Meyer.
See Stanley’s note). The verse asserts
strongly, with a view to substantiate and
explain ver. 2, the truth of the resurrec-
tion or glorified body; and, with Meyer, I
see in it a reference to the deniers of the
resurrection, whom the Apostle combated
in 1 Cor. xv.: its sense being this: “ For
I do assert again, that we shall in that
day prove to be clothed with a body, and
not disembodied spirits.” Several other
renderings have been given :—(1) ‘ Si nos
iste dies deprehendet cum corpore, non
exutos a corpore,—si erimus inter mutan-
dos, non inter mortuos,’ Grot.: Estius,
Bengel, Conyb., al. To this there are
three objections,— that e¢ye should be evrep
(the force of this objection is however
much weakened by the amount of autho-
rity which can be adduced for evrep),—that
kat is not rendered at all,—and that évdv-
oduevor, the aor. mid., should be éevdedu-
bévo1, the perf. pass. (2) The same objec-
tions apply to Billroth’s rendering, ‘ If we,
having been once clothed (with the earthly
body), shall not be found naked’ (without
the body). (3) De Wette renders: ‘ seeing
that when we are also (really) clothed, we
shall not be found naked:’ i.e. ‘setting
down for certain as we do, that that hea-
venly dwelling will also be a body.” To
this Meyer rightly objects, that it is open to
‘the difficulty of making @vdvors and yuurd-
Tys, and that in the very sense in which
they are opposites, to co-exist ;—no clothing
but that of a body is thought of here, or
else 0} odpatros yuuvol must have been
expressed. (4) This latter objection ap-
plies to the rendering of Chrys., Theodoret,
Theophyl., Gcum., al., who take éevduca-
BCDF
g? 5 ¥ KLNab_
EVOUOAUEVOL pias
m
nol7
3—5. IPOS KOPINOIOY®S B. 659
ov * yunvot ' evoeOnaopeOa. 4 Kat ao ot Ovrec ev Tw gicanned
“oxnve "orevaZouev ) Bapovpevar, “ep w ov Oédomev | eK ey iz
dvaacOat, avn’ 4 erevovcacbat, iva 7 KataToOy TO T Oynrov
vmo Tne Cwie.
P
Matt. xix. 9. Acts iii. 16.
m = | Cor. xv. 54 (reff), from Isa. xxv. 8.
here only. p Acts xxiv. 15 reff.
18, 20 only.
eee Volts , Con Zaege mis
oO 6& KATENYAOAMEVOS Nua ELC © AUTO j
=. / $5 ‘ ied ‘ Gq t2N sue = ~ ,
routo Uzoc, o dove nui Tov appaPwra TOU TvEvMAaTOS,
1 Matt. xxvii. 28, 31 || Mk. Luke x. 30 only. Gen. x xxvii. 23.
Tov TwW)La-
Tos. see
1 Cor. xv. 37.
= 1 or. iv. 2
reft.
jch. i. 8 reff.
k Rom.y. 12. see
n Rom. vi. 12 refi. o Rom. ii. 9 refi. constr.,
qch.i. 22. Eph.i.14 only. Gen, xxxvii.17,
4. aft oxnve: ins Tovrw DF d vss Chr Thdrt, Thl Tert, Ambrst : om BCKLX rel am
Origubique Hus Thdrty,;, Damase Cc Tert,.
ep w) eretdy, with rel: txt BCDFKLX® c.
goth.
5. xarepyalouevos DF latt(exe fuld) syrr Iren-int Ambrst. (katapyac. C.)
rec ins kat bef dous (cf ch i. 22), with D?-3KLN% rel syr goth Iren-
6 bef deos N!.
Bapvvomevo: D'F Thi. Steph (for
aft @vnrov ins Touro F(and G-lat spec)
ins
gr Chr Thdrt(a: 5:50vs Damasc, omg 0) Ambrst: txt BCD!FS8! 17 latt Syr copt arm
Orig Iren-int Aug Pelag Sedul Bede.
evo. = cua UpOaptovy AaBdyTes, and
yuuvot to mean yuuvol ddtns. Similarly
Anselm explains yupuvot, ‘nudi Christo ;’
Pelagius, Hunnius, and Baldwin, ‘vacui
jide:’ Erasm. Paraphr. ‘si tamen hoe
exuti corpore non omnino nudi reperiamur,
sed ex bone vite fiducia spe immortalitatis
amicti:’ in part too Calvin,—restricting it
however to the faithful only,—‘if at least
we, having put on Christ in this life, shall
not be found naked then.’ Olshausen too
takes ob yuuvol as an expansion of éyducd-
“evot, ‘provided that we shall be found
clothed with the robe of righteousness, not
denuded of it.’ Of all these we may say,
that if the Apostle had meant by yuuvot to
hint at any other kind of yuurétns than
that which the similitude obviously implies,
he would have certainly indicated it. (5)
The rendering of «i ‘wtinam,’ ‘utinam
etiam induti, non nudi reperiamur!’ as
Knatchbull and Homberg, need hardly be
refuted. (6) Another class of renderings
arise from the reading ékdvoduevor in a
few cursives, which in connexion with eizep
was evidently adopted in consequence of
the views of expositors. It stood as a con-
ditionalsentence,—‘ provided, thatis, that’
.., and in the idea that it referred to
the time after putting off the mortal body,
év was altered to ék. For much of the
reference to opinions in this note I am in-
debted to Meyer and De Wette.
4.| Confirmation and explanation of ver.
2. For also (a reason, why we émio6ov-
prev emevdvoac0a .... as in ver. 2) we
who are in the tabernacle (before spoken
of, i. e. of the body), groan, being burdened
(not by troubles and sufferings, nor by
the body itself, which would be directly
opposite to the sense: but for the reason
which follows), because (€¢” @ as in ref.
Rom.) we are not willing to divest our-
apaBwva X mo.
selves (of it), but to put on (that other)
over it, that our mortal part may (not,
die, but) be swallowed up by life (ab-
sorbed in and transmuted by that glorious
principle of life which our new clothing
shall superinduce upon us). The feeling
expressed in these verses was one most
natural to those who, as the Apostles, re-
garded the coming of the Lord as near,
and conceived the possibility of their living
to behold it. It was no terror of death as
to its consequences —but a natural reluct-
ance to undergo the mere act of death as
such, when it was within possibility that
this mortal body might be superseded by
the immortal one, without it.
This great end, the katamo@jvat 7d Ovn-
Tov ard Tis Cwis, is justified as the ob-
ject of the Apostle’s fervent wish, seeing
that it is for this very end, that this may
ultimately be accomplished, that God has
wrought us (see below) and given us the
pledge of the Spirit ;—But (and this my
wish has reason: for) He who wrought
us out (prepared us, by redemption, jus-
tification, sanctification, which are the
qualifications for glory) unto this very
purpose (viz. that last mentioned—rd
Katamrojvat TO Ovntoy tuay b1d T. Cwijs,
—not Td érevdtcac@a, a mere accident of
that glorious absorption: see below) is
God, who gave unto us (a sign that our
preparation is of Him: ‘quippe qui dede-
Lad S -OteiS cae ) the earnest (reff. and note) of
(gen. of apposition) the (Holy) Spirit.
The Apostle in this verse, is no longer
treating exclusively of his own wish for
the more summary swallowing up of the
mortal by the glorified, but is shewing that
the end itself, which he individually, or in
common with others then living, wishes
accomplished in this particular form of
érevitcac0a, is, under whatever form
Wun
—
660
ve CEL Sige
I (-pp-) here v
bis. ch. vii.
16. x. 1, 2.
Heb. xiii. 6
only. P.H.
Proy. i. 21
(xxxi. 11
Ald.) only.
part. constr.,
ch. vii. 5.
BiRebviile.
Lev. iv. 6.
Winer, edn.
6,$ 45. 6. b.
v Rom. vi.4. Acts xxi. 21 reff.
x = Rom. xv. 26 rett.
w Li
y Rom. xy. 20.
6. for evd., emSnuovytes D'F.
uto F.
7. ins kat bef ov F vulg.
IIPOS KOPINOIOY®S B.
s? = \ ‘ ,
evonunoat TOOC TOV Kuplov.
s here (each 3ce) only f. see ch. viii. 19.
uke iii. 22. ix. 29. John vy. 37. 1 Thess. v. 22only. Exod. xxiv. 17.
1 Thess. iv. 11 only t.
for €x5., arodnuovyey DF Chry.
for kup., Oeov DF old-lat(not Tert Lucif &c).
We
6 r i) , ‘ 100 a 5 8 -~
appouvTec Ovv TavTOrE, Kal ELOOTEC OTL * EVONLOUYTEC
’ ti Peay 3 > ~ > nN - , 4 ‘ ’
‘ev Tw ‘owpare * ExOnovpev azo TOV Kupiov’ 7" dia wisTEWC
‘ v - > in > \ ow 18 aor Re, \
yao “mepuraroupev, ov “dia “ eidoug Oappovmev ok
eae ’ ~ ~- 8s? ~ > ~ , \
kat *‘evdokoumev paddov *exdnunoat EK TOU cwpmaToS Kal
9 S10 Kat ¥ pirormmovpeba,
tch. xii. 2,3. Heb. xiii. 3. u Rom. ii. 27 reff.
for amo,
8. for Oappouper de, Oappouytes ovy (see ver 6) F(not G) 17 Syr (Orig) Ambrst:
Oappouvres de N: om Se b! d 0 67? Orig.—om ka F 67? Syr Orig Ambrst.—@appoupev
ovy de audemus ergo (aut autem) G.
arm Clem Ambrst.
brought about, that for which all the pre-
paration, by grace, of Christians, is carried
on, and to which the earnest of the Spirit
points forward. Meyer would limit this
verse entirely to the wish expressed in the
last: but he is certainly wrong: for it
forms a note of transition to Oappodyres oby
mavrotre in the next: see below.
6—8.| He returns to the confidence ex-
pressed in ver. 1; that however this may
be, whether this wish is to be fulfilled or
not, he is prepared to accept the alterna-
tive of being denuded of the body, seeing
that it will bring with it a translation to
the presence of the Lord. Being con-
fident then (because it is God’s express
purpose to bring us to glory, as in last
verse) always (either wnder all trials : or,
always, whether this hope of enevdtcac0at,
or the fear of the other alternative, be be-
fore us,—which latter I prefer), and know-
ing (not as the ground of our confidence,
as Calv., al., nor as an exception to it,
‘though we know, as Est., Olsh., al.,—
but correlative with it, and the ground
of the esSoxotpev below) that while at
home in the body, we are absent from
the Lord (the similitude of the body as our
oixla being still kept up: see similar senti-
ments, respecting our being wanderers and
strangers from our heavenly home while
dwelling in the body, Phil. iii. 20; Heb.
xi. 13; xiii. 14),—for (proof of our éxdnula
amd Tt. kup.) we walk (the usual figurative
sense,—‘go on our Christian course,’—
not literal, as of pilgrims) by means of (not
‘in a state of, nor ‘through, as the ele-
ment through which our life moves, Meyer ;
who is thereby necessitated to interpret
the two prepositions differently, see below)
faith, not by means of appearance (e/dos
cannot possibly be subjective, as rendered
in E. V. and by many Commentators; see
reff.—i. e. ‘faith, not the actual appear-
om ex N! a2,
for kup., deov D' 17 am
ance of heavenly things themselves, is the
means whereby we hold on our way,’ a
sure sign that we are absent from those
heavenly things),— notwithstanding (I
say) (he resumes the @appodvres, which
was apparently at first intended to belong
to evdoxotuev,—by the indicative, insert-
ing the 6€ because the last clause seemed
something like a dash to that confidence)
we are confident, and are well pleased
rather to migrate out of the body and
come to our home with the Lord: i.e.
‘even if (as in ver. 1) a dissolution of the
body be imminent,—even that, though not
according to our wish, does not destroy
our confidence: for so sensible are we that
dwelling in the body is a state of banish-
ment from the Lord, that we prefer to it
even the alternative of dissolution, bringing
us, as it will, into His presence.’ Meyer
regards éxdnu. and éevdnu. as equivalent to
the putting off of the mortal (but how ?)
and putting on the immortal body at the
coming of the Lord:—but surely by this
the whole sense is destroyed. The Apostle,
it seems to me, carefully chooses the words,
new to the context, éxdymety and évinuetv,
to avoid such an inference, and to express,
as he does in Phil. i. 28, then in the actual
prospect of death, that 7d dvaddear is
equivalent to oby xpior@ civar: for here
is no hint of the new house from heaven,
only of a certain indefinite evdnula mpds
Toy xvpiov, which is all that is revealed
to us, and it would seem was all that was
revealed to him, of the disembodied state
of the blessed. I may remark that Meyer,
whose commentary on this Epistle is most
able and thorough, has been misled in this
passage by an endeavour to range the
whole of it under the specific wish of
vv. 2—4. 9, 10.| Wherefore (this
being so,—our confidence, in event whether
of death, or of life till the coming of the
6—11.
ITPOX KOPINOIOYS B. 661
” s? BY ~ ” s? 5 ~ mz AS 2 > ~ ?
ElTE EVONMOVYTEC ELTE EKONMOUYTEC, EVaPECTOL auTWw Z Bon. xii. 1,
re
s
civar. 192
‘ ‘ a s ¢ -
Tovg yao “wavtag rac
paveowOnvar ° det * Rom, xi. 32
= (see note).
dt 0 = de Q?’ - d ~ f ’ b e
EUT O00 €vy TOU Brwaroc TOU Xelorou, tva KOMlLONTAaL Col. iii. 4.
PPRetiv.4:
4 ‘ ‘ ~ 7 h ‘ OF / ss
exaotoc ®ra Oia TOV Gwpuaroc, moog a empacev, sire , Liohnii 2s.
2 reff
> ‘ , , Su , z ‘ i 7 ~ —" 12 reff.
ayalov etre Kakov. 11 Kiddree ovv rov * poBov TOU KU-~ d Acts xviii. 17.
e Acts xii. 21
piov, avOowmouc * reomer, bew oe 'repavepwoneba’ eA rrilw fw tph. v8.
al. Ps, xxxix.15. 2 Macc. viii. 33.
Col. iii. 25
constr., Eph., Col., as above (f). h = Luke xii.
47. Gal. ii. 14 i= a ix. 31. Rom. iii. 18. ch. vii. 1. Eph. y. 21 (not Rom. xiii. 3).
|
k = Acts xii.20. Gal.i.10. 1 Kings xxiv. 8.
1 = Mark iv. 22. Jobn iii. 2] al.
10. for ta, &, omg mpos a, DIF. &! has written ¢ bef cousonrat, but marked it for
erasure. for xaxov, pavaov CXR d m 17 Orig, Eus Ephr Ath, Epiph Nyssen,
Bas, Cyr,, Damasc, Thl-comm(appy): txt BDFKL rel Clem Orig, Eus Chr Thdrtsepe
Damasc), 1
Lord, being such)—it is also (besides our
confidence) our aim, whether dwelling in
the body or absent from the body (at the
time of His appearing), to be well pleasing
to Him, i.e. ‘whether He find us evinu.
or exdnu., to meet with His approval im
that day.” ‘That this is the sense, the next
verse seems to me to shew beyond ques-
tion. For there he renders a reason for
the expressions, and fixes the participles
as belonging to the time of His coming.
But this meaning has not, that I am
aware, been seen by the Commentators,
and in consequence, the verse has seemed
to be beset with difficulties. The ordinary
rendering is represented by Chrys., 7d (-
Tovmevoy ToUTd é€oTL, Pyoly. &Y TE eKEt
Guev, ty Te evtadOa, Kata yvaounv avTov
Gijv'—the objection to which of course is,
that when there with Him, there will be
no striving to be evdpecta ait, the
acceptance having taken place. Nor is
De Wette’s interpretation free from ob-
jection —‘ whether we live till His coming,
or we die: because no sufficient account
is given of the present participles. Of
all renderings, Meyer’s is in this place the
most absurd, misled as he is by his inter-
pretation of ver. 8. He would make evin-
povvtes and éxd. here merely literal, the
similitude being dropped :—‘ whether at
home, or on travel. But, all else aside,
ean he tell us where Paul’s home was, sub-
sequently to Acts ix.? For this would be
necessary, though he shrinks from any
“ geographifdhe Beftimmung, 10. |
For (explanation and fixing of eddpeorot
avT@ eivat, as to when, and how testified)
we all (and myself among the number)
must be made manifest (‘appear :’ not
= mapaorivat merely, but ‘ appear in our
true light, appear as we have never done
before, as in reff., where the word is used
of our Lord Himself: see also 1 Cor. iv. 5)
before the judgment-seat (on Bijpa, see
Stanley’s note) of Christ, that each may
receive (the technical word for receiving
wages) the things (done) through the
body (as a medium or organ of action.
Meyer cites ray Hdovav ai dia TOD céhua-
tés eiow, Plat. Pheedo, p. 65, and aic@4-
ges ai $id ToD oduaros, Phedr. p. 250),
according to the things which he did (in
the body), whether (it were) good, or bad
(singular, as abstract). I may observe that
no more definite inference must be drawn
from this verse as to the place which the
saints of God shall hold in the general
judgment, than it warrants ; viz. that they
as well as others, shall be manifested and
judged by Him (Matt. xxv. 19): when,
or in company with whom, is not here so
much as hinted. I cannot pass on, with-
out directing the student to the passage on
this verse in Chrysostom’s tenth Homily,
as one of the grandest extant efforts of
human eloquence. 11—13.] Having
this pidotipta,—being a genuine fearer
of God (see below)—he endeavours to
make his plain dealing EVIDENT TO MEN,
as it IS EVIDENT TO Gop. He will give
the Corinthians whereof to boast concern-
ing him in reply to his boastful adver-
saries: this his conduct being, whatever
construction may be put on it, on behalf
of God and them. 11.|] Being then
conscious of (‘xo strangers to : so Homer
freq., e. g. a@euiotia efdés) the fear of
the Lord (not, as Chrys. and most of the
ancient Commentators = 7d gofepdy Tr.
kup.,—so also Beza and Estius, ‘ terrorem
Domini, and E. V., ‘the terror of the
Lord ;—but as Vulg., ‘¢émorem Domini,’
—this wholesome fear of Christ as our
Judge: see reff. The expression is par-
ticularly appropriate for one who had been
suspected of double dealing and insin-
cerity : he was inwardly conscious of the
principle of the fear of God guiding and
leading him),—we persuade men (the
stress on &vOpdémous, ‘it is MEN that we
attempt to persuade.’ Of what ? Beza,
662
ILPOX KOPINOIOY®S B.
¥
on eo ] ~ ff) 12 ?
mn Fe A, o: Kat év Taig ™ ouveonosow vnwy wepaveowalat. ou
, € Ca ‘
Rom wit wadw “eavtove ™ ouvistavomev vmiv, adda i apopuny
reft. Zz a! , (Fo ee a:
Bae Beleb P OidovrEc vplyv : Kavynuartoc UTED HRW), twa *Eynre ™90¢
. 0 *
Xxvii. 6. 10. x 7 aE t Ste 2 ob 13 u
ag. Aung, TOVE EV TOOCWTW KatX OHGNOUSy Kal OU Kagcia. Fe “elre
. vii. 8, . , ee , w = ip?
Tee yao * eSéornuev, Gew" “ etre GwpoovoumEv, UU n yap
q as above c
(p). ch. xi. 12 (bis). Gal. v. 12 only. P. Ezek. v.7 only. r Rom. iv. 2 reff. s see
TX@ Th youWw, Acts xxv. 26.
v Paul, here only. = Mark iii. 21.
12. rec aft ov ins yap, with D°KL rel Damase Thl Gc:
for 2nd vu, nu B},
for ov, wn ev BR m17: ove ey D'F:
Chr Thdrt Ambrst Pelag Bede.
17 G-lat.
Damase.
Grot., al., of the truth of Christ’s re-
ligion; win them to Christ, which how-
ever suits the rendering ‘¢e77orem Domini,’
better than the right one :—Chrys., Theo-
doret, Theophyl., * of our own integrity,
and so in the main, Estius, Bengel, Olsh.,
De Wette,—and Meyer, though | ie seems
to object to it, for he connects the words
with the iAormia of ver. 9:—Erasm.,
Luther, Wolf, Hammond, al., understand
melOouev of the endeavour to make our-
selves acceptable to men; Cornel.-a-La-
pide, Le Clere, al., ‘eundem hune ti-
morem hominibus suademus.’? But from
the context, it must have reference to ou7-
selves ; and I therefore agree with Chrys.,
al., as above), but to God we are already
manifested (we have no need to persuade
Him of our integrity, for He knows all
things) ;—and I hope (am confident) that
we have also been manifested (Meyer
remarks, that é@Ami(w in the N. T. else-
where has only the inf. aor.; here however
the inf. perfect is logically necessary. He
hopes, that the manifestation zs complete.
Cf. Acts xxvii. 18, ddtavres tis mpo-
Oécews enparnnévat, and Hom. Il. o. 110,
Hin yap viv €dmwow ~Apnt ye mihma Te-
7UxOat) in your consciences. 12.] We
are not again recommending ourselves
to you (see ch. iii. 1), but (say this as)
giving you an occasion for matter of
boasting (Kavxnua,—not = kabxnois as
De W.,—‘a source, whence matter of boast-
ing may be derived’) on our behalf (of us,
as your teachers, and to the upholding of
our ministry), that ye may have it (viz.
kaixnua, matter of boasting) against
those who boast in face (fair outward
appearance), and not in heart (i.e. in
those things which they exhibit, and are
outwardly = kara thy odpKa, ch. xi. 18,
not in matters which are in their hearts :
implying that their hearts are indifferent
about the matters of which they boast).
13.] For (ye have good reason to
boast of me as your teacher; seeing that)
t 1 Thess. ii. 17.
Acts Viii. J1. x. 45. xii. 16. Jer. ii. 12.
u constr., ch. i. 6. 1 Cor. xii. 26.
w Rom. xii. 3 reff.
om BCD'FR latt Syr copt
nobis D-lat. vuwy BR
txt CD’KL rel syr goth Chr
whether we have been mad (there is no
need to soften the meaning to ‘inordinately
praise ourselves, as Chrys., al.; or ‘act
foolishly, as others; or ‘ultra modum
agimus, as Bengel, Luther : — patyn,
TlavAe, was once said, Acts xxvi. 24,
and doubtless this charge was among the
means taken to depreciate his influence
at Corinth), it is to God (in God’s work
and to His glory): whether we be of
sound mind, it is for you (on your be-
half). ‘So that you have reason to glory
in us either way ; if you will ascribe to us
madness, it is a holy madness, for God :
if you maintain and are convinced of our
sobriety, it is a soundness in your service,’
On the interpretation of Chrys. above,
he explains the last clause,—ay 71 wérpioy
kK. Tamewoy beyEducba, BC suas, tva
uabnte Tamewoppoverv. But he gives
our interpretation also, as an alternative:
palverOat Tis Nuds pnol; Sia Toy Oedy
pawwducba.
14—19.] And his constraining motive
is the love of Christ ; who died for all,
that all should live to Him; and accord-
ingly the Apostle has no longer any mere
knowledge or regards according to the
flesh, seeing that all things are become
new in Christ by means of the reconcilia-
tion effected by God in Him, of which
reconciliation Paul is the minister.
14.] For (reason of his devotion under
all reports and circumstances, @e@ and
juiv, as in last verse) Christ’s love (not,
love to Christ, as (c., Beza, al,—but
Christ’s love to men, subjective, as most
Commentators; as shewn in His Death,
which is the greatest proof of love, see Rom.
v.6—8. Meyer remarks that the gen. of
the person after aya is with Paul always
subjective, —Rom. v. 5, 8; viii. 35, 39; ch.
Vili. 24; xiii. 13; Eph. ii. 4; Phil. i. 9 al.
[but see his own note on 2 Thess. iii. 5,
where he maintains the objective sense },
whereas with John it is not always so, 1
John y.3. Paul usually expresses love of,
BCDF
KLNab
edete
hklm
nol7
19-16:
Le ~
aya7n TOU
’
- ¢ * AN , ; a hae
TOUTO, OTL ELC UTEO TAVTWV améOaver, aoa ol
ea ys ‘
améQa vov
, d e ~ ~ > Q
PNKETL EavuTolc Cwour, aA\Xa
Ye? '
Kal eysp0evrt.
al Cor. xv. 14. Gal. iii. 29. see Rom. vii. 3, 25.
Rom, vi. 2, 10, 11. xiv. 7 al. el
6 (Paul) reti.
IIPOS KOPINOIOY= B.
*yousrou * ovvéxet nuac,
t pees ara, , re a 7] e -
kal uTEp TAVTWVY ameQauver, tva Ol Cwvrec
ee . = > ,
TW UTED AUTWY amolavovrt
Cor. xv. 4, and passim. Isa, xxvi. 19.
663
15 z t an
x = Rom. vili.
BR eee 35. Eph. ii.
19.
TAVTEC y — Luke xii.
60. Acts
xviii. 5.
Phil. i. 23
(L.P , exc.
Matt. iv. 24).
Job xxxi. 2c.
(hy Crake Fi) ss Bie >D ”
WCTE NMELC avo TOV VvUY OUVOEVaA oldapev Z = Acts XY.
19.
b ver. 10. ddat.,
f Acts xvui.
ce = Rom. vi. 8.
14. for xpictou, Beov C 17. 39. 42. 46. 120. 238 syr Chr Thdrt,(txt 1.) Thl-marg.
15. «pwartes F.
rec ins er bef fs, with C!X$ rel vulg(and F-lat) copt Ath-mss
Chryj, Cyr, Thl Ambrst-ms Aug,(elsw mss vary) Bede: om B(sic: see table) C2 DFKLN!
deln17 syrr goth wth Ath-edd Chr, Cyr,
ameOavov, amebavey &}.
i.e. towards, by eis, Col. i. 4; 1 Thess. iii.
12) constraineth us (a better word could
not be found: the idea of cvvéxw is that of
forcible limitation, either in a good ora
bad sense,—of confining to one object,
or within certain bounds, be that one
object a painful or glorious one,—those
bounds the angustie of distress, or the
course of apostolic energy, as here. ‘ Con-
straineth us, generally :—limits us to one
great end, and prohibits our taking into
consideration any others. ‘ Metaphora est
in verbo constringendi: qua notatur, fieri
non posse, quin, quisquis mirificum illum
amorem quem testatus est nobis Christus
morte sua, vere expendit et reputat, quasi
ei alligatus, et arctissimo vinculo constric-
tus, se in illius obsequinm addicat.’ Calv.
The varieties of interpretation, some as
Meyer, urging more the sense cohibendi,
others as Chrys., that excitandi, ovk apl-
now huas hovxd¢ew, all in fact amount
to one—that of the forcible compression
of his energies to one line of action),
15.] because we formed this judgment
(viz. at our conversion :— learned to regard
this as a settled truth) that One died on
behalf of all (not only,#for the benefit of
all, as Meyer,—but instead of all, suffered
death in the root and essence of our hu-
manity, as the second Adam. This death
on behalf of all men is the absolute objec-
tive fact: that a// enter not into the benefit
of that Death, is owing to the non-fulfil-
ment of the subjective condition which
follows),—therefore all died (i. e. therefore,
in the death of Christ, all, the all for whom
He died, of mdvres, died too: i.e. see be-
low, became planted in the likeness of His
death,—died to sin and to self, that they
might live to Him. This was true, objec-
tively, but not subjectively till such death
to sin and self is realized in each : see Rom.
vi. 8 fi.). The other renderings,—* ought
to die, as Thomas Aq., Grot., Estius, al.,
—‘ were under sentence of death, asChrys.;
Thdrt Damase (Ze-comm(appy)-
aft 2nd amredavey ins xpioros F vulg(not am) some-lat-ff.
for
Theodoret, Beza, al.;—‘ as good as died,
Flatt ;—are shewn to be erroneous by
carefully noticing the construction, with or
without e. ‘The verd is common to both
members of the sentence; the correspon-
dent emphatic words in the two members
being (1) eis dmép wavtwv, (2) TAVTES :
« (One on behalf of all) died, therefore (all)
died: if One died the death of (belonging
to, due from) all, then all died (in and
with Him).’ Meyer’s rendering of 67:
because, can hardly be right, as it would
leave kplvavras TovTo standing awkwardly
alone. And He died for all, in order that
they who live (in ¢his life, see jmets ob
(avres, ch. iv. 11; = in sense, ‘as long
as they are in this state,’ as De W. :—not,
«those who live spiritually,’ as Beza, Flatt,
which would altogether strike out the sense,
for it is, that they may live spiritually, &e.:
nor, ‘ superstites, they whom He left be-
hind at His death, (@yres in contrast with
Him who amé@avey, as Meyer ;—for, not
to insist on the more general reference to
all time, many to whom the Apostle was
now writing were not born at the time of
His Death) might no longer (now that
His Death has taken place: or, as they did
before they apprehended that Death as
theirs,—but I prefer the former, see and
rod viv below) live to themselves (with
self as their great source and end of action,
to please and to obey) but to Him that
died and rose again for them (twép, not
merely even as connected with evyepbevtt
‘for the benefit of, as Meyer again; but
strictly ‘in the place of ? as the Death of
Christ is ow death, so His Resurrection is
our resurrection). 16.| So that (ac-
eordingly,—consistently with our judg-
ment expressed ver. 15) we (in opposition
to our adversaries, the false teachers : not
general, of all Christians, as De W.,—but
as yet spoken, as the emphatic position of
jets shews, of the Apostle himself [and
his colleagues ?]) from this time (since
664
£ Rom, i.3
reff,
h 1 Cor. i. 30
reff.
i Gal. vi. 15.
k Acts xv. 7
reff, <— Isa.
x lili. 18.
‘
‘katy ‘KTiowc’ Ta
IPOS KOPINOIOY= B.
aXe voy ovK Ett yww@axopey.
‘ aoxyata
l= Matt. v. 18. xxiv. 35 al. see Acts xxvii. 9 reff.
v.
S kata oapKa® gl Kal eyvmcKapev F kara & ‘oapKa xetaTov,
17
WCTE el Tee Re Ev XPLITH,
' waondbev, toov, yéyovev
16. rec aft et ins de, with C?D?3KLN% rel syr copt goth Chr, Thdrt, Damase Thl
(Ee: «kat bef a F latt lat-ff:
bef kara capka D copt Orig, Jer.
vulg F-lat.)
this great event, the Death of Christ)
know no man according to (as he is in)
the flesh (Meyer well remarks : “ Since all
are [ethically | dead, and each man is bound
to live only to Christ, not to himself, our
knowledge of others must be altogether in-
dependent of that which they are Kara
odpxa,—must not be regulated kata odpra.
And the connexion of ver. 16 with ver.
15 shews that we must not take kata
adpxa as the subjective rule of o%Sauer,—
so that the explanation would be, ‘ accord-
ing to mere human knowledge,’ ‘ apart
from the enlightening of the Holy Spirit,’
cf. ch. 1. 17; 1 Cor. i. 26,—but as the
bas yee ef. ch. xi. 18 ; John viii. 15;
Phil. i,—so that Seta TW KATO
odpka = 5 know any one according to
his mere human individuality, —‘ to know
him as men have judged him by what he is
in the flesh, not by what he is kara
mvevua, as a Christian, as kaw) kriots,
ver. 17. He who knows no man kara
odpka has, e. g.in the case of the Jew,
entirely lost sight of his Jewish origin,—
in that of the rich man, of his riches,—
in that of the learned, of his learning,—
in that of the slave, of his servitude, &c.,
cf. Gal. iii. 28”): if we have also (ei
kal concedes what follows: méAw pev,
ei kal ph BAéreis, ppoveits F Suws, ola
voow kbvertt, Soph. Gd. Tyr. 302, — but
also, as distinguished from ka) ei, intro-
duces no climax, and distributes the force
of the «af over the whole concessive clause,
whereas in xa) ef it is confined to the con-
ditional particle ei,—see Hartung, Parti-
kellehre, i. 139) known Christ according
to the flesh, now however we know Him
(thus) no longer. The fact alluded to in
the concessive clause, is, not any personal
knowledge of the Lord Jesus while He was
on earth, but that view of Him which Paul
took before his conversion, when he knew
Him only according to His outward ap-
parent standing in this world, only as Jesus
of Nazareth. xpiordv is not = rdv xpic-
tév, ‘the Christ,’ but merely as a proper
name designating Him whom he now knew
as Christ. Observe, the stress is not on
© xptordv, q. a. ‘If we have known even
txt BD'N? 17. (C! uncert.)—om kat K 115.
XploTov
aft yiwwokomeyv ins Kata capka D'F Jer,. (not
Christ after the flesh,’ &e., as usually un-
derstood ;—the position of xp. forbids this,
which would require ef rad xpiorby eyr. Kk.
odp.,—but on éyvdkapev, as belonging to
the past, contrasted with our present know-
ledge. Observe likewise, that the position
of Kat& oapka, see above also, forbids its
being taken as the subjective qualificatioa
of éeyvdrapev, as = ei Kal Kata odpaa
ey. Xp.» or ef kK. eyv. xp. K. odpK., and
fixes it as belonging to ypiordv,—‘ Christ
according to the flesh’ He now, since
his conversion, knew Him no longer as
thus shewn, but as dpic0évta vidv Beod
ev Suvdmer, Kata Tvedua ayiwotvns. At
that time, evdécnoev 6 adopioas we...
Grokahvat Tov viov avTod ey euoi, Gal.
i. 15, 16. See by all means Stanley’s re-
marks, on the absence of all local and
personal recollections of our Lord’s life,
in the apostolic age. 17.] So that
(additional inference from what has gone
before: hardly as Meyer, from ver. 16
only : the death of ver. 15, as well as the
new knowledge of ver. 16, going to make
up the kaw xriois) if any man is in
Christ (far better than ‘whoever is in
Christ.’ See note on Phil. iv. 8. ‘Jn
Christ, i.e. 1 union with Him: Christ
being ‘the element in which by faith we
live and move,’ as Meyer), he is a new
creature («rlous, ‘creation, —the act, im-
plying ae the r@sult of the act. See ref.
and Col. 10, 11; Eph. ii. 10; iv. 23.
‘He ita received 1 ‘passed into,’ ‘a new
life,” John iii. 3): the old things (of his
former life —‘all the old selfish and im-
pure motives, views, and prejudices,’—De
Wette) have passed away (there does not
appear to be any allusion, as in Chrys.,
Theophyl., to the passing away of Judaism,
but only to the new birth, the antiqua-
tion of the former unconverted state, with
all that belonged to it): behold (a remi-
niscence of Isa. xliii. 18, 19—uh ywyn-
MoveveTe TX mpOTa, Kal TA apxyaia mh
avddoyl(erbe* iSod, eye mod kad), they
have become new (see var. readd.). The
arrangement of the sentence followed by
the Vulg., al., ‘Si qua ergo in Christo
nova creatura, vetera transierunt,’ is in-
17—20.
te ]
kKatva.
Toc nuac EauTw ova Xptorou Kal Sovroc nw THY
19 q ¢
Ww
°Stakoviay Tne ? karaAdAayie,
= , n et , e = \ os ol to Rom.
XeCloTw KOOMOV Kata acgWwv EauTwW, eal] oyt OMEVOC a 1B
ten ses Feb:
avuTotc Ta ; Taoa TTwMaTa auto,
‘ Vv rN f -~ P ~
TOV oyov TNC KkataA\Aa yue-
r1 Cor. xv. 22 reff.
only.
t Rom. iv. 25 reff. u Ps, civ. 27.
IIPOS KOPINOIOY®= B.
8 ca 8é ™ ravra ™ ex rou Osov rov "KaradAatav-
(Amos y. 7.)
665
m 1 Cor, xi. 12
reff.
n Rom. v. 10
reff.
ee < # ba o aa xx. 24
rett.
Cc OTL Oc0c NY EV » here bis.
v. J1.
only.
x. 5
‘ou ’ > e# > M; 5
kat “ Qéuevog ev naw eee
90 «_\ - « q=here (ch.
UTEO XPtorou OUY = xi. 21.
‘ 2 Thess. ii. 2)
s = Rom. ii. 26. iv. 4, 8 al. fr. Num. xviii. 27.
v Acts xiii. 26 reff.
17. rec aft kava ins ta mayra, with D?-8KL rel syr goth «eth-pl Orig Constt Did
Ath, ), Chr Damase ec Tert,: bef cava b d f k 0 17. 46. 67? vulg-ed Syr Ath, Dial
Method Naz Cyr, Thdrt Procl Thl Jer Ambrst Salv: om BCD'FX latt copt xth-rom
arm(1s05) Clem Ath-ms, Nyssen Cyr, Tert, Hil Aug Promiss.
18. om Ist tov D'F.
rec ins inoov bef xpiorov, with D8 KL rel Thdrt Damasce :
om BCD!FRX 17 latt syrr copt goth eth arm Chr Tert Hil Ambrst Aug.
19. ins o bef @eo0s FK b! o Thdrt Chr,.
katahacowy(sic) Xe fh! k. ins
[rav | evayyedAtov bef tov Aoyov D'F ; adnuntiationem D-lat, evangelii G-lat(and so over
the greek in F).—om tov F.
20. for vmep xp. ovy, ov umep xpiotov D'!F; pro quo Christo D-lat; quod pro quo
admissible, because the second member
would be a mere reassertion of the first.
18.| And all things (in this new
creation: he passes to a more general view
of the effects of the death of Christ—viz.
our reconciliation to God) are from God
(as their source), who reconciled us (a//
men, from next verse, where kécpov is
parallel with it) to Himself by means of
Christ (as an atonement, an expiatory
sacrifice, ver. 21, for sin which made us
€xOpol @eov, see Rom. v. 10), and gave
(committed) to us (Apostles, not mankind
in general; for had it been so,—in the next
verse, which is parallel, ev avrots, not év
jpiv, must have stood, after avro?s and
avTa@y just preceding) the ministration of
the reconciliation (the duty of ministering
in that office, whose peculiar work it is
to proclaim this reconciliation : so d:axovla
Tis Sixatoctvys, ch. iii. 9. Observe, that
the reconciliation spok@h of in this and the
next verse, is that of God to us, absolutely
and objectively, through His Son: that
whereby He can complacently behold and
endure a sinful world, and receive all who
come to Him by Christ. This, the subjec-
tive reconciliation, —of men to God,—fol-
lows as a matter of exhortation, ver. 20),
19.| how that (the &s imports that
the proposition following it, introduced by
é71, is matter of indirect reference. So
Xen. Hell. iii. 2. 14, cimay TG Sapani ws
drt oxvotn ph 6 Ticoad. k.T.A., and argum.
Isocr. Busir. p. 220 [cited by Winer, edn.
6, § 65. 9], karnydpouv abrod, as bTt Kawa
daudvia eispeper) God in Christ was re-
conciling the world to Himself (jv kar-
adkAdoowv not exactly = kathAdaccer,
any more than jv «knpvoowy Luke iv. 44
nl
= éxhpvocey: in both cases the habitual
state is more emphatically implied than
could be done by the imperfect merely :
the shade of difference can, however, hardly
be expressed in English. jv cannot, as
in Erasm., Luther, Calv., Beza, al., and
E. V., belong to ev xpiorg, ‘God was in
Christ, reconciling’ &c.,—partly on ac-
count of the position of ev xp., which
would thus probably be before jv, but prin-
cipally (Meyer) because of incoherence
with @€uevos évy nuty x.7.A.: for in that
case the two latter clauses must express
the manner of reconciliation by Christ,
which the second of them does not.
kéopov,— without the article, as governed
words placed for emphasis before their verbs
often are—it would not be kataAAdcowy
kécpov, but Tov cdaov,—the whole world,
—man, and man’s world, entire, with all
that therein is, seg Col. i. 20, but con-
sidered, cf. adtav below, as summed up in
man),—not imputing to them their tres-
passes (present: on the expression see
reff.), and having placed in us (past :-—
not merely = ‘ committed to us,’ but ‘ laid
upon us, as our office and charge, and,
besides, ‘empowered us for,’ ‘put in our
souls by His Spirit, ‘ Us, viz. Apostles
and teachers) the word of the recon-
ciliation (as 6 Adyos 6 Tov oTavpod, 1 Cor.
. 18). :
20, 21.] He describes his office as that
of an ambassador for Christ, consisting
in beseeching them, ON THEIR PART, to be
reconciled to God; and that, in consi-
deration of the great Atonement which
God has provided by Christ. On Christ’s
behalf then (i. e. in pursuance of the impo-
sition on us of the Adyos THs Kat.) We are
666
wEph.vi.20 W
only t. (-efa,
Luke xiv.32.)
X W. gen. abs.,
1 Cor. iv. 18
refi. T
y absol., 1 Cor. yn
ow, i. 17 reff.
only t. 1 Mace. xii. 1.
(Phil. iii. 9.)
Christo G-lat.
aut obsecrantes G-lat.
G-lat lat-ff(not Jer Bede).
om Tw F.
IIPOS KOPINOIOY® B.
moeoPebouey, *@e tov Osov
dcopeOa vmep Xprorov,
b Mark xvi. 20. Rom. viii. 28.
Esdr?vii. 2 only. (-yos, 1 Cor. iii. 2.)
Vs
¥ wapakaXovuvtoc Ov nue"
21
* watahAaynrs Tw Oew. TOV
* yvovra ajeaptiav UTE Huw auapriay ETroinoeyv, wa
3 1
na cl nuste yevoue0a * Stkatoobvvn *“Oeov Ev auTw. VI. 2 uvEp-
1 Cor. xvi. 16. James ii. 22
deouevor D'(and lat) F Chr-ms Hil Ambrst(not Aug al); orantes
katadAaynvat D'(and lat) F syr-marg goth, reconciliart
21. ree aft tov ins yap (see note), with D®KLN3% rel syrr goth Chr Eucher Thdrt,
Damase Ambrst-ms :
Ambrst-ed Aug Pelag Alcim.
LX rel Orig, Chr Thdrtsepe Damase Thl Ge.
om @eou 46. 114 Thdrt,.
219 Eus Sev Chr Thdrt, :
ambassadors, as if God were exhorting by
us: we beseech (‘ you,’ but not uttered as
an integral part of the present text, not a
request now made and urged, as Rom. xii.
1; he is describing the embassage; we
are ambassadors, and in our embassage it
is our work to beseech—‘ Be ye,’ &e. ) on
Christ’s behalf, Be reconciled to God :—
SiaAX. strictly passive: ‘God was the RE-
CONCILER—let this reconciliation have ef-
Sect on you—enter into it by faith’ Our
E. V., by inserting the word ‘ ye,’ has given
a false impression, making it appear as if
there were an emphasis on it, correspond-
ing to God being reconciled to us, as if it
had been katadAadynte Kal duets TS 9eG,—
whereas it is the simple being reconciled in
that reconciliation in which God was, in
Christ, the Reconciler. 21.] States
the great fact on which the exhortation to
be reconciled is grounded :—viz. the un-
speakable gift of God, to bring about the
reconciliation. It is introduced without
a ydp (which has been supplied), as still
forming part of the Adyos Tis KaTadAayijs.
Him who knew not sin (rdv od yrdvta
would merely assert the fact, that up to the
time of érolnoev, He was ignorant of sin.
But «f with a participle, as has been ob-
served since the doctrine of the particles
has been more accurately studied, always
denies subjectively, i.e. in reference to the
view of some person who is the subject, or
to the hypothesis of some person who is the
direct or indirect utterer of the assertion.
Cf. note on ch. iv. 18. | With what refer-
ence then is the particle here used? Fritz.
[in Meyer | thinks, to the Christian’s neces-
sary idea of Christ, “quem talem virum
mente concipimus, qui sceleris notitiam
non habuerit:” Meyer, and Winer, edn.
6, § 55. 5. B, to God’s judgment of Him.
I much prefer to either regarding it as
subjective with reference to Christ Him-
om BCD!FN! 17 latt copt Orig Ath Chr,-comm Did Thdrt, Hil
ree yivwueba (with none of our mss): txt BCDFK
Oeov bef Sixatoovvyn K d 98. 109.
self, Who said, John viii. 46, rls e& iuady
eAeyxet me Tepl Guaprias; He was thus
6 ph yvovs Guaptiav [see Hartung, Parti-
kellehre, ii. 181, who gives among other
examples, one very similar, from Thuecyd.
i. 118, jovxaGsv Te Td wA€oY TOD xpdvou,
évtes Kal mpd Tod pH TaxeEts evar és Tos
moAéuous |,—‘ knew not,’ i.e. by contact,
by personal experience, ‘sin.’ See, for
the sense, 1 Pet. ii. 22; Heb. vii. 26), on
our behalf (or, instead of us: I prefer
here the former, because the purpose of
the verse is to set forth how great things
God has done for us :—the other, though
true, does not seem so applicable. The
words émép ju. are emphatic) He made
(to be) sin (not, ‘a sin-offering, as
Augustine, Ambros., Qicum., Erasm.,
Hammond, Wolf, al., for the word seems
never to have the meaning, even in the
LXX [see however the remarkable read-
ing of the Cod.-alex. at Lev. vi. 25];
and if it had, the former sense of the
same word in this same sentence would
preclude it here: nor = auaprwads, as
Meyer, al.: but, # De Wette, al., Srv,
abstract, as opposed to RIGHTEOUSNESS
which follows; compare xatdpa, Gal. iii.
13. He, on the Cross, was the Represen-
tative of Sin,—of the sin of the world),
that we might become (the present, yiwdu.
as in rec., would signify, as Stallbaum,
Crito, p. 43 [ Meyer ]—‘ id quod propositum
fuerit, nondum perfectum et transactum
esse, sed adhue durare.’ The aor., which
is far the best supported by MSS., also
yields the best sense, as joining the whole
justification of all God’s people, as one act
accomplished, with the Sacritice of Christ)
the Righteousness of God (see above: re-
presentatives of the Righteousness of God,
endued with it and viewed as in it, and
examples of it) in Him (in union with Him,
and by virtue of our standing in Him).
BCDF
KLNab
edefg
hklm
nol7
VI. 1—3.
~ by Ve ¥ ~ % od 3
TEES € Kal aes OUMEV, LN cic °
~
rou Oeov deEaobar v vuag
vuy Kalooc J eumpoccEektoc, Lov
: pnosuiay ane unoevi
35. Phil. iv. 18 only.
i Acts xvi. 9 reff.
11 Cor. ix. 12.
Rom. ix. 32.)
j Rom. xv. 16 reff.
Cap. VI. 1. mapacadouvres D'F.
&-corr!:3,
2. Kkatipw yap Aeye: D}(and lat) F Sedul. (not F-lat.)
for evmposdextos, Sextos F.
by &-corr!. ]
TIPO KOPINOIOY®S B.
2 (Aéyer yee Kaiow Oekrw 8 ere
nkovoa GU, Kat ev ” juéoa owrnpiac 'BonOnea gol. Loov
1 ,
OvddvTEc
g here only l.c.
667
© Ksvov THY Xaow c ia xii. 1
d Gal. ii. 2.
Phil. ii. 16
bis. 1 Thess.
iii. 5 only.
<4 Isa. Ixv. 23.
vuy nuéoa jowrnpiac’ Ls e 1 Gor. ard
m ‘ flee. xlix. 8.
TpockoTny, iva Bn Luke iv. 19,
gs xix. |.
24, Acts x.
h = 1 Cor. i. 8 reff.
k ch. vii. 9. Phil. i. 28.
Amos i. 4. see ver. 4.
mhereonlyt. d:3dvat dpopuas mposkomys, Polyb. xxvii. 6.10. (-Kojpa,
om vuas D!: quas CR! 4. 17. 89: txt
[KkTw of SexTw are supplied
8. aft 1 diaxoma ins yuwv DF d 662. 73 latt syrr copt Chr Thdrt Thl @c-comm
Ambrst Aug Pelag.
Crap. VI.1—10.] He further describes
his apostolic embassage, as one of earnest
exhortation not to receive the grace of God
in vain (vv. 1, 2), and of approving him-
self, by many characteristics and under
various circumstances, as the minister of
God (vv. 3—10). 1.] auvepyotvrTes,
viz. T@ 9G, Whose representatives they
were, and Whose grace they recommended.
This is implied not only in what went
before, but in the tov @eod of our verse
itself. Meyer makes it 7a xpiora, refer-
ring it to the trép xp. above: Chrys., Theo-
doret, Bengel, Olsh., al., Suzy, which cer-
tainly would have been expressed, and does
not suit the sense, nor Paul’s habit of
speaking of the ministry, see 1 Cor. iii. 9.
Flatt and Emmerling would make the ovv
imply, working aria our exhortations, aid-
ing them by our example: which sense,
though occasionally belonging to ctv and
mpés in composition, could hardly have
place here without some plainer indication
in what went before, of that to which the
preposition refers, —and would not suit the
kal, which severs ouvepy. from maparaa.
The d¢is one of transition, introducing
a new feature. Moreover also, while
working with God, we exhort, that you
(when preaching to you,—or others, when
preaching to others: he still is deseribing
his practice in his ministry, not using a
direct exhortation to the Corinthians) re-
ceive not (‘recipiatis ;’-—not ‘ receperitis,’
‘that ye will not have received,’ i. e. ‘will
not by apostasy shew that ye have received
? as Erasm., al., and De Wette. This
‘mistake arises mainly from regarding the
words as directly addressed to the Corin-
thians instead of a description of his apos-
tolic practice) the grace of God (i. e. the
reconciliation above spoken of) to no pur-
pose (i. e. unaccompanied by sanctification
of life; so Chrys., wa uh voulowow ott
TOUTS éoTL KaTaAAaY) mévoy, Td TLoTEVTAL
T® KadodyTl, emdyer Ta’Ta, Thy wep) Tov
Biov omovdhv amatav). 2.) Ground of
the exhortation : viz. the importance of
the present time as the day of acceptance,
—shewn by a Scripture citation. For He
(God, with whom we cuvepyovmev and whose
grace we recommend) saith, ‘In an ae-
cepted time (Heb. }izy nya, ‘in @ season
of grace’) I heard thee, and in the day of
salvation I helped thee:” behold (in-
serted for solemnity—to mark the import-
ance of what follows), Now is the favour-
ably accepted time (edmpdsdextos, a far
stronger term than dexrds, q. d. the very
time of most favourable acceptance, said
from the fulness of his feeling of the great-
ness of God’s grace),—behold, Now is the
day of salvation. 6 yap ev ToLoUTe KaLp@
dywviCouevos, év é ToTaUTH KEXUTAL Swped,
€v @ TocavTN xXapis, eVKOAWS emireverat
tev BpaBelwy. Chrys. The prophecy is one
directly of the Lord Jesus, as the restorer
and gatherer of his people; and the time of
acceptance is the interval of the offer of the
covenant to men, conceded to Him by the
Father. 38—10.] And this doing, he
approves himself as the minister of God by
various characteristics, and under mani-
fold circumstances in life. 3.] 3-
Sdvres, resumed from cuvepyodvrTes, ver.
1; ver. 2 being parenthetic. It, and all
the following participles, vv. 9, 10, qualify
mapakadovuev, shewing the pains and
caution used by him to enforce this ex-
hortation by his example as well as his
precept. So Grot.: ‘ ostendit enim, quam
serio moneat, qui, ut aliquid proficiat, nul-
lis terreatur incommodis, nulla non com-
moda negligat.’ But evidently, before the
list is exhausted, he passes beyond the
mere confirmation of his preaching, and is
speaking generally of the characteristics
of the Christian ministry. ev undevt,
in nothing, compare év mayti, below:
not, ‘in no man’s estimation, as Luther.
668
h. viii, 20-1 ee) ’
nh; viii 20" uwpndy 1 ° dtakovia,
sx.7>) WH q: ‘ c 0 = Qe >
x. 14 ouly €auTouc WC €O0U OLAKOVOL, EV
?
Yeow, ev
x. 24 reff). uv 2 2
Hom. x1 18. puAakatc, €v
reff.
TVLALC, EV
q ch. iii. 1. iv.
VNOTELALC,
OAV. dereviis LU, 1S. r Rom. ii. 7 reff.
u Acts xvi. 23. v ch. xi. 23.
8. xv.58al. Gen. xxxi. 42. 7 ch. xi. 27.
Eph. vi. 18.)
xiv. 23. xxvii. 9 only. 2 Kings xii. 16.
5. xii. 8 al. d Rom. ii. 4 (reff.).
4. ree cuvettes, with D?KLN? rel Chr Thdrt Damase;; :
txt CD' FR! 17 Clem Cyr.
vovtes B 31. 73 Damase, :
ut -2 G-lat.
pndeu.,—pndevt, are not = ovdeu.—ovderl,
but, see on ch. v. 21, subjectively said—
we exhort, being such as give, &c.: so
1 Cor. x. 33, eyo mavTa macw apéoka,
py (nta@v k.7.A. ™poskoTy = oKav-
dadov, or mpdskouua, Rom. xiv. 138.
popndy] poudcOa, ‘to reproach’ (see
Winer, edn. 6, § 38. 7. a), is one of those
deponent verbs which have an _ aorist
passive: so diadéyecOu, BotrAccOa, Sv-
vaoOat, omdrayxvicerba, Ke. The d:a-
kovia, the office itself, would be reproached,
if cause of offence were found in the cha-
racter of its bearers. 4.| Meyer well
remarks the position of cuvior. éavTovs.
When the words signified ‘ to recommend
ourselves, in a bad sense, ch. iii. 1, v. 12,
—éavt. preceded the verb: but here and
ch. iv. 2, where used in a good sense, and
without any stress on éavrovs, it follows
the verb. This is only one of continually
occurring instances of the importance of
the collocation of words with regard to the
emphasis. Sidkovor| not diaxdvovs :
recommending ourselves, as ministers of
God should do. The ambiguity of the
E. V. might have been avoided by a differ-
ent arrangement of words: ‘in all things,
as the ministers of God, approving our-
selves, The following datives are a
specification of mavri; but not all of the
same sort: some signify instruments by
which, some, situations in which, some
both these. Bengel remarks: “ Insignis
gradatio. Sequuntur ter tria patienda
(i. e. from OAlpeow to vnorelas), quibus
patientia (brouovy) exercetur ; pressure,
— plage, — labores. Primus ternarius
continet genera, secundus, species adver-
sorum : tertia spontanea” (but qu?: see
below). So that the brouovh mwoAAh be-
longs to vv. 4, 5, and ver. 6 goes on to
other points. otevox.] See ch. iv. 8,
note. 5.] On mAny., see reff.
gvAdak.| At Philippi only as yet, as far as
we know from the narrative of the Acts ;
IIPOS KOPINOIOY® B.
ae , d
avaykatc, &V
ie , bd vx
akKaTaoTacolalc, Ev
p=ch. iv.8 ' Ef i 6 ey b ayvornre év
’
w 1 Cor. xiv. 33 reff.
a as above (y) (1 Cor. vii. 5 v.r.) only in Paul.
bch. xi.3 only t. (-10s, ch. vii. 11.)
Vay
) , ‘ ,
4 aX’ Pev Paravri Toumordvrec
"Yrouovy ToAAy, ev * OXI-
A oTEvoxwopiatc, 5 ty
7 , , >
? Ko7rotc, Ev “ayou-
ra mXnyatc,
c ‘“ ay
Yrwoet >» &€V pa=
t = 1 Cor. vii. 26 reff.
X asabove(v). 1 Cor. iii.
z as above (y) only t. 2 Macc. ii. 26. (-mvetv,
Matt. xvii. 21 || Mk. Lukeii. 37. Acts
ce =1Cor.i.
s Rom. ii. 9 (reff.).
ouviotovtes f: cuvicta-
diaxovovs D! vulg: ministros
—but there must have been many other
occasions, see ch. xi. 23. He may have
been imprisoned at Antioch in Pisidia,
Acts xiii. 50, and at Lystra, xiv. 19, and
at Corinth, xviii. 12, 14: and we cannot
tell what may have befallen him during
his journeys, Acts xv. 41; xvi. 6; xviii.
év dkataor. | in tumults, see
‘Acts xill. 50; xiv. 5, 19; xvi. 22; xvii.
5; xvill. 12, ‘and above alli xix. 23—41.
The sense given by Chrys., al., 7d wndauod
Sivacbat orjvat eAavyduevoy, is philo-
logically allowable, cf. Demosth. 383. 7,
akataotatoy &smep ev OaddtTn mvedua,
and James i. 8, and Polyb. xxxi. 13. 6,
broderkvUwy avTois Thy akatacTaclay Tis
BaotAclas,—but not found in N. T.
év Kéots| usually, and here, signifies
‘labour in the Lord, for his sake, see
reff. So also komidw, Rom. xvi. 6, 12
(bis), and reff. Chrys., al., interpret it of
his manual work, 1 Cor. iv. 12; and
aorarovmev and Komi@uev occurring there
together certainly gives some semblance
to the view: but see ch. xi. 23, where
this can hardly be; it is most probable
that the weariness of his excessive apos-
tolic labour was in his mind.
ayputviais] Chrys. says, tas vi«ras év
ais edlSackev, 4) OT: Kal ey adrais eipyd-
(ero. But I would rather believe the
aypurvia to have been watchings through
anxiety for the churches. év vyoretats |
This is generally, and by De W. against
Meyer, taken to refer to involuntary hun-
ger andthirst. But, as the latter remarks,
the word does not appear to be ever so
used; and in ch. xi. 27, Paul himself dis-
tinguishes éy ynorelas from év Am@ x.
diye. The meaning of fastings must
therefore be retained. So Chrys., Theo-
doret, and Calvin. 6.] The nine pre-
ceding datives (see on ver. 4) have ex-
panded brouorn. We now resume the
main catalogue, with évy ayvornt, in
purity: which is variously explained: of
4—9.
IIPOX KOPINOIOY® B.
669
desbaat alta , , , Cust 2 oie e Rom. xii.9
poUumia, Ev XpNoTOTHTI, EV TvEUMATL aylW, EV ayaTy Tir
e? ' 7
avuToKpiTy, év
- fEph.i. 13.
"hoy ‘adnbetac, ev © Suvaper ° Peo, '2tim. ii. 15.
James i. 18.
S a he , ~ i - \ :
cua te oTAwy THC ouKarocvyne TWV * SeEiov may e Shee 28
f , ’ c A
Kat °evpnutac, wo P rAavor Kau 4
ili. 3.
above (i) only. Gen. xiv. 15.
only t. 1 Mace. vii. 38.
o here only t. Ps. xcix.2Symm. (-uos, Phil. iv. 8.)
(bis}only. Job xix.4. Jer. xxiii, 32 only.
v1 Cor, xiv. 38. Gal.i. 22. 2 Pet. ii. 12 al.
9. for idov, err F.
Ambrst).
bodily chastity, Grot.:—of unselfishness,
Theodoret, and Chrys., as an alternative (7
cwhpoctynv, 2) Thy ev Grace KabapdrnTa,
7 adwpoddnntov, 7) Kat Td Swpeay Td
evayy. «npitTew):—I prefer the second
of Chrys.’s meanings, general purity of
character, eiAikpiveca, — unblameableness
of life, and singleness of purpose. év
yvooe | knowledge of the Gospel, in a
high and singular degree; see 1 Cor. ii.
6 ff. So Chrys.: copia tH mapa Tov
Ocod Sedouevn. xpnotrétytt | kind-
ness: a kind and considerate demeanour.
évy mv. ayim| in the Holy Spirit,
as the Power by Whom all these motives
are wrought. he omission of the article,
aft. év, constitutes no objection to this ren-
dering, as Bp. Middleton (in loc.) sup-
poses: cf. dia my. aylov tod dofévtos
jytv, Rom. v.5,—and the very same words
as these, 1 Thess. i. 5,—in both which
places the meaning is undoubted ; neither
of which, however, is noticed by Middleton.
The words do not appear to hold any log?-
cal place in the list, any more than éy dur.
@cod below. 7. év Ady. adyO.] is taken
by De W., Meyer, al., as subjective,—‘ in
speaking, or teaching truth’—‘indiscourse,
the contents whereof were truth: but
their objection against the sense in the
word of truth, = ev TG Adyw Tis aAn-
elas, as it is expressed Col. i. 5, is not
valid,—on account (1) of the government
by a preposition, which would make the
insertion of the article optional,—(2) of the
whole catalogue being anarthrous, which
would cause the article to be omitted for
uniformity’s sake. év Suv. Geod |
viz. the Power spoken of ch. iv. 7,—
the power manifested in every part of
our apostolic working, — not merely in
miracles. Sia tT. Grd. r. Six.) By
means of (év is changed for 8:4, first ap-
parently on account of 1a érda, marking
them more distinctly as instrwments,—and
then continued) the weapons of righte-
ousness (belonging to,—or as Meyer, fur-
b - "
aploTEowy, 8 Sia | ddénc Kal “armiac, dia
n / h =ch. x. 4.
Sucpnpiac John xviii. 3.
Sa aa: et ja Ms xiiia)
GANUEIC, one yvoey only. Nah.
i(see note.) Matt. vi;3. Mark x.37. Luke xxiii. 33 only. 1 Chron. xii. 2. KN. T.as
t= John y. 41, 44 al. m Rom. i. 26 reff. n here
Esdr. i. 43 [42] Ald. (dvcceBeca, vat. F.) only. (-s1etv, 1 Cor. iv. 13.)
p Matt. xxvii. 63. 1Tim.iv.1. 2John7
q subj., Matt. xxii. 16. John iii. 33. Rom. iii. 4t.
for ma:devomevot, meipaCouevor DIE (temptati D-lat G-lat
nished by,—the righteousness which is of
faith. 'TYhat panoply, part of which only
in the more particular specification of Eph.
vi. 13—17, viz. the @épcé, is allotted to
dixatocvvn,—is here all assigned to it.
Some of the ancient Commentators,—
Chrys., @cum., al., and Grot., Estius, al.,
understand by é7Aa, ‘instruments,’ as in
Rom. vi. 13, and interpret these instru-
ments to be, situations and opportunities
of life, whether prosperous, Sega, or ad-
verse, apiotepd: but the other interpreta-
tion is in better accordance with the
Apostle’s habit of comparison,—see ch.
x. 4; Eph. vi. 13 ff; 1 Thess. v. 8).
tov Sef. x. Gptot.| which are on the
right and left: i. e. encompassing and
guarding the whole person. Grot., Bengel,
and most recent Commentators, even De
W. and Meyer, explain it, both sight-
handed,—i. e. of attack, the sword and
spear,—and left-handed,—i. e. of defence,
the shield: but it seems to me that this
would require tay Sefiav Kal Tv apiore-
pa@v: whereas now, no article being in-
serted before apior., it is implied that the
panoply (r& brAa) is on both sides (Seki
k. apiotepa) of the person. On the in-
terpretation prosperity and adversity, see
above. 8.] Perhaps the instrumental
signification of d:a¢ need not be strictly
retained. The preposition, once adopted,
is kept for the sake of parallelism, though
with various shades of meaning. I would
understand it in da doé., &e., as in died
ToAA@Y daxptwy, as pointing out the
medium through which. Thus understood,
these two pairs in ver. 8 will form an easy
transition from instrumental, through me-
dial, to the passive characteristics which
follow. @s wAadvor] From speaking
of repute, he passes to the character of
the repute. In all these capacities and
under all these representations or misre-
presentations, we, as ministers of God, re-
commend ourselves. But in these following
clauses a new point is perhaps brought out,
670
\
s Acts xxiii. 28 fevot Kal
reff.
t Luke xxiii.
16, 22. Heb.
xit. 7, 10.
2 Chron. x.
1}. Prov.
xix. 18.
n Rom. vii. 4
reff.
v ch. ii. 2 reff.
w 1 Cor. i. 4.
ch. ix. ll only. Gen. xiv. 23 al. n
Xxii. 22. z pres., 1 Cor, xvi. 9.
11. ins w bef kopiv@i0. F vulg Thi.
viz. the difference of our real state from our
reputed one. That this is the case with
&s &robv. x. idov CGuer and all following,
is of course clear. But is it so with the
two clauses preceding that one? Do they
mean, ‘as deceivers, and yet true, as un-
known, and yet well known, or,—‘ as de-
ceivers, and as true men, as unknown, and
as well known?’ Lown Lam not clear on
this point. The words kat idod (auev
may be an indication how the Apostle would
have the previous two clauses understood ;
but they also may be a transition, altering
the previous reference of the second member
of the clause, now that the subject is no
longer matter of rumour, as 7Advo. and
ayvoovmevor, but matter of fact, as da7o-
OvioKkovres, and the following. If the
latter alternative be taken, the two clauses
will serve as a transition to the subsequent
ones, thus: having said, da Suspnulas x.
eipnulas, he proceeds &s mAdvor (answer-
ing to dusd.) kal adAnbe?s (answering to
evp.),—as ayvootpevor (still having dus.
in view,—as ‘ unknown,’ of obscure reputa-
tion), Kal émvywworduevor (still looking
back at evd., seeing that the ériyvwots
would lead to good repute): then, having
by the participles of the latter clause ex-
pressed more a matter of fact than did the
adjectives of the former one, he passes to
&s axobvjokortes, which has no longer its
main reference to the repute of others, but
to the fact, see ch. iv. 7 ff., as exhibited in
himself. I confess that on the whole this
rendering recommends itself to my mind.
9.| kal i80v Capev is much stronger,
more triumphant, than cal (@vres. There
is something still of the idea of one reputed
dead and found to be alive; though I would
not say with Meyer that as amo@y. alto-
gether refers to a supposed triumph of his
adversaries, “ Now it is all over with him !
His course is ended!” s ard. |
Surely we must now drop altogether the
putative meaning of the as. The sense has
been (see above) some time verging that
way, and in the clauses which follow the
ws expresses just what it does in ds beod
didovot, viz. ‘quippe qui simus.’ Ps:
POS KOPINOIOY® B.
~ © t 5 , \ +) @ 0 uf
Copev, we ‘madevopevor, Kat py “ Gavarovpevor,
v , aS Ge ' € \ ‘ \
AvToUpEvor ast GF YaloovTEec, WO TTWYOL moAAove oé
U c \ a \ ,
“ tNouriloyrec, we pnoev EXOVTEC Kal TavTa * KaTEYXOVTEC.
VE:
s? , € > , at 2 ‘
ETLYLVWOKOMEVOL, WC atoOynokovrec Kal Loon
10 we
‘ , € -~ ? , ‘ ig ~ /
TS Yoroua nnwv * avéimyev mpoc vpac, Kopivftot,
x =1 Cor. vii.30. Josh. i. 11.
y see Eph. vi. 19. Sir.
for 2nd nuwy, vuwy &.
exvii. 18, LXX, seems to have been in his
mind: madetwy ematdevcé pe 5 kdpios,
kal TG Oavatw ov mapédwKé we...
10.| Here even more clearly than before,
the first member of the clause as Au7. de?
5€ xalp. cannot express the opinion of his
adversaries. For however za:deuduevos
might be wrested to signify ‘a man under
the chastisement of God’ as a ground of
reproach, Avrovpevos will surely not bear
the meaning ‘folcher der nad) gewobhnlicder
menfdlicher Unficht traurig feyn mufte,’
‘one in such a situation, that according to
ordinary human estimation he must be
wretched,’ as De Wette,—but must point
to the matter of fact, that he is really
‘afflicted’ See reff. awrexol again
can hardly have been a reproach, but sets
forth the fact—as poor men, but enrich-
ing (not by distribution of alms, as Chrys.,
Theodoret, Estius, but by imparting spiri-
tual riches, see 1 Cor. i. 5) many:—as
having nothing (in the sense in which of
éxovres are ws uh exovres, 1 Cor. vii. 29,
—in the improper sense of ‘ to possess’ in
which we here use the word—thus, we have
nothing, are destitute), but pcssessing
(finally and as our own, our inheritance
never to be taken away; in that sense of
the word ‘to possess’ which this world’s
buyers are not to use—oi ayopa Corres, as
py) Katéxovtes, 1 Cor. vii. 30) ali things.
See a similar ‘possession of all things,’
1 Cor. iii. 22: though this reaches further
than even that,—to the boundless riches of
the heavenly inheritance.
11—VII.1] Earnest EXHORTATIONS
TO SEPARATION FROM UNBELIEF AND IM-
PURITY. 11—13.] These verses form
a conclusion to the preceding outpouring
of his heart with regard to his apostolic
ministry, and at the same time a transition
to the exhortations which are to follow.
11.} Our (my) mouth is open (not
past: the use of avéwya for dvéwzmar
is common in later Greek: see Palm and
Rost’s Lex., and ref. 1 Cor. Rickert takes
it as past, and renders, ‘I have begun to
speak with you, I have not concealed my
apostolic sentiments—I cannot shut my
BCDP
KLNab
cdefg
hklm-
nol7
10—14.
IIPOS KOPINOIOYS B.
671
€ ' © a , . a. Ap - ,
1) Kapola Huwy memAaruvra’ |2 oy otevoywoeabs pe Sei |
cae b - () $3 ’ - c , So. onlya. PHA.
nulv, oTEevoywpeove OF EY TOILE omhayy vouc UUOY" — cxviii. 32.
TERN hs ly 2 6; es Z rz ) ® rrKa- biter lies ca.
THY OF aUTHY avTiuutoULaY ( we tEKvoic Aéyw) © TAa- ? re eniy.
rovOnre Kat pele. 14 My ‘ yiveoOe 8 ereooluyouvrec D ami-
only.
y
e Acts xvii. 22. 1 Cor. x. 15.
12. om de Cal.
mouth, but must go on speaking to you yet
further. The word seems to refer to the
free and open spirit shewn in the whole
previous passage on the ministry, in which
he had so liberally imparted his inner feel-
ings to them) towards you, Corinthians
(kat 7 mpos6qxn 5€ Tod ovduatos girtas
TOAATS, Kal Oepudrntos Kal diabécews*
kal yap cid@auey TOY ayaTwpévwy ovy-
eX@s yuuve Ta oOvduaTa TepioTpepery,
Chrys. See Phil. iv. 15; Gal. iii. 1, which
last is written under a very different feel-
ing),—our (my) heart has become en-
larged. These last words are very vari-
ously explained. Chrys., Theodoret, Hc.,
al., understand them of the expansive effect
of love on the heart: Luther, Estius, al.,
of dilatio gaudii, which does not how-
ever agree with mAatdvOnte kal duets be-
low: nor with the general context, either
of what precedes or of what follows: for to
refer it to ch. vii. 4, as Estius, is evidently
far-fetched, the intermediate matter being
of such a different character. Alii aliter.
Meyer holds with Chrys., and refers it to
the preceding passage, during which his
heart became expanded in love to them.
De Wette takes it, ‘ Z have poured out, en-
larged and diffused, my heart to you,’ viz.
by speaking thus open-hearted to you.
I believe the precise sense will only be
found by taking into account the mAarbvé.
x. duets below, and the occurrence of the
expression in the Psalm (reff: ef. ev
mAaTucu@, ib., ver. 45). Some light is
also thrown upon it by xwphoate juas,
ch. vii. 2. The heart is considered as a
space, wherein its thoughts and feelings
are contained. We have seen the same
figure in our expression ‘ narrow-minded,’
In order to take in a new object of love,
or of desire, or of ambition, the heart
must be enlarged: éd5dv évroA@y cov
Zdpamov, tay émAdTUvas Thy Kapdlay pov.
The Apostle has had his heart enlarged
towards the Corinthians: he could and
did take them in, with their infirmities,
their interests, their Christian graces,
their defects and sins: but they did not
and could not take him in (xwpiica ad-
e=ch.vii.15. Phil.i.8. Philem.20. Prov. xii. 10.
' Josh. xvii. 15.
Isa. xxviii.
20. xlix. 19
d Rom. i. 27 only t-
f w. particip. = Heb. v.12. Rev. iii. 2. Mic. ii. 1, see Acts ii, 5 reff,
g here only t. (-yos, Lev. xix. 19.) see 1 Cor. xiv. 21.
h = 1 Cor. vi. 6 reff.
13. vuas F.
14, ins xa bef un F D-lat(and F-lat G-lat) arm Ambrst.
for amioro.s, meta
tév): he was misunderstood by them, and
his relation to them disregarded. This he
here asserts, and deprecates. He assures
them of their place in Ais heart, which is
wide enough for, and does contain them ;
and refers back to this verse in ch. vii. 3,
thus, mpoelpnra b71 év Tais KapSiats Hav
éote.... He tells them, ver. 12.] that
they are not straitened in him, i. e. that
any constraint which they may feel towards
him, any want of confidence in him and
persuasion of his real appreciation of their
state and interests, arose, not from his being
really unable to appreciate them, and love
them, and advise them,—but from their
own confined view of him, of his love, his
knowledge of and feeling for them.
13.] thy ath avtip., as Tov buo.oy Tpd-
mov, Jude 7, KkAtclas, Luke ix. 14, not
governed by «cata understood, but in fact
an accus. of a remoter object, answering in
many cases exactly to the further removed
of the two accusatives in the double ac-
cusative government. The sense seems
to be compounded of tdv adtdy rpédmor,
and avtmucbiavy, In the same manner, as
a return for my largeness of heart to you.
@s TeKvots X. explains avtipmucOlav,—
it being naturally expected of children that
they should requite the love and care of
their parents, by corresponding love and
regard. 14—VII.1.] Separate your-
selves from unbelief and impurity. On
the nature of the connexion, Stanley has
some good remarks. He now applies to
circumstances which had arisen among the
Corinthians the exhortation which in ver.
1 he described himself as giving in pur-
suance of his ministry of reconciliation.
The following exhortations are general, and
hardly to be pressed as applying only to
partaking of meats offered to idols, as
Calv., al., or to marriage with unbelievers,
as Estius,—but regard all possible con-
nexion and _ participation,—all leanings
towards a return to heathenism which
might be bred by too great familiarity with
heathens. Become not (‘ne fiatis, molli-
ter pro: ne sits,’ Bengel : rather, perhaps,
as expressing, ‘do not enter into those re-
672
IIPOS KOPINOIOY®S B.
VI. 15—18.
. k > , wn ,
ihere only. @TOLC Tig yao ‘ MeTOXN Stcatoobyy Kal SHON nH TLC
sexi 3
haan Kowwvia peri Tpoc eKdrog ; 3 15 tic oe ™ sunpovnate
(- Heb. i. , h
(308 ehh 5 eroi ™o0c " BeXiag, 7 ° ric ° P mepic q TiaTW pera ari-
k Bek iv. 7 ‘ a\ ,
ie TS oTOU 5 16 tle 8" ovyKkatabeate * vaw *Qeov usta ‘EdwArwy;
6. Gal. ii. ‘ b) Lok aa! Le ad % *, x *
16. s 8 if] 'd 0 Q
Wal, “Lev. UMELC yep vaog “Veou eare Cwvroc, kale stwev o De0¢
vi ” , 7, sv
m here only t Ore " évotknow Ev avroic kat “ suTEpiTatnsw, Kal Ecomat
“vos, Ds ’ , ‘ , ,
nherecalyt. GUTOY Oc6c, Kal avrot toovral pot Aadc. 17 Gio © e&éAOare
see note.
o 3 Kings xii. 16. p Acts viii. 21 reff. q Acts x. 45 reff. rhere only t. (-ri@erOar,
Exod. xxiii.1, Luke xxiii. 61.)
Acts xiv. 15 and note.
v here only. Levit. xxvi. 12.
u Rom. viii. 11.
amictwy F latt lat-ff.
peta (ka Orig) avomas F latt Orig some-lat-ff.
: txt BCDFLX d m 17 latt Syr syr-marg copt arm
syr Chr Thdrt Cosmas Thl (c Tert,
s = 1 Cor. iil. 16. vi. 19. Jer. vii. 4.
Col. iii. 16.
w Acts xvii. 33.
dixaocurns kat adixias D', also (-vy x. -1a) D3:
1 Cor, x. 19 reff.
2 Tim. i. 5, 14 only. (not l.c.) Lev. xxvi. 32 al.
Isa. lii. 11 (free).
dikatoovvns
rec (for 7 Tis) Tis 5e, with K rel
Clem Damasce Orig-int Cypr Lucif Ambrst Jer.
15. rec xpictw (prob corrn for conformn to dwtt preceding), with DFKL rel vss
Clem-ed, Orig, Can-apost-ed Tert, :
ms,) Orig, Can-apost-mss Damase lat-ff.
txt BCN 17 vulg(and F-lat) D-lat copt Clem,(and
elz BeAiad, with (none of our mss) vulg
G-lat Tit-ed : BéAcavy DK m syr-marg-gr goth(Beliam) many mentioned by Jer(“ cor-
rupte”) Thdrt,: BeAwB F D-lat : txt BCLN rel fuld(and harl') syr copt eth arm
Orthod Clem, Origubique Nyssen Naz Bas Ephr Chr Thdrtsepe Damase.
mittov B 17 8-pe copt.
16. ques and eopey BD!LN! 17 D-lat copt (Clem) Did Aug, :
txt CD3FK(N3) rel
vulg syrr goth Ath Chr Thdrt Damase Jacob-nisib Orig-int Lucif Tert.—vaor &!.—
eote bef Geou &3.
Tert Aug
31°
for kaOws evrev, Aeyet yap D'(and lat) F, dicit enim G-lat goth
for avtwy, avtos F(and G-lat) copt Orig,.
for wor, wou BCR m
17 Eus, Damase: txt DF KL rel vss Clem Orig Ath Cyr-jer Thdrt lat-ff.
17. (etenOare, so BCFX 17 Damasc. |
lations in which you must become’) incon-
gruous yokefellows (the word and idea
from ref. Levit. Hesych.: érepd(vyor' of
ph cvdvyotvtes. Grot. explains it, ‘ alte-
ram partem jugi trahere,’ but this does
not give the force of €tepo-:—Theophyl.,
bh Gdicetre Th Sikaovy emikAwduevor kK.
mposkAwouevot ois ov O€uts: so making the
simile that of an unequal balance : but this
could hardly be without more precise noti-
fication) with unbelievers (Winer explains
the construction, edn. 6, § 31. 10, note 4,
thus, wy yiv. érepoCuyourres, kal oUTws
Smouyobyres amicrots : better, as De W.,
un ylv. duol. amicros Kk. oTws érepotv-
yourres). petoxy] ‘share in the
same thing, community. Sikatoc.
is the state of the Christian, being justified
by faith: he is therefore excluded from
avopia, the proper fruit of faith being
obedience. dwrti, of which we are the
children, 1 Thess. v. 5, and not of dark-
ness. Meyer remarks, that the fivefold
variation of the term to express partner-
ship,—eToxh, Kowwvia, cunpdrvnois, wepls,
ovyKkardleots, shews the Apostle’s com-
mand of the Greek language. The con-
struction of kowwvia with a dat. and mpds,
is illustrated by Wetst. from Stobmus, 8S.
28, ef 5€ Tis Cott Kowwvla mpds Beods nuiy,
—and Philo, leg. ad Caium, § 14, vol. ii.
p- 561, tls ody kowwvla mpos *AtéAAwva,
T® undev oikeiov % ovyyeves émiteTndev-
KOT 5 15.) After a question begin-
ning with més, ris, and the like, a second
question is regularly introduced by de.
Thus Hom. Od. a. 225, tls Sails, ris 5é
butrdos, 65° ErAeto; see Hartung, Parti-
kellehre, i. 169. Bediap} Heb. dy%53,
‘contemptibleness, ‘wickedness :’ tound
1 Sam. ii. 12 al., and variously translated
by the LXX. Theod. has retained the
original form in Judg. xix. 22. It appears
to have been subsequently personified, and
used, as here, for a name of the Evil One
(see Stanley). The termination -ap is
stated by Meyer to have arisen from the
frequent permutation of A and p in the dia-
leet of the Grecian Jews. 16.] ovy-
Kkatad., ‘agreement in opinions : :’ see reff.,
and ef. Plato, Gorg. § 122, ov de 5y wéTE-
pov guyKataribecat juty wept rovtTwy thy
avtiy Sdkay i) avTiphs; vad Qeod,
between you, the Church of God, —see
below, and 1 Cor. iii. 16 ;—etSéXev, idols,
as the lords and éxdévuuo of the heathen
world. tpets yap | explanation of vag
9¢ov as applying to them, and justification
Wig 2:
Lies , > ~ \
EK patoOu QuUTWV Kal
* axabaprov a amnreae Kayo
* Eoopat Uulv
Kat Quyaréoac Néyet KvoLOS * ravroKoatwp.
> ! ‘
Tac ouv exovrec rac
fs h
OW MEV EavTouc amo mavr og * oAvapou aaokoc Kal" qvev-
-faToc, ‘emtreovvrec © aywobyny ép pow Oeov.
Ba
Xwonsate 7 nuac* ovoeva NHoiKNoapmer, ovoéva
d Rom. xii. 19. ch. xii. 19.
c ae i. 4reff.
IIPOX KOPINOIOY®S B.
* atgdeEonar v apts
* ste marépa, Kal Upetc
(Ot d? !
pins ab ma aa
673
* agopiaOnre, NéEyet KUpLOC, eres
18 Kat We = Acta. 14
. rae only.
ar OU EZexK. xx.
ic ae Jy 34. Zeph.
iii. 20.
a Matt. xix. 5
|. Luke iii. 5.
(Rev. xxi. 7.)
2 KINGs vii.
14. Jer.
XXXVili.
(xxxi.) 33.
b here only,
exc. Rev. i.8
al8, 2 KINGS
Vii. 8.
e Acts
*goea0é por
MEA
Kadapt-
Ta v-
ti ep Oei-
Phil.iv.1. 1 Pet. ii. 11. 1 John ii. 7 al.
a!) zeit fist pers., ch. iii. 1 reff. g here only. Jer. xxiii. 15. Esdr. viii. 83
(80). 2 Macc. v.27 only. (-tvecv, 1 Cor. viii. 7.) h so Matt. xxvi. 41 | Mk. ich. viii.
6 reff. kK Rom. i. 4 (reff.). 1 Thess. iii. 13 only. 1 = Matt. xix. 11,12. (Gen. xiii. 6.)
m 1 Cor. iii. 17 reff.
of it by a citation from the prophetic Scrip-
tures. The words cited are compounded of
Levit. xxvi. 12, and Ezek. xxxvii. 26, 27.
ae The necessity of acon from
Isa. li. 11 »—tfreely given from memory ; ;
Kay eisd€—. bu. being moreover substi-
tuted, from Ezek. xx. 34, for mpomopev-
geTat yap mpdTepos Wud KUpLos, K. 6 ém-
cuvdywv buas Beds *Iopana. The akd-
@oprov must be understood of the pollu-
tions of heathenism generally, not of any
one especial polluted thing, as meat offered
to idols. 18.| The citation continues,
setting forth the blessings promised to
those who do thus come out from heathen-
dom. Various passages of the O. T. are
combined. In 2 Kings vii. 14 (LXX), we
have ey €couat avT@ eis war., Kk. avTos 0~
Tat wot eis vidy'—the expression of viol wou
and af @vyarépes pov is found Isa. xiii. 6:
and tae Aéyer KUpios mavToxpdtwp begins
the section from which the former clauses
are taken, 2 Kings vii. 8 (LXX).
VII. 1.] Inference from the foregoing cita-
tions :—seeing that we have such glorious
(ravras in the position of emphasis) pro-
mises, we are to purify ourselves (not
merely, ‘keep ourselves pure :’ purifica-
tion belongs to sanctification, and is a
gradual work, even after conversion).
oapkés, as the actual instrument and sug-
gester of pollution: wvedpatos, as the re-
cipient through the flesh, and when the
recipient, the retainer and propagator, of
uncleanness. The exhortation is general :
against impure acts and impure thoughts.
emiTeA. Gytwo., as De W. remarks,
gives the positive side of the foregoing
negative exhortation: every abnegation
and banishing of impurity is a positive
advance of that sanctification, in the fear
of God (as its element) to which we are
called.
2—16.| CONCERNING THE EFFECT ON
THEM, AND RESULTS IN THEIR CONDUCT,
WHICH HIS FORMER EPISTLE HAD PRO-
Vou. II.
DUCED. 2—4.] He introduces the
subject by a friendly assurance of his love
and bespeaking of theirs, as before in ch.
vi. 11, 13. 2. | Xopie., see above on
ch. vi. 18; békaobe Tuas TAaTEWS, K. LN
erevoxapeneba ev tuiv. Theophyl. De
Wette, after Bengel, al., renders it, ‘wnder-
stand us rightly, referring to ref, Matt. :
but even there the meaning is ‘to take in,’
and only ‘ to understand rightly,’ because
tov Adyov TovToy follows. And as Meyer
observes, there could not well be any mzs-
understanding as to what he here says.
ovdéva 78., «.7.A.] Reasons why they
should make room for him in their hearts :
We (when he dwelt among them,—the
aorists refer toa set time, not to his course
hitherto) wronged no man (in outward
acts, namely,—in the exercise of his apos-
tolie authority, or thé@like),—we ruined
no man (this probably also of outward con-
duct towards others, not as Calv., al., of
corrupting by false doctrine), —we cheated
no man. ‘Jo understand, with Riickert,
these verbs as applying to the contents of
the former Epistle, is very forced. If nd:n.
had really referred to the severe punish-
ment of the incestuous person,—e@elp. to
the delivering him over to Satan,—and
émAeov, to the power which Paul gained
over them by this act of authority,—surely
we should have found more express indica-
tion of such reference in the text. But
no allusion. has as yet been made to the
former Epistle ; and therefore it is much
better to understand the words generally
of the time when he resided among them.
“In how many ways of which history
says nothing, may such ruining of others
have been laid to the charge of Paul?
How easily might his severe visitation
of sin, his zeal for eleemosynary collec-
tions, his habit of lodging with mem-
bers of the churches, and the like, have
been thus unfavourably characterized!”
Meyer: who remarks, that the emphatic
position of oddéva thrice repeated is no
X x
674
n ch. ii. 11 reff.
o = 1 Cor, vii.
35 rett.
p ch. iii.9
onlyt. Nom.
xiii. 33
alius in
Hexapl.
q ch. xili. 2
reft.
paper, ovoéva
A eyo"
puota
rPhil.i.7. 9 men dn wat TH
s Rom. iy. 11 ? u
ret.
t Mark xiv. 81.
2 Tim, ii. 11
onlyt. Sir.
xix. 10 only.
Xap4
TIPO KOPINOIOY®S B.
n’? ,
ewA cOVERTNO GHEY.
* ete TO _ auvawoBavely Kal
“apoc vuac, ToAAH pot
TapakAnoe,
° emt Taon 7 OAwLe meow.
meoy ELC Maxedoviay spicules Eaynkey “aveow h oa 06
VIL.
A 7
59 mpoc ° karaxpiow ov
mootionka yao Ort ev Talc peace me éore
bcm 4 rodAN mos * " wap-
* cavynatc UTED Vw"
™7
Kal ye eAfovrwv
€ 7,
“ UTEP TEPLTGEVOMAL
5
wRom-i:8 Huey, GAA’ Sev mavti 'OABduevor’ "ewer | pay at,
only t.
v= ee v. lreff. w ch. iii. 12 reff. x = ver. 14. 1 Cor. xv. 31. (Rom. iii. 27 reff.) y constr.,
Luke ii. 40. Rom. i. 29 only. 2 Mace. vii. 21. z= ch. i. 3, &c. reff. a Rom. vy. 20 only t+. (-a¢,
Mark vii. 37.) = ch. iii. 14 reff. ech. i. 9 etl. d Acts xxiv. 23 reff. ech. iv.
8 reff. fch. i. 6 reff. part. constr., ch, v. 6 reff. g Matt. xxiii. 25, 27, 28 al. h see Dent.
Xxxii. 25. i 2 Tim. ii. 23. Tit. iii. James iv. 1 only. — Gen. xiii. 7.
Cuap. VII. 3. rec ov bef mpos kataxpiow, with Di KL rel vss gr-lat-ff: om ov 17:
txt BCR.
4. aft mpos vuas ins et D}(and lat).
om 3rd 77 F: aft maon Ty ins TOAAy D!.
5. for exxnkev, ecxev BFK: txt CDLN rel Chr Thdrt, Damase.
CF d latt Thdrt, lat-ff.
confirmation of Riickert’s view. :
3.| I do not say it (ver. 2) for condemna-
tion (with a condemnatory view, in a
spirit of blame: there is no tuay ex-
pressed, nor should it be supplied. He
means, ‘I do not say ver. 2 im any but a
loving spirit’): for (and this shews it) I
have said before (viz. ch. vi. 11 f. see note
there) that ye are in our hearts (this was
implied in 7 Kapdia nuay memAaTUYTaL, Vi.
11. In the qualifying words, eis 7d our.
«.7.., Paul, as Meyer says, is his own
commentator), to die together and live
together. This is ordinarily understood,
‘so that I could die with you or live with
you, —as Hor., ‘Tecum vivere amem,
tecum obeam libens,’ Od. iii. 9. 24: which
Meyer controverts, owing to tuets being
the subject of the sentence, and renders,
‘in order to die and to live with us:’ i. e.
‘if our lot is to die, in death,—and if our
lot is to live, in life, never to be torn from
our hearts.’ But to this I would reply,
that though dye?s is the subject of év rats
kapd. nu. éore, it is but an accidental and
secondary subject as regards the whole sen-
tence: that they are present in his heart,
is a sign, not of their state of mind, but of
his: therefore the purpose, ets 16, must
refer logically to Aim, the main subject, of
whom only the purposes can come into
consideration. 4.| wappyola, as in
reff., confidence, which leads to and justi-
fies kavxnuis: not here ‘ liberty of speech,’
as Chrys., al. kavyx., to others, in
speaking of them. Tm Tap., the
consolation (which I have received), viz.
that furnished by the intelligence from you.
Though this is anticipating what follows
aft ot: ins eore (but marked for erasure) N}.
vuwy &). om eore BL
ins ev bef 7m xapa B(sic in cod).
aveow bef ecx.
vv. 7, 9, I cannot but believe it to have
been already before the Apostle’s mind,
and to have been referred to by the articles
before wapaxA. and xap. On the con-
struction of wAnpéw with an instrumental
dative, see reff., and Winer, edn. 6, § 31.
7. So Eurip. Here. Fur. 372, wevcaow
xépas mwAnpodvres,—and Bacche 18, mu-
yaow “EAAno. BapBapos @ duod wAnpecs
€xouta KadAuTupywtous méAeLs.
trepB.] I am made exceedingly to
abound, see Matt. xiii. 12. The pres. in-
dicates the abiding of the effect. ™m
xapq, with the joy; see above. ert
waco. T. OA. Hp., in (reff.) all my tribula-
tion: refers to beth preceding clauses.
What @Atpis he means, is explained in the
next verse. waonr here not of all tri-
tulation, at all times, which the special
reference of mapaxA. and xapda forbids :
but of various sorts of tribulation as speci-
fied (€v mavri) below. 5—7.] The
intelligence received from them through
Titus, and its comforting effect on the
Apostle’s mind. 5.] yap gives a
reason for @OAlve: above: xai connects
with ch. ii. 12, 18, where he has spoken of
the trouble which he had before leaving
Troas. For also, after our coming to
Macedonia, our flesh had no rest (there
is a slight, but very slight, distinction from
obk toxnka tveow TH mvevuarl mov, ch.
ii. 12. Titus was now present, so that
that source of inquietude was removed ;
but the outward ones, of fightings gene-
rating inward fears (but see below), yet
remained. No further distinction must
be drawn—for %owbev dB evidently
shews that odpt must be taken in a wide
3—8.
® Eow0ev Popo.
k ,
Taoekad eoev
7
npac o Ode
5) , Von
ov povov o& "ev TH
, wT. je
maoakAnoe y * tapekAnOn °
‘A c ~
THY UpwYy
tyn CaN i ie tT
CiyAov ump Emov, were pe
\w? tA € ~ ’
kat “ elumTnoa upag Ev
|? a t » \
Y pereneAOuny PAérw yao oTt eTLoTOAN EkELYy él Kal
p = 1 Cor. xiii. 6. xvi. 17.
Aq. (-é€tv, Rom. i. 11.
15. 2 Mace. xi. 6 only.
w ch, ii. 2 reff.
3. Heb. vii. 21 (from Ps, cix. 4) only.
-ntos, Phil. iv. 1.)
6. om 2nd o C 4.
7. nv mapexAndnv D'.
IIPOS KOPINOIOYS B.
P add’ o in TapakaXwy rove |"
r , , ‘ c ~
emtToOnowv, TOV vuwy
x . > ~~ > , ,
TH ETLoTOAY, ov * wETapéAomat, EL 2.
gq Acts xiv. 27 reff.
t = Rom. x. 2 reff.
x see 1 Cor. v. 9 reff.
Prov. xxv. 8. see ver. 10.
675
Tamewvove k eae i.4
ni? = Le A 2
ev Ty maoovota Titov’ iis 33
’ ~ Lukei. 62.
oy aed: okie BRAG Kal "ev Ty Rom. xi 16.
ch. x. 1.
ae
ép vm, TavayyéehAwy qaw Fm
s? , \ c - v. 5 (from
OdvOMOY, TOY UV Prov. iii. 33)
aXrov * 7 ee P,
padXov * yaonvat. Ort ce b=
17. Phil. i.
ii. 12 al.t
2 Mace. viii.
12. xv. 21
only.
r ver. ll onlyt. Ezek. xxiii. 11
s Matt. ii. 18 only, from Jer. xx xviii. (xx xi.)
u compar., Acts xxv. 10 reff.
y here bis. Matt. xxi. 29, 32. xxvii.
for ev, em: C Chr Thl-marg.
for ed, ev L.
for nui, vu &!. me aft wadAov
D Thdrt: aft xapnva: F arm: om K m 31-5-9. 109-14 lect-13.
8. aft emorToAn ins pov DF.
for 2nd ec kat, ec Se kar B.
om yap B D!(and
lat) Ambrst-ms Aug Bede: videns quod vulg. (The varr arise from attempts to clear
the constr, making « Se xa mw. the beginning of a new sentence, and Brerw, without
yap, the apodosis,—or BrXerwy x.t.. a qualifying clause: see also notes.)
bef eAurnoev F.
sense); Without, fightings (the omission
of #ocay renders the description more gra-
phic), within, fears. Chrys., €w0. udxar’
mapa Tov antotwy' €owd. pdBor Sia Tovs
acOeveis Tv misTav. So Calv., Grot.,
Wetst., al., slightly varying in their as-
signment of each class. But it is better,
as Paul speaks of 7 opt judy, to under-
stand éw8ev of the state of things with-
out him, contentions with adversaries,
either within or without the church, and
éowbev of that within, fears, for ourselves,
for others, or for you, how you might have
received our letter. 6.] tots TaTet-
vous, generally, those that are low: 7pas,
as belonging to that class. It was not
Jinding Titus which had given him such
uneasiness in Troas, ch. li. 12. év, not
‘by,’ but in, as the conditional element or
vehicle of the consolation. So also in next
verse. 7. adda kal....] not only
....but also with the comfort with
which he was comforted concerning you:
i.e. ‘we shared in the comfort which Titus
felt in recording to us your desire,’ &e. see
ver. 13. He rejoiced in announcing the
news: we in hearing them. There is no
inaccuracy of construction, as De W. sup-
poses. éxtmdOyouyv, either longing fo
see me, or longing to fulfil my wishes. The
former is the more simple. dduppov,
—éni TH emitiunrer pov TH ev TH TpeOTN
émioToAH, as (cum. Cirov trep
épov}| The art. is omitted after (Aor, as
in Tay adeAPGy wou TOY cuyyevGv KaTa
adpra, because the words (HAov brep euod
cohere in the sense, and form as it were
x
UMaS
but one,—see Col.
and Winer, edn. 6, § 20. 2.
paddov, viz. ‘than before, at the mere
coming of Titus.2 The emphasis is on
paAdrov from its position. 8—i1.]
He expresses his satisfaction at the effect
produced on them, as superseding his
former regret that he had grieved then.
8.| For (reason of the xapiva)
though I even grieved you in (by means
of) my epistle, I do not (now) repent
(having written it), though I even did
repent it (before the coming of Titus).
Erasm., al., take ef kal wetew. for ‘ even
supposing z repented it before, which was
not the case:’ Caly., al. think ‘verbum
peenitendi improprie positum pro dolorem
capere. The reason of these departures
from grammatical construction and the
meaning of words, is, for fear the Apostle
should seem to have repented of that which
he did under the inspiration of the Holy
Spirit. But there is no difficulty even on
the strictest view of inspiration, in con-
ceiving that the Apostle may have after-
wards regretted the severity which he was
guided to use; we know that Jonah, being
directed by inspiration to pronounce the
doom of Nineveh, endeavoured to escape
the unwelcome duty: and doubtless St.
Paul, as a man, in the weakness of his affec-
tion for the Corinthians, was tempted to
wish that he had never written that which
had given them pain. But the result
shewed that God’s Spirit had ordered it
well, that he should thus write; and this
his repentance was repented of again.
14 (ive 13sevant)s
kere
676 IIPOS KOPINOIOY®S B. Vit.
¢ *\7 imide - ' >
#(=)teho v- * qo0c woav “ edurnoey yuac’ 9 vuv yaiow, ovy Ort nee
5. Phil , > > ’ , ’ i
Thonly see“ €AumNOnre, AA Ore ElLuTNOnTE * cic peravorav’ “ eAuTHe ee:
1 Thess ii. 17. ees z a, thse Wa 5 ree = kim
eae Onre yap «ata eov, wa ev pnNoevi Cyuw lyre €& ae. A o17
, >
b Rom. vii. 19 yao -Kata Ocov OTN *pETavoLaY Etc owrTnolav
27. see ch, ’ - , ,
oat 3 et f CuerapéAnrov © epyacerat, 7 o& Tov Koopov Abmn Oavarov
+] O fii: - 2 ‘ ‘ . > ‘ . a k ‘ b ‘
“re ™ kareoyalerat. 1 idov yap ‘avro ‘rovro “ro "Kara
e = Marki.4 ‘ = - c# , v , car
1. fr. w [ |
ls og Oeov “ AurnOnvar [vpac| mooyv “‘ Kkatepyacato viv
nly t.
g = Rom, 10 | oTOVONY,
Fi iv. 15. v.3. ch. iv. 17 al.
1 = Rom. xii. 8, 11 reff.
only. o here only ft.
9. om vuy D'(and lat) Syr.
"ad\a
m = 1 Cor. iii. 2.
o? ,
avoXoytav,
i Acts xxiv.
(-retv, Matt. xx. 24.)
om aAA ott eAUTNOATE N?:
10. rec katepya¢era, with FKLN® rel Orig, Thdrt Thl Ge
> ‘A o? ,
™ arXa ayavaktnow,
k = Rom. viii. 26 reff.
(Acts xxv. 16 reff.) Wisd. vi. lu
15 reff.
n = 1 Cor. ix. 3.
ins X-corr! obl,
: txt BCDX! m Clem
Orig, Chr-mss Damase. (om last clause [home@otel] 17. 31. 108'!-14-78.)
11. om vas (as unnecessary, yyw occurring below: and to express, as above, the
abstract and not the concrete) BCFN! 17 Ambrst Aug: ins DKLN% rel Clem Bas Chr
Thdrt Damase Thl Gc Bede.
Brew yap x.7.A.] For I see that that
letter, though but for a time, did grieve
you. This seems the only admissible ren-
dering of the words. Chrys. sees in them
the reason of od petaméAouat, and adds 7d
fev yap Aumnpby Bpaxt, Td GE wpéeAmoy
dinverés. It appears then that he would
render ei kal mpbs pay, ‘if even for a
season, = ‘scarcely for any time” Rinck
(lucubr. crit. p. 162) would begin a new
sentence with ei Kal mereweAduny, and
parenthesizing BAérw.... tuas, regard
viv xalpe, «.7.A. as the apodosis. But
this is very unnatural, with so abrupt a
beginning as ef «al. It would certainly
have been ef 5€ kat: and the present,
BAérw, would give no reason for the past,
fet eweAduny, Which had passed away. T he
best sense, as well as the most legitimate
rendering, is to regard BAérw.... iuas
as the epexegesis of éAdmnoa, as above.
9.] vuv, emphatic, as distinguish-
ing xalpw from petreweddunv: now that
I know not only of your grief, but of its
being grief which worked repentance.
kara Gedv} as EK. V., after a godly sort:
‘with reference to "God, see ref. Rom.
and note: ‘ secundum, hie significat sen-
sum animi Deum spectantis et sequentis,”
Bengel. airy yap ) Kad} Avmn, ws Td ye
kar’ &vOpwmov Auretobat kakdv. Cécum.
Cf. Kara kvOpwrov, 1 Cor. xv. 32.
iva, «.7.A.] in order that ye might in
nothing be damaged by us: not éx-
Barixas, so that ye did not... ., as many
Commentators :—the divine purpose of
their grief is indicated; ‘God so brought
it about, in order that your grief occasioned
by me might have, not an injurious, but
a beneficial effect.’ 10.| How ‘ grief
according to God’ produces such an effect.
ins ev bef vary CFR3 cd vulg syr Bas Chr Thdrt
For grief according to God works
(brings about, promotes, see ref.) repent-
ance unto salvation which none will
regret. GpetapeAntoy best belongs
to owrnplay, as Vulg., Theophyl., Aug.,
Kst., Fritzsche, Meyer, De Wette ; not to
peTavoav, as most Commentators :—not
necessarily however from the position of the
words, as Meyer and De Wette maintain :
for what more common than for the predi-
cate of a substantive (€is owrnpiayv) to be
placed between it and a qualifying adjec-
tive >—but on account of the sense, and
the fact that not adpetavdnrov, but auera-
M€Antor is chosen, so that the play in E. V.,
‘repentance not to be repented of, does
not seem to have been intended. De W.
well explains cwrnpia dmetawéAntos —
‘salvation which none will ever regret’
having attained, however difficult it may
have been to reach, however dearly it may
have been bought. h T- Kogpou
Avay] Ti dé eS, kata Kéomov ; éay Av-
mnOys Sia xphuata, bia Sdtav, dia Tov
ameAOdvra. Chrys. Tod Koop. is sub-
Jective:
this world, Odvaroy | Death eter-
nal, as contrasted with owtypiav: not
‘deadly sickness,’ or ‘ suicide,’ as Theo-
phyl. (in part, mavTws mev Toy WuxiKdr,
ToAAaKis 5& Kal Tov gwuarixdy), al. The
grief which contemplates nothing but the
blow given, and not the God who ‘chastens,
can produce nothing but more and more
alienation from Him, and result in eternal
banishment from His presence. So that
épyal. is rather works, ‘ contributes to,’
and Katepyal., works out, ‘results in.’
11.| The blessed effects of godly
grief on themselves, as shewn by fact.
aitd tovro, this very thing, of
‘the grief felt by the children of
9—13. IIPO> KOPINOIOY®= B. 677
’ tH, ’ > ~
™ adXa popor, ™ adra ? extroOnow, ™ adda 4% Cydrov, p ver.7 only t.
m? Yi ’ , ? A « ~~ ag
aAdX\a ‘Eexdiknow. ‘Sév Smavri ‘ouvesrnoate " cavrouc * Ran se?
ApeNande ro" woe ae cf Kutt toch
ayvouc evar “ry “ moaypart. apa é kat Eyoara t=ch. vi.
ovos svekev TOU "Mesa.
(ye ? v7 So eed ,
uml, OUX EVEKEY TOU adiKnoavToc
x ? , > > 7 -~- ¢ ~ ‘ l Rom. vi. 1},
aducnOévroc, adX evexev tov * davepwOnvae THY oTOU- 13,15. xii 19.
‘ e ~ ‘ c A € ~ ‘ ec ~ , , ~ ad ahi ats side
onv UUwWY THY UTEP HWY TEOE UVEAC 2evwmiov tov Oeov. * Pin ig’s.
13 8 \ ~ a , een \ = b , 1 Thess. v.
(a TOUTO mapakek\npeba. émt Of TH TapakAnoe 22. Tit. ii. 6.
; U James iii.
17. 1 Pet. iii. 2. 1John iii. 3only. Prov. xx. 9. (-v@s, Phil.i.17. -voTns, ch. vi. 6.) Ww see
x Eur. Med. 267.
a = ch. i. 4, &e, reff.
1 Thess. iv. 6.
z= Actsiv.19 reff. Rom. xii. 17.
Thi lat-ff: om BDKLN! rel copt goth Clem Damase (Ec. avakTynow and emirobiav
RI [aAAa (last), so BD'FLN ab d fm o. | ree ins ev bef tw mparyuart, with
Ba rel vss Chr Thdrt Ambrst-ms: txt BCD!FX 17 vulg goth Clem Damase Pelag
ede.
12. ins add’ bef ovde BR? m 73. elz nuwy THv umep vw (see notes), with d vulg
(and F-lat) goth Chr Thdrt Ambrst: ua. 7. um. ua. D!(and lat!) F-gr Ni: nu. T. ut. Nee
nostram que est pro nobis G: txt BCD? KL rel D?-lat E-lat syrr copt eth Damasce.
= ch, ii. 14. iii. 3, &e. coustr., here only.
bch. i. 3, Xe. refi.
which I have been speaking. omrov-
Syv, earnestness, as contrasted with your
former carelessness in the matter.
éAa] nay, not orovdqyv merely,—that is
saying too little ;—but ... atroho-
yiav] viz. to Paul by means of Titus,—
asserting their innocence in the matter; see
below. ayavaxtnoww | mpds Toy me-
mopvevkdta. Theophyl. doBov| ‘ne
cum virga venirem,’ Bengel : fear of Paul :
not here of God. The context is brought
out well by Chrys. and Theophyl. The
latter says, on émimd@yow,—mpds ewe.
eiray 5& oBov, ta uh Sdtn avdevreiy,
cvvtdéuws Siwpldcato, emimoOnow cindy
Smep evderktiKdy aydrns, ox étovolas.
Ladov] on God’s behalf, to punish
the offender ;—éx8ikyow being the inflic-
tion of justice itself. Bengel remarks,
that the six accusatives preceded by aAAd
fall into three pairs: @roAoy. and ayavdKr.,
relating to their own feelings of shame,—
6B. and émimd0. to Paul,—(a. and éx-
dix. to the offender. éy mavTt must
be understood only of participation of guilt :
by their negligence, and even refusal to
humble themselves (1 Cor. v. 2), they had
in some things made common cause with
the offender. Of this, now that they had
shewn so different a spirit, the Apostle
does not speak. auveotyoate | have
commended yourselves by proving that
ye are; a pregnant construction. TO
ap., the dat. of regard: see Rom. vi. 20,
and Winer, edn. 6, § 31. 1,—the matter,
—perhaps, as in ref., not only, ‘of which
I have been speaking,’—but with allusion
to the kind of sin which was in question.
Gyvovs, pure of stain. 12.] He
shews them that to bring out this zeal in
them was the real motive of his writing to
them, and no private considerations.
dpa, accordingly,—‘in accordance with
the result just mentioned.’ et Kal
Zypawa tp. is parallel with ef cal éAvdmnoa
Suas, ver. 8,—though (i. e. assumed that)
I wrote (severely) to you. The a8uKy-
Geis would be the father of the incestuous
person, who yuvaika Tod marpos eixev, 1 Cor.
We ile Theodoret imagines it to mean the
stepmother, who was the adulteress ; and
thinks that the father was dead. But
there is no ground for this in 1 Cor. v.,
and the masculine participle, though not
decisive against it, is at least more natu-
rally explained on the other view. Others
(as Wolf, Bleek, al.) suppose Paul himself
to be meant, which however would be in
direct contradiction to ch. ii. 5: Bengel,
al., the Corinthians, ‘singularis pro plu-
rali, per euphemiam,’ which is forced:
Theophyl., al., both the persons concerned
(—dppdrepor yap adAAhAous Hdtknoav) :—
and Neander, al., take rod adinnOevros
as = Tov Gdikquatos, ‘the fault com-
mitted :?>—which however would not be
true, for the Apostle certainly did write on
account of the committal of the fault.
It would be easy for any of the Apostle’s
adversaries to maintain that the reproof
had been administered from private and
interested motives. GAN’ Evexev .. . |
But he wrote, in order to bring out their
zeal on his behalf (i. e. to obey his com-
mand), and make it manifest to themselves
in God’s sight. The other reading, 7uav
thy imép judy, has been an alteration
owing to not understanding 7. oovd. vm.
rT. or. fu. and is inconsistent with the
fact: it was not to exhibit to them his
zeal for them that he wrote, but to make
manifest to (apds, ‘among,’ ‘ chez’) them,
678 IPOS KOPINOIOY®S B. Vil. 14—16.
i rd , A i 2) we ,
ech i12reff AuwY ° TEPLaGOTEPWG ‘ padXov ° éyaonuev emt Ty xapa
par, Mark. U e g? , \ g - >
vgn Phil. LtTOU, OTL ‘avaréravrat TO © mvevpa avtov "amo mavrov
i. 28. cee, We VAS ce. Cae te, Bh
d Wid iz
e 1 Cor, sil, 6 ae Ore el te ' aur@ apo Kekavy nat, ou
reff.
f = Acts xiv. 3.
ch. i. Qal.
* carnaxovOny, adn os Tavra év adnBcia eXaAnoapev
g = 1 Cor. xvi. ULL, OUTWE Kal n KabXnate vuwv H ™ Ext pees ahnBea
e
ee eyernOn, IS kal ra °omdayyva avTou * TEoLsaoTEoWwC
i constr., ch. ix. p ? ec - > q2 , ‘ , c -
a9); ec umac sot ‘avapimvnoKouevov THY TaYTwWY YuwY
om. Vv. 0.
G YU © \ , \ £ , a7 ar
“umakony, we * mera * poBou Kal neapee coesacQ_e avrov.
16
m w.gen. =
Acts xxiii. 30 reff.
q 1 Cor. iv. 17 reff.
t 1 Cor. ii. 3 reff.
ok
Duppo « év UML.
o = ch. vi. 12 reff. p=ch. viii. 13, 14 reff.
s= Matt. xxviii. 8. Mark i iii. 5. 1 Chron. xxix. 22.
v ch. v. 6, 8 reff.
U a Tae u \
Kalow, OTL “eV TAaAVTLt
n= 1 Cor. i. 30.
r Rom. i. 5 reff.
uch. iv. 8 reff.
13. rec places 5¢ aft wepircotepws (appy to conform to the exapnuev emt below, by
joining mapaxerdr. ext: then also the change of nu. into up. became necessary), with rel
eth Ge: txt BCDFKLX d 17 latt syrr copt Chr-comm(and Mtt’s ms,) Damasc(has
eretdn for er: Se) Thl, lat-ff: om e 32-6-9. 71 Thdrt. rec Uw, with F-gr L rel
syr-w-ast copt Chr Thdrt Bede: txt BCDGKN 17 latt syrr goth eth arm ~Ambrst
Pelag.
14. avrwy &.
CD vulg goth: om vaw X!:
last 7 BX! 115. 1191.
15. om mayrwy &}.
16. elz aft xa:pw ins ovy, with m syr-marg goth:
gr-lat-ff.
to bring out among them, their zeal to
regard and obey him. 13.| On this
account (on account of the fulfilment of
this purpose) we are comforted: but in
addition to (or, on the occurrence of) our
comfort, we rejoiced very much more
(reff.) at the joy of Titus, because his
spirit has been refreshed by you all.
A similar declaration to that in ver. 7,
where not only the arrival of Titus, but
his comfort wherewith he was comforted
by them, is described as the ground of the
Apostle’s joy. According to the received
reading, the sense is: ‘ Therefore we are
consoled on account of your consolation
(either gen. subj., ‘that which you feel on
account of the good issue of the affair,’ —
or gen. object., “<the consolation received
from you’): but we rejoiced very much
more, &e. This however would hardly
represent the real state of things.
14.] This increased joy was produced by
the verification which my former boasting
of you to Titus now received. e( TL. |
see one particular in which he.boasted of
them, ch. ix. 2 ov KaTqox.| I was
not shamed, viz. by being shewn, on
Titus’s coming to you, to have boasted in
vain. GAN Os ...] ‘But truthfulness
was shewn to be my constant rule of speech,
to whomsoever I spoke.’ But as we spoke
(generally, not merely in our teaching,
kexavxnuat bef vrep yuwy F Chr Thi.
mavta, tavtote CF syr copt Chr, omnia aut omnino G-lat.
txt N-corr! ob!,
rel latt syrr goth Chr Thdrt Ambrst: txt B F-gr c copt Thi. (C defective.)
for emt tiTov, pos Titov ad Titwm DF rm Damasc.
adra C. for
vu bef ev ad. edad.
rec yuwy (see note), with DOGKLN
om
om BCDFKLX rel latt Syr copt
as Theodoret, al.) all things in truth
(truthfully) to you, so also our boasting
concerning you (gen. obj.: the rec. juav
agrees better with the comparison, of ‘our
words’ in general, with ‘ owr boasting’ i
particular: but on that very account it i is
probably an alteration: and this is the im-
plied meaning at all events) before Titus
was (was proved to be: was, as shewn by
proof) truth. De W. suggests that the
Apostle had described (by “anticipation) to
Titus in glowing terms the affection and
probable prompt obedience of the Corin-
thians, as an encouragement to his some-
what unwelcome journey. 15.] en-
larges GAjOea eyevi@n. And his heart
is more abundantly (turned) toward you,
remembering as he does the obedience
of you all, how (i.e. which was shewn
in the fact, that) with fear and trembling
ye received him. ‘Fear and trembling,’
i. e. ‘lest ye should not pay enough regard
to my injunctions, and honour enough his
mission from me.’ 16.| I rejoice
(more expressive than with a connecting
particle) that in every thing I am (re)-
assured by you: ‘am of good courage, in
contrast to my former dejection, owing to
your good conduct. The ordinary ren-
dering, ‘Z can have confidence in you,’
is wrong in not giving the indic. @appa,
and still more, in making @appety év mean
BCDPF
KLNab
edefg
hkim
nol7
Vill. 1—.
VITL. 1’ PrwpiZopev dé vpiv, adeApoi, my *
rou Osov thy * dedopévny
doviac, 2 Ore ev mohdy
The Xapac auTwy kal n
>
IPOS KOPINOIOY®= B.
Y ey raic ”
‘ doKxmun OrAtbewe 7
© Kata
679
Xaow wil hie xii. 3
reff. xv. 1.
eS c 4
ex Anatate tng Make= * ten” *
b , y ver ee
% piur., Rom,
alah aaa Fal 2g
a Rom. vy. 4 reff.
fi e , > ~ .v.
BaBove TTWYELA AUTWY jf, Row. v.17.
ch x. 16.
, > ~-
smegisaevety €tc TO 8 tovroe me *amAdraros auUTWY, oer Hees
n ClES,
3 i. Sal.
ott ‘Kata dvvauv *
40
” avbaiperot, mera moAAne
€ - ‘ q s \ ~~
ail ee bah de ri th
paoTvew Kal
p f
i MARR eMiSEHG Sedpevor aly.
,
" COLYwVlaY
N
" aod ” Sivan, ohare only.
Strabo ix.
Winer,
edn. 6, § 51.2.
aap xi. 33
Tne ° Stakoviac rng |
ete TOUCE “aytoue, 5 kal ov Kas adm ioaper, avr’ gauTouc - Tap only:
towkKav TOWTOY TW Kvolw Kal nuty
g neut., Eph. i. 7. ii. 7. iii..8, 16. Phil. iv. a Col. i. 27. ii.
xxv. 16. 1 Chron, xxix. 2.
2,4. Rom. xiv. 5. Heb. xi. 11.
iii. 54. bvrép d., ch. i. 8.
o = ch. vii. 15 reff.
rch. vi. 14 reff,
v Rom. xv. 32 reff.
s Acts vi. 1 reff.
Ps. cexxxiv. 5.
n ver. 17 only t. aa XXxy. 5 Sym.
p = Rom. xii. 8 reff.
rs "9, Rev
Job xxx. 27.
"ota OeAnpwatoc Oeov, S Bom ee 4
h Rom. xii. 8 reff, i Matt.
Rom, x. 2. Gal. iv. 15. Col. iv. 13. 1 = Luke xiii.
m here only. tape dvv. petéxecy, Thucyd.
(-tws, 2 Mace. vi. 19.)
= Acts xxiv. 27. xxv.3,. Sir. xxx. 6.
t =1 Cor. si l reff. u = Acts ix, 13 reff.
Cuap. VIII. 2. ree tov tAovrov, with DEK LN? rel: txt BCR! 17. 31.
3. rec (for mapa) umep (see ch i. 8), with KL rel Chr Thdrt: txt BCDFX 17.
4. rec at end adds Setac@at nuas, with h k:
BCDFKLX rel latt syrr copt gr-lat-ff.
5. nAmikapev B 80. adda CD},
«to have confidence in, which is unexam-
pled. Meyer, who remarks this, does not
notice, that the strongest reason against it
is not mere want of usage, but the psycho-
logical meaning of Oappetv, which is not
like memoOévai, descriptive of a relative,
but of an absolute state of mind,—to be
of good courage: and this admits only
of qualification as to the ground of that
good courage; thus we have Oappety brép,
wept, emt, in the sense of ‘rejoicing at,’
‘feeling confident concerning: but dap-
pety ev for ‘to trust in, as memobéevat ev,
would, I think, be inadmissible. Meyer
quotes év go) mao’ éywye cH ouat, Soph.
Aj. 519, where, as here, év gives the ground
of the verb as in the person spoken of.
Crap. VIII. 1—I1X. 15.] Srconp Part
OF THE EPISTLE: CONCERNING THE COL-
LECTION FOR THE SAINTS. 1—6.| He
informs them of the readiness of the Mace-
donian churches to contribute for the poor
saints (at Jerusalem), which led him also
to beg of Titus to complete the collection
at Corinth. See some interesting geogra-
phical and historical notices in Stanley’s
introduction to this section, edn. 2, pp.
479 f. 1.] 8€ is transitional,—pass-
ing on to new matter: so 1 Cor. vii. 1;
viii. 1 al. fr. xaptv | For every good
gift and frame of mind comes by divine
grace, not by human excellency: and this
occasion was most opportune for resting
the liberality of the Macedonian churches
on God’s grace, that he might not be ex-
tolling them at the expense of the Corin-
aft Kowwviav ins defacbar c: om
thians, but holding out an example of the
effusion of that grace, which was common
to the Corinthians also, if they sought and
used it. It is a mistake, with Orig.,
Erasm., al., to understand éuvi or juicy after
dedouervny ‘quemadmodum adfuerit mihi
Deus in ecclesiis:? see the construction
d.5dva ev, in reff.:—given among,—shed
abroad in, the churches of Macedonia.
2.| how that (depends on -yywpiCouev) in
much proof of tribulation (though they
were put to the proof by much tribulation)
(was) the abundance of their joy (i.e.
their joy abounded),—and their deep
poverty (kata Babous, lit. ‘down into the
depth, as xa? 8dov, ‘throughout the
whole’) abounded to (‘abunde cessit in,’ as
Meyer, &c. or rather perhaps, ‘ abounded,’
produced abundant fruit, ‘so as to bring
about’... .) the riches (7d mA. the riches
which have actually become manifest by the
result of the collection) of their liberality
(see ref. Rom. and note). 3—5.| Proof
of this. There is no difficulty, and no
ellipsis, in the construction. For accord-
ing to their power, I testify, and beyond
their power, voluntarily, with much
exhortation beseeching of us the grace
and fellowship of the ministry to the
saints (i. e. to allow them a share in that
grace and fellowship), and not as we ex-
pected (i. e. far beyond our expectation),
but themselves they gave first (i. e. above
all: as the inducing motive: not first in
point of time, but in point of mportance,
see Rom. ii. 9, 10) to the Lord, and to us
a
680 IIPOS KOPINOIOY®S B. VIII. q
one 6 ste TO “mapaxaXéoars nuac Tiroy, *% iva Kabuc ? mporviiy- BCD
1c 10 KLNa
“tet Eato, ovrwe Kat “*émetedon et¢ Dag Kal THY * yap cdefg
y ver. 10 only f. , 7b? » c.3. Ee \d , ' hkim
tvapxs TAUTHV. arr wore “ev © ravti “ wEepLcoEvETE, TATE no17
ha. \ \ , ee - {2 =
zRom- xvas, Kal “AOyw Kat “-yvwoe Kal “Tay ®ozoven Kal TH €&
ch. vii. 1. es h? ec - > , o i ote , ~ a ,
Gali 3. are év ey aa iva Kat ey tavTy TH * XaprTE
1 Kings iii Ay pik ov bg ‘ emerayay dey, addi oud TIC
a=1Cor. xvi. ¢ k
8, ver. 19. épac aya vnoov
5 oe ret érépwv © omovenc, Kal “TO Tne ver pac ay ne * ny i
7. Luke vii, ™
7. Acts ix.
6. x. 20.
xxvi. 16.
ech. iv, 8 reff.
"Inoov XelsTov, Ore Ou vac
Soximalwv 9 (yoorere eee ri Xap TOU kuolou neov
* ExT wy evoEY mAovowwe wr,
d=1 Cor. xv. 58. Col. ii. 7. 1 Thess. iv. 1. e 1 Cor. i. 5. f = Acts xx. 19 reff. g Rom.
xii. 8, 1] reff. h seel Johniv. 9. (John xvii. 267) i Rom, xvi. 26 reff. k neut.,
1 Cor. i. 25, &c. reff. 1 Phil. iv.3. 1 Tim.i-2. Tit.i.4onlyt. Sir. vii. 18 only. (-ws, Phil. ii. 20.)
m Rom. xiv. 22 reff. n here only. = Judges vi.6. Ps. xxxiii. 10. [xxviii. 8. Prov. xxiii. 21. Tobit iy. 21.
6. for mpoev., evnptato B.
7. meptooevnte C Chr-montf. ins ev bef mote: &!(N? disapproving). ef
quov evvyuw Ba bm 81. 73. 74. 80. 238 Syr copt arm Orig-int Ambrst-ms: ef up. ev
uu. no: €& vuwy ets nuas 17: txt CDF KLY® rel. mepiogevante D'F,
8. Sia tThv eT. orovdnv D: propter D-lat G-lat goth Ambrst Aug. Soximata
D'FG Chr-ms.
9. om xpiorov B Ambr,.
109-15. 238.
by the will of God (the Giver of grace,
who made them willing to do this: not =
kara 76 O€A. T. 0., which only expresses
[whatever it may imply] consonance with
the divine will: 8:4 tod OX. 7. 6. makes
the divine will the agent). 6.| So
that we besought Titus (not, Titus be-
sought ws, see ver. 17), that (the aim, and
purport as well, of our request), as he had
previously (before the Macedonians began
to contribute: ‘during his visit from w hich
he had now returned’) begun it, so also
he would complete among you (the con-
struction is pregnant—eaén eis tuas rab
émitehéon) this grace also (this act of
grace or mercy, reff. Kat,—as well as
other things which he had to do among
them. It does not belong to ra’rny, ‘this
grace also, as well as other graces,’ but to
Thy xdpw Travtny altogether). 7—15. |
Exhortations and inducements to perform
this act of charity. 7.] a@AAd marks
the transition to an exhortation, as in reff.
It at the same time implies, as Herm. ad
Viger. p. 812 (in Meyer), ‘ satis argumen-
torum allatum esse.’ aioret, see ch.
i, 24. oy K. yveoet, see ref. and
for yv., 1 Cor. viii. 1. Taoy crov-
57, because omovdy may be manifold
even in a good sense. Grot. well ex-
plains it, ‘studium ad agendas res bo-
nas.’ TH @& tp. ev Hp. ay.) your
love to us;—the love which, arising
from you, has us for its object: see
reff. According to the reading, é judy
ev bu, the only meaning agreeing with
quas CK ak ! m o 19. 37. 41. 55. 65. 74. 89. 93.
the context is, ‘the love (to God and man)*
which, arising Srom | our teaching, is
planted i in you. iva «al «.7.A.| the
sense is imperative,—kedevw, or Bovrouat,
—(or BAézerte, see 1 Cor. xvi. 10,)—being
omitted. So Soph. Cid. Col. 156, aan
va TEs ev apbeynTw wh mMpostéons
vamet. See Hartung, Partikellehre, ii.
148, 9. TavTy is emphatic here,
although ravrny is not in ver. 6: ‘ this
grace also;’—other graces having been
enumerated. Grotius remarks, ‘non
ignoravit Paulus artem rhetorum, movere
laudando.’ 8.] Lest his last words
should be misunderstood, he explains the
spirit in which they were said: not as a
command, but by way of inducement, by
mention of the earnestness of others, and to
try the genuineness of their love.
kat emt. | not, ‘i consequence of a com-
mand from God, as Dr. Burton,—but, by
way of command (1 Cor. vii. 6). Sia
THs is not = bia TH, ‘by occasion of, as
EK. V.:—but treats the érépwy omovdy as
the instrument by which, in the way of emu-
lation, the effect was to be produced.
The participial construction is as in 1 Cor.
iv. 14. 9.] Explanation of ‘trying
the genuineness of your love,’ by uphold-
ing His example in the matter, Whom we
ought to resemble. T. xdpi, the
(act of) grace:—the beneficence.
drt] consisting in this, that... mh.
4v | The participle refers to the time when
the historic act implied in the aorist
érréxevoev took place. He, being rich,
6—11.
ed e be es ’ ° Ul P HY , 10
iva vmeic TH Exelvov ° mrwyxeia ? rAouTHONTE ) seis
, / - ‘ gee ,
pny ev TouTw * Stdwpt. TOUTO yap UpLY . see ta ‘oiriwec 21
TIPOS KOPINGIOY®S B.
681
‘ye o ver. 2 reff.
Pp = Rev. iii.
18. (Luke xii.
1 Cor.
iv. 8.)
ov neve TO Tomoat adda ka ro OéXev mpoevnpsaade Oe
* amo ‘ wépvow’ i
/ c
oTwWe * xablarep 7]
i. 25 al. a ver. 6. v ch. ix. 2 only f.
x Rom. iv. 6 reff.
z constr., Acts xiv. 2 reff.
10. for o:tiwes, ort F Syr.
became poor:—not, as De W., merely by
His renunciation of human riches during
His life on earth, but by His exinanition of
His glory (Phil. ii. 6, 7), when, as Athanas.
(contra Apol. ii. 11, vol. ii. [Migne], P- 797),
Thy TTwWXEVTATAY puow ev EauT@ aveAd-
Beto. The stress is on 8v tpas, to raise
the motive of gratitude the more effec-
tually in them. TH Ek. TTWX. TAOVTH-
onrte| that by His poverty (as the efficient
cause) ye might become rich: viz. with
the same wealth in which He was rich,—
thekingdom and glory of Heaven, including
7a mwupla Gmrep wapeoxev july ayabd, as
Chrys.: who adds, ef uw) miotevers, bTt 7
mTwXela mAovTOV €oTl ToinTiKh, evydynady
gov Toy Seamdtny, kal odKéts auiBareis.
See the various possible meanings discussed
in Stanley’s note. 10.] ver. 9 was
parenthetic : he now resumes the od kar’
emitaryhy Aéyw» .... And I give my
opinion in this matter, the stress being on
yopny, as distinguished from émitayny.
ToUTO yap . -| For this (viz.
‘my giving my opinion, ‘and not command-
ing, —as Billroth and Meyer. De Wette
controverts this, and would make rodro
refer to the proof of their love in the aet
of charity, contending that rodro must
refer to the same as éy rovT#. But Meyer
rightly answers that this need not be, for
ev TovTw is altogether unemphatie and in-
significant, and the whole sense of the
clause is in the words yrdéunv d{Sep)
is expedient for you (better than “ de-
fitting,” or ‘ suitable,” as suggested by
Bloomf. after the Schol. apud(e, cuvvade:
This sense of cvupépex is not found in the
N. T., and is very doubtful elsewhere. See
Palm and Rost’s Lex.), seeing that you
(‘quippe qui;’ ofrwes is decisive for the
above meaning of todro. ‘My giving my
opinion, rather than commanding, is expe-
dient for you, who have already shewn
yourselves so willing. A command from
me would be a lowering of you, and depre-
ciation of your zeal) began before them
(the Macedonian churches, see below) not
only the act, but also the mind to act,
vuve Oe Kal TO ToMmoat
r1 Cor. vii. 25.
Y emireAg so s 1 Cor. vi, 12
= Seely
¥ roodupia 7 TOU firey, ovrwe Kal TO t= Acts x. 41
reff. Rom,
mpo mépuvat, Demosth. 467.14. w ver. 6 reff.
y Acts xvii. Ji. ver. 19. ch. ix. 2onlyt. Sir. xlv. 23 only. (-20s, Rom. i. 15.)
- for mpoev., evnptacde D'F Orig.
from a year ago: i. e. ‘not only were you
before them in the deed itself, but also in
the will to do it.’ The sense has been
missed by many of the Commentators,
from not observing the comparison implied
in mpoevyptacbe, and applying it only to
the Corinthians themselves beginning. In
that case, as the will comes before the
deed, to say, you began not only to do, but
also to will, would be unmeaning. Some,
in consequence, as Grot., al., and the
Peschito, have arbitrarily assumed an inver-
sion of terms, so that ‘non solum facere,
sed velle’ should = ‘non solum velle, sed
facere.” Others, as Chrys., Theodoret, al.,
Erasm., Calv., Beza, al., Billroth, Olsh.,
Rickert, al. m., have taken @éAcew = ‘ to
do with a good will, which is certainly not
its sense in ver. 11. The above explana-
tion is that of Cajetan, Estius, De Wette,
Winer, Meyer, and Wieseler, and puts the
climax in its right order, making it a back-
ward one of comparison. For as Wieseler
remarks (Chron. Apost. Zeit. p. 364, note),
there are three steps in the collection for
the saints,—the wishing it (@éA«.), the
setting about it (rowjjoas), and the com-
pletion of it (é€mteAésar). And the Co-
rinthians had begun not only the second,
but even the first of these, before the
Macedonians. Long employed as_ they
had then been in the matter, it was more
creditable to them to receive advice from
the Apostle, than command. ** éXewv is
not a historie act like wovqoar, but a per-
manent state : hence the pres. inf.’ Meyer.
In saying @wé wépvor ‘from last
year, it seems probable that Paul would
speak as a Jew, regarding the year as
beginning in Tisri. ll.] But (con-
trast of your former zeal with your present
need to be reminded of it) now complete
the act itself also (Kal ean hardly apply to
the whole 7d ou. émit., as De Wette, but
must be taken with woijoa; now shew
not only the completion of a ready will in
the act begun, but complete the act also,—
as Meyer), that, as (there was) (with
you) readiness of will, so (there may)
682
, ,
asJohoii, © weirs:
IIPOS KOPINOIOY®S B.
a? ar J
a she ee
VIII.
12 El yao n ” mpobupia ° m90-
b Heb. vi. 18, 0c 5 Os
wii'13 Ketral, “Kalo éav éxn * uT96¢ exTOG, ov “Kalo ovK EXE.
Jude 7 only. 13
Levtexait. 13 oy yao twa ardor * aveotc, vuiv [ee] hoes arr’ ‘ek
h bis. h »
“Ram, wit. © taOTNTOG, € ev Tw | vUD Kato ro vuov Sr hla * ete
1 Pet. iv. 13
; l
ly. Levit.
only, Levit. tO exetvwy ‘votépnua, 4 iva Kal TO Exelvwy | TEpiooevpa
Pom ay AS k ? NED hoe le t ” , G22
yévntat “ec TO UuwY “vaTéonua, OTwWE yEvNTat * LGOTNE.
e re ts xxiv. 23
reff. 15 Kkaloc yéypatrat
f- 1 Cor. vii.
e
™"O 70 wodv ovK
> , Ar ©
” exAcovacev, Kal O
5 reff. AEN ? 0? ,
gheebis. TO OALYoV ovK ° nAaTTOVHGED.
Col. iv. 1 °
only. Job xxxvi. 29. Zech. iv.7 only. h Rom. iii. 26 reff.
344)L. Mark viii. 8only. Eccles. ii. 15 (only ?).
11 Cor, xvi. 17 reff.
o here only. l.c. trans., Prov. xiv. 34.
12. for cay, av D'F LN f Chr-ms Damasce.
om BC'DFKR 17 latt goth Clem gr-lat-ff.
om vuy F,
with C?L rel:
13. om d¢ BCN! 17 D-lat eth.
m and constr., Exon. xvi. 18.
epp., here bis only. Matt. xii.
A iii. 14. Eph.i. 8. iii. 2.
k — Rom. iii. 29,
20 reff.
Winer, edn. 6, § 64,4. n Rom. y.
exe. B(Bch) L f. rec adds tus,
14, [the + of 1st ro is written over the line by &'(appy). |
15. om 2nd 6 F b g'h k m(perhaps) 0 80. 93. 106-14-15-22. 238.
also (be) completion according to your
means (éxk tov é¢xew, not ‘out of that
which ye have, as BK. V., but ‘after the
measure of your property,’ as in ref. The
verbs substantive must be supplied, as in
ver. 13). 12.| Explanation of é« tod
éxewv,—that on it, mpodvula being pre-
supposed, and not on absolute quantity,
acceptability depends. For if a willing
mind is present,—according to what it
may happen to possess, it is acceptable,
not according to what it possesseth not.
The construction of the sentence is simple
enough: mpo@uuta being the subject
throughout, quasi-personified : readiness in
God’s service is accepted, if its exertion
be commensurate with its means,—and is
not measured by an unreasonable require-
ment of what it has not. 13 —15. }
Further explanation that the present col-
lection is not intended to press the Co-
vinthians Ka0d odk €xovor. For (it is)
not (the collection is not made) that
there may be to others (the saints at
Jerusalem) relief, and to you distress
(of poverty) : 14.| but that by
the rule of equality (é€& as in é« rot
éxewv, above), at this present time (of
their need: the stress is on év T@ vov
Kaipe as suggesting that this relation may
hereafter be altered) your abundance may
subserve (yéeynrai, see next clause. yive-
c0at eis, ‘to be extended to,’ see ref. Gal.)
their deficiency ; that also (supposing cir-
cumstances changed) their abundance may
subserve your want. The reference is
still, as is evident from the next verse, to
the supply of temporal wants, in respect of
which there should be a mutual relieving
and sharing among Christians. But the pas-
sage has been curiously misunderstood to
mean, ‘that their (the Jewish Christians’)
abundance in spiritual things may be im-
parted to you to supply your deficiency?
Thus Chrys., al..—the ancients regard-
ing this imparting as the Gospel-benefit
received from them by the Gentiles (which
however was past, not future, and is urged
as a motive for gratitude, see Rom. xv. 27),
and the modern Romanists introducing the
monstrous perversion of the attribution of
the merits of the saints to others in-the
next world. So Estius: “ Locus hic apos-
toli contra nostre etatis hereticos osten-
dit, posse Christianos minus sanctos meritis
sanctorum adjuvari etiam in futuro seculo.
Denique notanda virtus eleemosyne, que
facit hominem participem meritorum ejus
in quem confertur.” 15.] that
there may be equality, as it is written
(i. e. according to the expression used in
the Scripture history: mapdye: madadv
ioroptav, Chrys.,—of the gathering of the
manna) He that (gathered) much, did
not exceed (the measure prescribed by
God): and he that (gathered) little, did
not fall short (of it). The fact of equality
being the only point brought into compa-
rison as between the Israelites of old and
Christians now, it is superfluous to enquire
minutely how this equality was wrought
among the Israelites. The quotation is
according to the reading of the LXX
generally supported by MSS.; except
that €darrov appears for dAfyov in A a
secunda manu. The Alex. (not F.) and
Aldine editions have 6 7d moAd and @ 7d
dAiyor, probably a correction. ‘The con-
text supplies svAAétas from the ovvéAciav
in the preceding verse,—and is presumed
12—19.
IIPOXS KOPINOIOY®S B.
683
, \ ~ ~ os
16 Xapic oe ty Dew rw I Sdovre tHY avTHy * oroVdny P 3 Rom. vi.
e \ € a q
UTEO ULWwY
,
xAnow ‘ edegaro, " srroveaoTEo0c oe * UTaoxwv “ avbat-
18 y
peToc * eEnADev TO0C vaac.
- ‘\ a , <= id A a’ ~
avTou Tov adeA por, ov o * €matvoe “ev TH evayyerty dua
Bede Sane oe fe» Pies
maswy tov “éxxAnowy' | 4
e 0 \ e ‘ - c » -\ ~ f , c ~
KELpoTovn €l¢ UTO TWY EKK HItwWY ovVEKONMOC NMOYV,
’ al , , Lt , Conf ue ~ i ‘
ev ™ KXaolTe TQaUTN TT) Stakovoupevy up HMw, TOOC
v Acts viii. 16 reff.
y ver. 22 only t.
33. ch. xi. 28.
xiv. 23 only fF.
Xvi. 3.
z Rom. ii. 29 reff.
h ch. iii. 3 reff.
16. Sovrt DF LN® syrr copt goth Chr, dedit vulg D-lat: danti G-lat.
new.
18. rov adcAdor bef pet avtov &! c.
19. aft Ist nuwy ins“eyevero D b 91.177 arm.
w ver. 2 only (reff.).
c piur., Rom. xvi. 16 reff.
f Acts xix. 29 only t.
iii. 35. ch. i.
22. ver. 1.
Ezra vii. 10
vat. see Luke
L Q\ oe Oe
ouveTempamev OF MET 1 ty 5.8,
8 as xii. 8
al.
t = John iy. 45.
’ = , / td ‘ \ ml
év TH Kapdla Titov, Ore chy pev * wapa- 1838"
> , Pers) \ aa
ov povoy o& “adda Kat ® 822):
only. Ezek.
xli. 25. (ws,
Luke vii. 4.
Phil. ii. 28.
Tit. iii. 13.)
: Xx = but w. eis, Acts xi. 25 reff.
a Rom.i. 9. ch. x. }4 al. b 1 Cor. vii.17. xiy.
: F d Rom. v. 8. viii. 23 al. e Acts
(Exdnuetv, ch. v. 6, 8, 9.) g =vv.6,7. 1 Cor.
i= Acts iii, 10. ch. x. 4. xi. 8. 1 Tim. i. 16 al.
C adds
rec (for ev) ovy, with DFKLX
rel syrr goth Chr Thdrt Aug: txt BCd m 17 vulg copt «th Damase Ambrst Aug Pelag.
om Ist ty C.
vp vuwy in this ver to ud’ vuwy in next.
by the Apostle to be familiar to his read-
ers. 16—24.] Of Titus and two other
brethren whom Paul had commissioned to
complete the collection. 16.] The
sense is taken up from ver. 6. d:ddvTt
ev, see reff. THV adT. o7., viz. ‘as in my-
self’ This is evident from brép tuar.
17.| Proof of this; that Titus received
indeed (uév) Paul’s exhortation to go to
them (said, to shew his subordination, —
or perhaps to authenticate his authoriza-
tion by the Apostle), but in reality (5€) was
.too ready to go, to need any exhortation ;
—and therefore went forth (the past tense
of the epistolary style,—as ‘dabam,’ &e.,
indicating things which will have passed
before the letter is received) of his own
accord to them. 18—21.| Commenda-
tion of a brother sent with Titus. 18. |
6 adeAdds cannot surely be, as some Com-
mentators (Heumann, Riickert) have un-
derstood, ‘ the brother of Titus : the deli-
cate nature of the mission would require
that there should be at least no family con-
nexion between those sent to fulfil it. This
and the other are called in ver. 23, a5eA-
ol 7uev, and were unquestionably Chris-
tian brethren in the usual sense. Who
this was, we know not. Chrys., Theo-
doret, @cum., Luther, Calvin, suppose
Barnabas to be meant: but there is no
historical ground for this, andwe can hardly
suppose him put under Titus. Baronius
and Estius suppose, Si/as; to whom this
last objection would also apply: besides
that he was well known to the Corinthians,
and therefore would not need this recom-
mendation. Orig., Jerome, Chrys. (1),
up vawy C b? 155. 73. 177. 238.
homeeotel in 17 from
rec ins avtov bef tov kupiov, with D?-3K
Ambrose, Pelagius, Primasius, Anselm, Ca-
jetan, Grot., Olsh., al., suppose Luke :—
and of these all before Grot. (who pointed
out the mistake; which however I see
reproduced in Mr. Birks’s Hore Aposto-
lice, p. 242 f.) suppose ob 6 érawos ev TG
evayyerty to refer to his gospel,—did Thy
istoplay hvmep &ypawe, Chrys. ;—but this is
altogether without proof, as is the assump-
tion that it was Mark (Lightfoot, Storr).
It may have been Trophimus, who (Acts
xx. 4) accompanied Paul into Asia, and (xxi.
29) to Jerusalem: so De Wette, Wieseler.
If the expression whose praise in (the
matter of) the Gospel is throughout all
the Churches, is to be compared with any
similar eulogium, that of Gaius in Rom.
xvi. 23 seems to correspond most nearly :
[dios 6 tévus mov Kal SAns THS exKAn-
otas: but he was resident at Corinth, see
1 Cor. i. 14. A Gaius, a Macedonian, is
mentioned Acts xix. 29, as one of the
ovvexdnuot of Paul, as here, together with
Aristarchus, which latter we know accom-
panied him to Jerusalem (but see below
on ch. ix. 4). It must then rest in un-
certainty. 19.] parenthetical (see on
ver. 20) adding to his general commendation
a particular qualification for this office.
ov pov. S¢é,—and net only so (i. e. praised
in all the churches), but who was also ap-
pointed (‘ suffragiis designatus,’ see ref. and
note; and Stanley here) by the churches
(of Macedonia ? see ver. 1) as our fellow-
traveller (to Jerusalem, from what follows)
in (the matter of) this charity which is
being ministered by us,—in order to sub-
serve the glory of the Lord and our readi-
684 ITPOX KOPINOIOYS B. VIII. 20—24.
Seu aie THY TOU Kupiov dofav Kal * roobuptay nov" 20! red-
ee Aopevor Touro, un Teg mac * Rephonrat "ey TH ° adpornre
n=itimv. ravty TH * Stakovovpevy Up nuwy. 7!” zoovoovmer ya
ohereontyt. ?KaAa ov povov * evwmtov Kuplov, aAAa Kal ° évwmov
(-pos, Jer.v. 9 , D) ! \ Shan N ’ .
5) avOpwrwv. = Vouvewéubauev S& avroie Toy adeA pov
PREMISE Yanda howe? COOKE ev moddoicg wodXAaxte *
(ref). PROV. MuwY, OV "EOoKILacamEY “Ev ToAAOLG moAAaKic ‘o7ou-
18 only. ix ” \ \ Salah , u ,
pe Gor daitov ovta, vuvi & mov ‘arovdaorepov “ reroWhoe
13 reff. (1 Cor, ~ ~ ’ ec ~ 93. or xe A , ‘
Xvi. 3.) v . y
ssee ch. , TorAAY TH “aE Upac eure “umep Tirov, ¥ kowwwvoc
Vil. o rel.
t ver. 17 reff.
u ch. i. 15 reff.
v=ch. ij. 9,
2S Ni Cpe ae Ce A fh MOEN URC see erg 3) oe
Emocg Kal El¢ Umag — cuVEPyoC ELTE AOEAGOL Hitwy, a7ro-
atoAot EkkAnowwy, ” doga Xolcrov. 24a ovuv © Evoacty
Up Abst jy
Gal. v. 10 al. w sol Cor, xiii. 8. xv. 11. x ch. i. 8 reff. y 1 Cor. x. 18, 20 reff.
Zz Rom. xvi. 3 reff. a = Jobn xiii. 16. Phil. ii. 25. (3 Kings xiv. 6 F, &c. [vat. def.]) only. b= 1 Thess.
ii. 20. e Rom. iii. 25, 26. Phil. i. 28 only t.
LX rel syrr Chr Thdrt Damase: avrny a 6. 43. 672. 74: om BCD'FL d latt copt goth
zeth arm. rec (at end) vuwy, with Fd: txt BCDGKLX® rel latt syrr copt goth
gr-lat-ff. at end ins teAovow D!.
20. vmocreAAouevae F: cuateAd. 98: devitantes latt.
for woynontat, wwunta C2 (C! uncert).
21. rec mpovoovmevor, with CKL rel copt goth Clem Chr-ms Thdrt Damase Thl (c:
txt BDFX f latt syrr Chr lat-ff. rec om yap, with KL rel Thdrt Damase Th] He:
ins BCDFN m 17 latt syrr copt goth Clem Chr lat-ff. (Meyer thinks mpovoovpevo: to
have been a mere mistake originally, arising from oreddouevor above: and thus the
yep which was at first retained from oversight, as in C, was at last erased. Probably
was Fbgh mo 73.
mpovoovmevot was introduced from Rom xii. 17, where the same words occur.)
2nd evwmiov &?.
22. om moAAn F 672. 69: pref Se B.
23. cuvepyos bef ets vuas D copt goth Ambrst.
ness (this clause refers not to d:akov. bd?
je. as usually interpreted, but to the fact
related, the union of this brother with Paul
in the matter of the alms, which was done
to avoid suspicions detrimental to Christ’s
glory, and to the zeal of the Apostle).
20.| Taking heed of this (‘de-
vitantes, Vulg.—tmorretoaytes kk. Se-
doixdtes, Theophyl.:—the participle be-
longs to ovveréuwauey, ver. 19 being
parenthetical) that no one blame us
(ref.) in the matter of this abundance (of
contributions) which is being ministered
by us. On adpérns, Meyer observes,
“from a&5pés, ‘ compact,’ ‘solid ;}—is used
in Homer (il. x. 363, 7. 857, w. 6) of a
firm and succulent habit of body. Later,
we have it in all the various references of
the adjective, e. g. of abundance—of plants
and fruits (Theophr.), of discourse (Diog.
Laért. x. 83), of tone (Athen. x, p. 415 a),
&e. What kind of abundance is meant,
the context therefore alone determines.”
Wetst. says, “adpérns apud Zosimum
quater pro ingenti largitione.” 21.]
“And such caution is in accordance with our
general practice.” See reff. Rom. and
Proy. 22.) Still less can we determine
who this second brother is. Every pos-
sible person has been guessed. Several
om
for xp., kupiov CF.
would answer to the description, ‘whom
we have many times in many matters
proved to be earnest. By our uncer-
tainty in these two cases, we may see how
much is required, to fill up the apostolic
history at all satisfactorily. TeTrOL-
O@yoe....| through the great confidence
which he has towards you: belongs to
omovdadrepov, and to the brother, not to
ovvernéuayev and to Paul. The brother
had, by what he had heard from Titus,
conceived a high opinion of the probable
success of their mission. 23.] General
recommendation of the three. elTe
tm. Titov] Whether concerning Titus
(we may supply Aéyw or ypdpw, or as in
E. V., ‘any enquire:’ or we need not
supply any thing), he is my partner and
(especially) my fellow-worker towards
you: whether our brethren (be in ques-
tion :—viz. the two mentioned—but gene-
ralized by the absence of the article—
‘whether brethren of ours’), they are the
Apostles (in the more general sense of
Acts xiv. 14; 1 Thess ii. 6; Phil. ii. 25)
of the churches (i. e. ‘are of the churches,
what we are of the Lord’—persons sent
out with authority), the glory of Christ
(i.e. men whose work tends to Christ’s
glory). 24.) Shew then to them
IX. 1—3. IIPOX KOPINOIOYS B. 685
eng UD c ~ Wc od , ©) EN Come tc d Rom. iii. 27
TNC ayaTNC VUwWY, Kal NMUwWY ~ KaVYNCEWC VTEM VUWY, ELC “Li
> ‘ e? S , f >. f , - , x ~ e = Rom. ii. 15.
auger e cen AG TOOCWTOV TwY EKKANOLWY. fe Beal
s =~ i NTIS et
ib. & 1 Teot 5 uev yap 76 " Graxoviac THe é£lC TOUC ‘ayl- zee netrs
f = here(ch. xi.
20) only. see
ove ' mepisooy pot ort TO _yoeapev vei" 2 vida yao THY
Num. xx. 6.
k ips ] = 4
Too0upiay bnov ‘Hv ™ UTép YuwY ' Kavyopat™ Maxedo- es
bud "A h n 7 Ci a J , + \ h ch. viii. 4.
Otv, OTL Kala TaApeoKevaoTat avo TEOUVOL Kat 0 i = Matt. v. 47.
rs Cela ~ > Proy. xiv. 23.
p q r / s Sos , 3 8: , f
[ it] uno 4 Cndog * noebtaev * rouge * wAstovac. ° ErEuya Oe 2 Mace. xii
(not A). k ch. viii. 11, 12 reff. lconstr., ch. x1.30. Prov. xxvii. 1.
m constr., ch. vii. 14. n here bis. 1 Cor, xiy.8. Acts x.10 only. Jer. xii. 5. och. viii.
10 only (ref.). q Rom. x. 2 reff.
r Col. iii. 2l only. Prov. xix. 7.
p = ch. viii. 7. see Luke xi. 13. ch. v. 2.
s 1 Cor. ix. 19 reff.
24. [v of rnv is written above the line by N! or corr!. | uTep quwv D'G.
rec (for evderkvupevor) evderzac0e, with CD?-3KLN rel vulg(and F-lat) syrr copt gr-lat-
ff: txt BD'F 17 goth. rec ins kat bef ets mposwiroy (with none of our mss) : om
BCDFKLN rel latt syrr copt goth gr-lat-ff.
Crap. IX.1. om yap C 2. 41. 115 copt. enor B. om to C17. 73: tov F
109 Thdrt-ms Damase.
2. mapacokevacta(but corrd) XN}. at B%(sic: see table). for 6, To BX.
om «€ BCX a 17 vulg(and F-lat) Syr copt arm Ambrst Pelag:
fuld syr goth Chr Thdrt Damase Aug.
3. exeuvapev D-gr copt Aug.
the proof of your love (‘fo ws,’ or perhaps,
“to your poor brethren’ (Meyer) :—but
the word has not been so used throughout
this passage, see verse 7: xdpis has been
the word), and of our boasting concern-
ing you, in the sight of the churches.
I may remark, (1) that the participial
construction is elliptic, as in Rom. xii. 16
al. (2) That mpéswrov tev éxKAno.a@y
does not actually import ‘the representa-
tives of the churches,’ as Meyer (which
would be 7d mpéswrov or Ta mpdswra,
without eis), but as above, it being implied
that they, being the améctoAn T. erka.,
are such representatives. And this is all
that Theodoret seems to mean, whom
Meyer quotes in support of his view :—
7d mpdswrov yap Tav éKKAnci@y eén-
éxovol ovTo THY TemWaTav avToUs.
IX. 1—5.] He recurs to the collection
itself, and prays them that they would
make good before the brethren his boast-
ing of them, and prepare it before his own
coming. 1.| The pév yap connects
with the last verse, thus, ‘I beseech you
to receive the brethren whom I send,
courteously ; for concerning the duty of
ministration to the saints, it is surely
superfluous for me to write to you who are
so prompt already.’ No new subject be-
gins, as some have supposed; nor is there
any break in the sense at all. Some ob-
scurity has been introduced unnecessarily,
by taking ris dak. T. eis T. ay. for merely
this collection which is now making:
whereas the Apostle chooses such general
terms as a mild reproof to the Corinthians,
ins DFKIL rel
who, well aware as they were of the duty
of ministering to the saints, were yet some-
what remiss in this particular example of
the duty. There is an emphasis on ypd-
gew: ‘nam testes habebitis presentes,’
Bengel. Theophyl. well remarks : tooatra
kal mpérepov cimwy Kal méAw pmédAdAwy
eimeiv, Ouws mepitTOY aVT@ A€yet TO Tepl
ToUTwY ypadewv. aopas S€ TovUTO TotLEl,
ste waAAov avtovs emiomdcacba.. aic-
xuvOhoovra: yap ef ye TovavTny brdéAn Wy
mep avta@y €xovtos Tov TlavAov, O71 ov
déovTat ouuBovats mpds Td eAceiv, eita
pavaow éeAdtTTous THS vmoAnpews.
2.| For (ground of wepiocdy éort) I am
aware of your readiness of which (reff.)
I am in the habit of boasting concerning
you to Macedonians (Bengel remarks on
the pres., ‘adhue erat Paulus in Mace-
donia’) that Achaia (not tue’s—he relates
his own words to the Macedonians) has
been ready (viz. to send off the money:
kal ovdey Aclre: ei ph Td eADEtY Tos
deEouevous Ta xphuara, Theophyl. The
Apostle, judging by their readiness, had
made this boast concerning them, sup-
posing it was really so. That this is the
sense is shewn by amapackevacrtous below,
ver. 4) from last year (reff.):—and the
zeal which proceeds from you (‘ which has
its source in you and whose influence goes
forth from you: so 6 é« TleAomovyjcov
méAcmos, of exeiOev, and the like) stirred
up the greater number of them (but not
only the example of your zeal: see ch.
viii. 1). 3.] But (contrast, not to
ev in ver. 1, but to kavx@pat above ;
686
t Rom. iv. 2
rett.
u Rom.iv.14 y ete Gh iy
reff, Kkevwly Ev TW
veh. iii. 10 reff. t t
, w F x
W constr» Ae EOKEVAGMEVOL NTE, 4
IIPOS KOPINOIOYS B.
. ,
pepe tout, iva KaBwe EAeyor *“
IX.
Ubon , ay N uug , c * Se an € ~
TOUG aceA povc, wa wn TO KavyYHLAa Nuwy TO UTED UUWwY
7ao-
un * wwe, car EAQwow adv euot Make-
x 1 Cor. ix. 27 7 \ cu (paler y2 , z
reff. dove Kal eae ae Ces ne, KaTaloy vy~
y ron at oh ae 7
z ch. vii. 14
seer roe he. fopev Wii (iva a Aeyonev vue ) év ™ UTOOTaGEL
here only.
a= chix 17. TaUTy.
Tfeb. (i.3.) iii.
14, xi. 1
only. Ps.
XXXVI, 7,
b Acts xiii. 45
refit.
e Phil. ii. 26.
2 Mace. ix. 21.
‘
owou mY
e 1 Cor. i. 10 reff.
h Rom. i. 2 only t.
k = here only. (Rom. i. 29 al.)
om To uTep vuwy F 45 Chr.
4. om mws D!.
D)(and lat) L Syr.
Th ae ovv
pouada iva " rovtAOwaw ELC vuac, Kal
, Bi eR oad
ETON elvat J ovrac?! we ‘ evAoylav Kal it we K rcoveciav.
f Acts xx. 5,13. Gen. xxxiii. 14.
i = Rom. xv. 29. xvi. 18. Ezek. xxxiv. 26.
eAeyev(appy :
om eavy BD? Syr:
for Acywuev, heyw C'DF Thl-comm Ambrst Aug.
av
“aynsauny © rapaxahéoat Touc
© ookaraorti-
i =? ! Ces ,
evdoyiay ea TAUTNY
g here only +.
j 1 Cor. iii. 15 reff.
but corrd) &?.
ins kat bef KkatasxuyvOwpev
rec
at end adds rns kavxnoews (see ch xi. 17), with D3KLN? rel syrr goth gr-ff: om BC
D'FR! 17 latt copt Ambrst Aug’ Pelag.
5. mposeAOworw F 48 Thdrt-ms.
Damase Thl ec.
above), with KL rel syrr goth Thdrt Damase (c:
Ambrst Aug Pelag.
Chr.
bl: txt BCDFKLRX rel gr-lat-ff.
implying fear lest he should have been
making a vain boast concerning them)
I sent (epistolary past, as in ch. viii.
18, 22) the brethren, in order that our
matter of boasting concerning you («av-
xnua, our whole ‘materies gloriandi,’ not
= kabxnols) may not, in this particular,
be proved empty (ev 7d wéper ToUTw does
not belong to katynua, but to Kevwbi—
‘that our boast of you, so ample and
various—ch. vii. 4, may not break down
in this one department.’ Lstius, in marg.,
well calls it ‘acris cum tacita laude exhor-
tatio apostolica’); that, as I said (when ?
in ver. 2? or, in his boasting to the Mace-
donians ? or, in 1 Cor. xvi. 1? Most
naturally, i ver. 2. If he had meant, fo
the Macedonians, it would probably have
been Aéyw, as kavx@pat above: if in 1 Cor.
xvi., if would have been more clearly ex-
pressed. If so, €Aeyor refers merely to
the word mapeck.), ye may be prepared
(see above on ver. 2), 4.] lest per-
chance if Macedonians should come with
me (to you:—to bring me on my way, or
to bear the Macedonian collection. We
may infer from this expression, that neither
of the two brethren above mentioned, ch.
vill. 18, 22, was a Macedonian), and should
find you unprepared (with your collection,
see ver. 2) we (who have boasted), not
to say you (who were boasted of), should
be put to shame, in the matter of this
confidence (respecting you. tmrdécracts,
for ets, rpos BDF m:
rec mpokatnyyeAuevnv (occasioned probably by mpoxarapr.
om vuewy D}(and lat) vulg Pelag.
om kat FX! 52 latt Syr Chr-comm, lat-ff.
txt CK LN rel Thdrt
txt BCDFX d 17 copt goth Thl
om tavtnv F arm
rec (for 2nd ws) ws7ep, with
as elsewhere in N. T. and LXX, see
reff., subjective: the attempt to give it
here the meaning of ‘foundation,’ ‘matter
boasted of, as Chrys., Theophyl., Erasm.,
Grot., al., Ritick., Olsh., is unnecessary,
and has probably been induced by the
gloss tis kavx. inserted from ch. xi.
17: but see there also). 5.] I
therefore (because of ver. 4) thought it
necessary to exhort the brethren (Titus
and the two others) that they would
go before (my coming) to you, and pre-
viously prepare your long announced
beneficence (i. e. long announced by me to
the Macedonians, ver. 2. evAoyia,
blessing; not used only of a blessing in
words, but of one expressed by a present, as
Gen. xxxiii. 11; Judg.i. 15. (See Stanley.)
But beware of the blunder of connecting
it with ed and Aoyla, ‘a good collection.’
This sense of blessing, combined with the
primitive sense, affords the Apostle an op-
portunity for bringing out the true spirit
in which Christian eifts should be given),
that this same may be ready (the con-
struction is unusual: tat’rny refers back
to evA. and the inf. must have éstre sup-
plied. De W. compares Heb. v. 5. Per-
haps the nearest is Col. iv. 6) in such sort
as beneficence, and not as covetousness
(i. e. as the fruit of blessing, poured out
froma beneficent mind, not of a sparing
covetous spirit which gives no more than it
need. There is no need to alter the pri-
4—8.
IIPOX KOPINOIOY®= B.
687
] ~ , e : ;
Sl rouro 8, 0 “omelowy " Padopévwc ” pedonévere kat tae eens
m @ ' CS an U oO 235 9 ’ DA afurege. ix U1.
eptost, Kat 0 “oweipwv “ew tvdoyiaic er eu oytate Gal. vi. 7.
\ , roy. xxii. 8,
Ka ™ Oeptoet. 7¢ ibe Sam Kaboc P Tooyonrat 7 Kapdig, nybeestie i:
0 a ha ’
ea Be hu Ls ae iX 36 Job xvi. 14.)
BY &K er 7 EG avayang® “4 ape “yap OTNY = Rom.y. 14.
5) ~ e¢ , p here only.
ayata o Oeoc. ® "sea of 0 Oro Tacav "xapw Md TEDL © Frov. xx 95
a = Wa a
cevoat * cic vuac, wa » ev’ ravtt wavToTE * wacay * ayTao- Iz 16% vii
r Heb. vii. 12 only.
u Rom. xiv. 4. ch. xiii. 3 only t.
15. Eph.i,8. 1 Thess. iii. 12 onlyt.
iv. 8 reff. z = Acts xx. 19 reff.
Deut. xxxii. 10.)
6. for Ist ew evAoyiais, ev evdoyia in benedictione D'¥F copt goth lat-ff.
em evA., e€ evdoyias D}(and lat) fuld goth Cypr:
om rat D! eth.
shere only. Prov. xxii. 8. (-é7ns. Rom. xii. 8.)
t here only, J. c. only.
v Acts xi. 23 reff. w trans., ch. iv.
x =ch. ii. 9, 12. viii. 23. Gal. v. 10 al. ych.
al Tim, vi.6 only +t. (-Kns, Phil. iv.11. -Kety,
for 2nd
ex evdoyia F(not F-lat) copt Aug.
7. rec mpoaipertar, with DK Lrelsyrr Chr Thdrt Damase: txt BCFN 17 Chr-ms(Wtst)
(mpoeiperat I}, mpoeipnt. F2G): proposuit (or simly) vss lat-ff.
8. rec duvatos (see notes), with C?D?3KL rel Thdrt Damase: txt BC'D'FR.
for de, yap D! 109. 178 demid.
mitive meaning, or to make the word sig-
nify ‘tenacity,’ as Calv., De Wette, al.:
he who defrauds the poor by stinting them
mAcovektei, in the literal sense. Still less
must we with Chrys., al., refer mAcoveé.
to the Apostle,—p) voutonre, onalv, ott
Qs mwAcoverTovvTes avThy AapwBavouwey,—
which is inconsistent with the interpreta-
tion peidouevws below, and with eddAcylar,
the corresponding word, which applies to
the spirit of the givers). 6, 7.] He
enforces the last words by an assurance
grounded in Scripture and partly cited
JSrom it, that as we sow, so shall we reap.
TovTo| Some supply onl, as in
ref.: others, as Meyer, would take it as
an accus. absol., ‘as regards this, viz.
what has gone before. But I would rather
take it as an imperfect construction, in
which rodro is used merely to point at the
sentiment which is about to follow :—But
this—(is true), or But (notice) this .. .
ém evdoylats| with blessings: ez
denoting theaccompanying state or circum-
stances, as in ref.: not, ‘with a view to
blessings, which will not suit the second
ew evA.: noras Theophyl., He., and EH. V
meta SdatArclas, bountifully : which gives
indeed the sense, but misses the meaning
of the expression: see above. It refers to
the spirit of the giver, who must be iAapds
dé7ns, not giving murmuringly, but with
blessings, with abeneficent charitable spirit :
such an one shall reap also with blessings,
abundant and unspeakable. The only
change of meaning in the second use of the
expression is that the evAoyia: are poured
on him, whereas in the first they proceeded
Jrom him: in both cases they are the ele-
ment in which he works. So, we bestow
the seed, but svecezve the harvest. The
spirit with which we sow, is of ourselves :
om mavrote EF (not F-lat) 7.
that with which we veap, depends on the
harvest. So that the change of meaning
is not arbitrary, but dependent on the
nature of things. 7.| Not, as Meyer
and De W., a limitation of the foregoing,
or else it would be expressed by some con-
necting particle, —but a continuation of the
thought : — pedouevars and em evAoyia:s
referred to the sprzt of the giver ; so does
this verse, —éx Avmns 7) €& av. correspond-
ing to eidouevws,—irapds, to em evdo-
vias. kaos mpoypyrar| as he hath
determined in his heart; supply, ‘so let
him give:’ i. e. let the mpoatpeois, the full
consent of the free will, go with the gift 5 c
let it not bea reluctant offering, given é«
Av’rns, out of an annoyed and troubled
mind at having the gift extorted, nor e&
avayrns, out of necessity,—because com-
pelled. Such givers,—that is implied,—
God does not love. Sdérys is not a clas-
sical word. 6dé7np, dwrhp, and (Hes. Op.
353) Sé7ys, are used (Meyer). 8—
ll.| He encourages them to a cheerful
contribution by the assurance that God
both can (vv. 8, 9), and will (vy. 10, 11)
Surnish them with the means of perform-
ing such deeds of beneficence. 8.]
Suvaret has the emphasis. I adopt the
reading because after all it is difficult to
imagine how so easy a construction as
duvatds 6 Geds, should have been altered
to duvare?, as Meyer supposes, or why
the transcriber need have written duvards
éotw if the latter were a correction for
durare?, seeing that the verb substantive
is just as frequently omitted in such clauses
as inserted. macav xapiy, ‘etiam in
bonis externis,’ Bengel,-— to which here the
reference is: not excluding however the
wider meaning of ‘all grace.’ Trepio-
getoat, to make to abound,—reff.
688 IIPOS KOPINOIOY®= B. TX
“ee ” b La ae |) a Ese oul coe Oov
bRom-ii7 KElLaY -€YOUTEE TEOLOGEUNTE ic Tay Eoyov ayavoy,
refi
a ‘ , d? , Id te ,
on “hts 9 kaboc ytyeamrat Eoxoomtoev, EOWKEV TOLC TEVHOLW,
d Matt. xii 30], « f ‘ ed 1OLS 8: g2
L. John x, 12. n fic TOV alwva. OCOE.~ ETt=
xvi. 32 only.
2 Kings xxii.
15. Psa, cxi.
v
Sucarocbyn avrov * pévet
~ obs 0 \ » a) by &
Xopnywv oméppa Tw ‘oTElLpovTL Kal aoToY elg Powow
\ - \ ‘ c ~ >
Xoonynoe Kal ™ wAnQuvet tov " oTop0v vpwy Kat ° avsnoee
e here only. Le.
Exod. xxiii.
2 , ~ , Ce , \r
chilis, 45 Ta? yerqnwata rnc OtKatoourng UuwY. 114 gy 9 gravrt ‘ rAov-
bis. xii. 34
. , ? s = tc i , ut pe , a?
Heb. vii, 24. TICOMEVOL fic waoav amdAotnta, ric Kateoyalerat OL
1 Pet. 1. 25, 12¢
c - , on
from isa. x18. Ore n *Otakovia THe * AE
Aeke ie) ’ - ~
lJobnii.l7) VHWV évyaoloTiayv TW Oew,
only. ge Gal. iii. 5. Col. ii.19. 2Pet.i.5,llonlyt. Sir. xxv. 22 only. (-yéa, Eph. iv.16. Phil. i. 19.)
iver.6. Isa. ly. lu. k Rom. xiv. 17 reff. Isa.l.c. .. 11 Pet. iv. llonly. 3 Kingsiv.7. Sir.
xxxix, 33. m Acts vi. 7 rett. nepp., hereonly. Markiv. 26,27. Luke viii. 5, ll only. Deut.
xi. 10. o trans., 1 Cor. iii. 6, 7 reff.
Mk.L. Luke xii. 18 only. Deut, xiv. 22. Hosea x. 12.
i. 5only. Gen. xiv. 23 al. participial constr., Acts xxiv. 10 reff. J s = Acts xx.19 reff. _ t Rom.
xii. 8 reff, u = Acts x. 41 reff. v = Rom. iv. 15 reff. w = Acts xxiv. 3 retf.
x Acts vi. 1 reff. y Luke i. 23. Phil. ii. 17, 30. Heb. viii. 6. ix. 2L only. Num. viii. 22.
p(yevv.) Matt. iii. 7 | L. xii. 34. xxiii. 33. xxvi. 29 |
q ch. iv. 8 refi. reh.vi. 10. 1 Cor.
9. at end ins tov awvos FK 238 vulg(not am demid al).
10. for omepua, omopov (corrn from onopoy below) BD'F. ree xopnyncat
mAnduvat avinca: (prob, as Meyer, corrns, in the idea that a wish was intended, and
so the futures have been changed to optatives: for such they are, not infinitives: ef
1 Thess iii. 11,12; 2 Thess ii.17; iii. 5,—and var readd, Rom xvi. 20), with D3 KLN#
rel syr goth Chr Thdrt Damase: xopnynoa and wAnduvva F: txt BCDN' m 17 Cyr,
Cypr Ambrst Aug.
11. ins wa bef ev mayte F Chr lat-ff.
marg Damase.
iva x«.7.A.] in order that, having at all
times in every thing all sufficiency (of
worldly substance; adrdpx. is objective ;
not contentedness, subj.) ye may abound
towards (‘have an overplus for ;’ which is
not inconsistent with adrdpkea, seeing
that adr. does not exclude the having
more, but only the having less than is
sufficient : the idea of a man’s having at
all times and in all things a sufficiency,
would presuppose that he had somewhat
to spare) every good work: 9.)
as it is written (i.e. fulfilling the cha-
racter described in Scripture),—He scat-
tered abroad (metaph. from seed: peta
daiAclas wie, Chrys.), he gave to the
poor: his righteousness remaineth for
ever. In what sense is S:xatoovvn used ?
Clearly in the only one warranted by the
context—that of ‘goodness proved by be-
neficence, —‘a righteous deed, which shall
not be forgotten,—as a sign of righteous-
ness in character and conduct.’ To build
any inference from the text inconsistent
with the great truths respecting d:caoodvn
ever insisted on by Paul (as Chrys. «at yap
dicatovs moet [H pidavOpwrial, TA apap-
Thuata Kabdmwep mip dvadtoxovoa, Bray
peta Sairclas exxénra) is a manifest
perversion. 10.] Assurance that God
will do this. But (introduces the new as-
surance) He that ministers seed to the
sower and bread for eating (in the physi-
‘al world:—from ref. Isa., LXX. The
Vulg., E. V., Luther, Calv., Grot., al.,
rec yervnuata, with ek: txt BCDFKLN rel Chr-mss Thl-mss.
uuoy C? 667. 67. 71. 74. 91. 119. 120 syr-
for Tw @., dcov B: om Tw D'.
commit the mistake of joining k. &prov eis
Bpdow with xopnyjom, or -et. Bpdcts,
the act of eating: not = Bpdua), shall
supply and multiply your seed (i. e.
the money for you to bestow,—answer-
ing to omépya TG oretpovt:), and will
increase the fruits of your righteous-
ness (from ref. Hos.—the everlasting re-
ward for your bestowals in Christ’s name,
as Matt. x. 42;—answering to a&proy eis
Bpeow, which is the result of the sower’s
labours). 11.] Method in which you
will be thus blessed by God. In every
thing being enriched (the construction is
an anacoluthon, as in ref. and in ch. i. 7
al.: nothing need be supplied) unto all
liberality (i. e. in order that you may
shew all liberality. On aa. see note,
Rom. xii. 8), which (of a sort which)
brings about by our means (as the dis-
tributors of it) thanksgiving (from those
who will receive it) to God. 12. |
Explanation of the last clause. Because
the ministration (not on owr part who
distribute, though it might at first sight
seem so: the next verse decides d:arovia to
mean, ‘your administering by contribu-
tion,’ as in ver. 1) of this public service
(Aeur. here seems to approach more nearly
to its proper sense, serving the public by
furnishing the means of outfit for some
necessary purpose) not only serves the end
of supplying by its help the wants of
the saints, but of abounding (repioo.
may be transitive as in ver. 8, not only
9 —15.
' , > id
Tovoylag TavTNg ov povoy
b« , -
voTeonuaTa Tw
mToAAwy ~ EVXAOLOTLOY TW Bem
* Staxoviac Taurne : Rocatovned rov Osov ‘ emt ™
IIPOX KOPINOIOY®= B.
“ayiwv, adda Kat
3 Sa rie
689
es Ne ay =
EOTIV moocavarAnooved Ta Zconstr., see
ae cts ik 5
d
eeceeneNee dua ace Xi.9
onlyt. Wisd.
4 onl
* doxminc TC bb Gon avi iz
Coes
reff.
Urorayy c Acts ix.13
~ h¢ , Ce
TNC omoAoytag UMwY ‘sig TO evay yéAtov TOU Xpiarov dAchixy8
PEER NG , ~ kl ’ R. ff,
Kat JamAornre tne Kowvwviac " ete avrovc Kat «Lc eR iit
, 14 ‘ > ~ Acts iy. 21.
aloe Kat QUTWYV Senoet umtp Uw * ememoobvtwy De oe,
cons
vuac ota TY Woh Na ede Xaow Tou Beov Ep Uv. g Gal ii 6.
1 Tim. ii. 11,
ISP apte Tw Ow 3 eT ™ ‘avexoynry autou * Owped. iii. 4 only t.
(-taocew,
Rom. x. 3.) h (=) 1 Tim, vi. 12,13. Heb. iii. 1. iv, 14. x. 23 only. P.H.t. (Deut. xii.17.) gen.
of reference, Rom. vii. a uel i= Acts xx, 21. jver. 11. k Rom. xv.
26 reff. 1 Phil. i. m 1 Cor, xvi. | reff. n Rom. i. 11 reff. James iv. 5. constr.,
Phil. i. 8. ii. 26, 1 Pet. ii. = Ps, exviii. 174. och. iii. 10 reff. Rom. vi.
17. vii. 25. 1 Cor. xv. 57. ch. ii. 14. vii. 16. q so ver, 13 reff. r here only t.
sJohn iy. 1U. Acts ii. 38 al.t Wisd. vii. 14. xvi. 25. 2 Macc. iv.30 only. (Dan. ii. 6. v.17 Theod.)
12. for dew, xpiotw B46:
14. for vuwy, nuwy (but with v written above) N}.
15. ree aft yapis ins de, with C2D23KLN?® rel vss gr-ff Ambrst-ms Sedul:
in Domino vulg. 13.
ins rat bef dia B.
aft vuwas ins cow &8.
om
BC!D'ER! a latt goth Ambrst-ed Aug Pelag Bede.
filling up, but ‘ causing to overflow, what
were totephuata. But the usual intran-
sitive sense is preferable. The emphasis
is ON mposavamA. and mepicoevovoa) by
means of many thanksgivings to God
(7@ O0e@ with edxap., as in ver. 11, not
with mepiooevovoca, which would not, as
Meyer observes, give the sense of abound-
ing towards God,—this would be «is r.
6cdy, see Rom. v. 15, or eis 7. Sdéfay T.
@eov, as in ch. iv. 15,—but the objection-
able one of mepiooever ol tt, as John vi.
13; Luke ix. 17). 13.] they (the
recipients) glorifying God (the participle
as in ver. 11, an anacoluthon) by means
of (the proof, &c., is the occasion, by means
of which) the proof (i. e. the tried reality
—the substantial help yielded by) of this
(your) ministration, for the subjection of
your confession as regards the Gospel of
Christ (i. e. that your éuodoyla, [= ‘you
who confess Christ,’ ] ‘is really and truly
subject in holy obedience, as regards the
gospel of Christ.? But eis must not be
joined with taoray7, as ‘ obedience to,’ or
(E. V.) ‘subjection unto,—which is un-
exampled, and would more naturally have
the art., 77 «is: it is towards, ‘in refer-
ence to,’ as in ref.) and liberality of your
contribution as regards them and as re-
gards all men (the same remarks apply to
eis as above). Meyer would render amAdrnrt
THs Kowwvlas, ‘the genuineness of your
fellowship ? but see note on Rom. xii. 8,
and Rom. xy. 26. He also makes 77 b7o-
Tayi THs dwod., ‘your subjection ¢o your
confession,’ which perhaps may be, but
disturbs the parallel of amAérnrt 7. Kou.
14.| The construction is very diffi-
Vou. Il.
cult. 6Sehoee may depend on zrepiccevouca,
ver. 12 (but then we should expect d:¢ as
there),—or on do&d¢ovres (but then it
should also depend on éxi—and they could
not be said to glorify God for their own
prayers. If on dota¢ovres as the instru-
ment whereby, it seems strange that attay
should be expressed), or attéyv Senoe
brép tu. enum. tu. may be (as Meyer) a
gen. absol., ‘whdle they desire you in
prayers for you’ (but this seems forced,
and as De W. observes, would require
7H either before or after Seqoe). In the
midst of these difficulties I see no way
but this: the datives preceding, brotay7
and amAdtyt1, have occasioned this also
to be expressed in the dative, as though
it depended on ézi, whereas it is in reality
parallel with 5:4 woAA@y evxapioTioy and
dependent on mepiocetovca. Again, the
words in another point of view are pa-
rallel with tH brotayA and arAdryti,
inasmuch as these are tp@v, and this
déyois is avt@y. Amidst such compli-
cated antitheses and attracted construc-
tions, it may suffice if we discover the
clue to the original formation of the
sentence: the meaning is obvious enough,
viz. that glory also accrues to God by
the prayers of the recipients, who are
moved with the desire of Christian love
(reff.) to you, on account of the grace
of God which abounds eminently to-
wards (over) you (é tp. belonging to
trepB. not to xaptv, which would, but
not of absolute necessity, require fv).
15.] Having entered, in the three
last verses, deeply into the thankful
spirit which would be produced in these
Wey;
690
: , ‘ \ , x ~
ee X. | Adrée 8 Eye Tavdoc
u 1 Cor, iy. 21 ~ u Ah pO ae ae ’ =, ie.
reff. , THs “mpaurnce? ‘Kat ETLELKELAG TOV YOLOTOV, OC
v Acts xxiv. 4 - Ae
ff.) only+. W n ee
woke «=< POCWTOV MEV TAaTELVOE EV UMD,
i131. Actsili. ¢ =,
13. 2 Chron. vac
xiii. 8.
x Rom. xii. 16 reff. y 1 Cor. v. 3 reff.
ii.6. Winer, edn. 6, § 44.3.c.
Cuap. X. 1. ree mpaotntos, with CDKLN? rel: txt BFN! 17.
IIPOS KOPINOIOYS= B.
2 Séouar d¢ * ro BN
bch. i. 15 reff.
Xx.
f Cia
* wapakadw Upac
Y amov be * Nappo ata
y a Zz x>t~ —d b
taowy *Oappnoa ry ° TETOL-
z ch. v. 6, 8 reff. aconstr., 1 Cor. ivy.6. Phil.
for ets, d¢ B.
2. aft rm memoOnoe ins Tavty C? (hence to omAa T7s, ver 4, C is rewritten).
recipients of the bounty of the Corinthians,
he concludes with an ascription, in the
spirit also of a thankful recipient, ef wn-
feigned thanks to Him, who hath enriched
us by the gift of His only Son, which brings
with it that of all things else (Rom. viii.
32), and is, in all its wonders of grace and
riches of mercy, truly ineffable, avekdihyn-
ros. It is impossible to apply such a term,
so emphatically placed as here, to any gift
short of THAT ONE. And the ascription,
as coming from Paul’s fervent spirit, is very
natural in this connexion. This interpre-
tation is preferred by Chrys. [dwpedy 5é
evrad0a A€yer Kal TA ToTAITAa ayaba Ta
dia THS eAEnuocivns yivdueva Kal Tots
AauBdvovor kal Tots mapéxovow 7} Ta
amdpinra ayaa Ta did THS mapovoias
av’Tod TH olkoumevn mdon meTa TMOAATS
dwpn0evta THs pirotimlas’ 6 Kal uddcora
éotw tmonteioa. ta yap kal Kata-
otelAn, Kal daiArcorépous epydontat, av
érvxov mapa Tov Ocov, TovTwy avTods
évapniynoKer. Kal yap méey.oTov TovTO Eis
mpotpomyy apeTis amdons' 51d Kal ev-
Tav0a Tov Adyov KaréxActoey], and Thi.
[ who, after beginning as Chrys., proceeds :
kal Tav ayabGy avammrhoKe ay Akiw-
Onuevy Sid THS Tapkdoews TOV XpLoToOd,
@savel ToadTa Aéywy Mndtv péya vopt-
onre wmets Toveiv’ avekdiunynta yap cio
Ta ayaba & eAdBouey mapa Ocod” Kal et
bAlya Kal pOapTa Sduev, Th wéya;| It is
also given by Bengel [‘ Deus nobis dedit
abundantiam bonorum internorum et ex-
ternorum, que et ipsa est inenarrabilis, et
fructus habet consimiles”], Meyer, al.
The other explanation (see Chrys. above)
is that of Calv., Grot., Est., al.
Cuap. X. 1—XIII. 13.] Turrp Part
OF THE EpistLE. DEFENCE OF HIS APOS-
TOLIC DIGNITY, AND LABOURS, AND SUF-
FERINGS, AGAINST HIS ADVERSARIES:
WITH ANNOUNCEMENT OF H18 INTENDED
COURSE TOWARDS THEM ON HIS ENSUING
VISIT. X. 1—6.] He assures them of
the spiritual nature, and power, of his
apostolic office: and prays them not to
make it necessary for him to use such au:
thority against his traducers at his coming.
1.] 5€ marks the transition to a new
subject,—and avrds points on to the per-
sonalcharacteristics mentioned below, ‘Ego
idem Paulus, qui .. .;’ the words éy® Ilav-
Xos setting his Apostolic dignity in contrast
with the depreciation which follows. Some-
times however we have avtdés used, where
the only object seems to be to bring out the
personality more strongly : so 1 Thess. iii.
11; iv. 16; v. 23; 2 Thess. ii. 16; iii. 16.
See also Rom. vii. 25: and ch. xii. 13 :—
and such may be the case here :—but the
és rather favours the former interpretation.
Sia +. wp. «. ér.] as in Rom. xii. 1,
using the meekness and gentleness of Christ
(Matt. xi. 29, 30) as a motive whereby he
conjures them. And most appropriately :
he beseeches them by the gentleness of
Christ, not to compel him to use towards
them a method of treatment so alien from
that gentleness: ‘‘ Remember how gentle
my Master was, and force not me His ser-
vant to be otherwise towards you.”
““pavrns, lenitas, virtus magis absoluta :
emclkera, equitas, magis refertur ad alios,”
Bengel. See many examples in Wetst.
és kat. wpds.| Who in personal appear-
ance indeed (am) mean among you (he
appropriates concessively, but at the same
time with some irony,—so Chrys., kat’
cipwvelay not, Ta exelvav pbeyyduevos,
—the imputation by which his adversaries
strove to lessen the weight of his letters.
kat mp. is not a Hebraism: Wetst. quotes
several instances of its usage by Polybius),
but when absent am bold (severe, owt-
spoken in blame) towards you, 2. |
but (however this may be, assuming this
character of me to be true or not, as you
please ;—or, notwithstanding that I may
have been hitherto taewdés among you)
I pray [you] (not, God, as Bengel [ 1], al.)
that I may not (ro uh sets the object of
déoua: in a stronger light, see reff.) when
present (‘as I intend to be »—‘ at my next
visit’) have to be bold (see above) with
the confidence (official peremptoriness, and
reliance on my authority) with which I
reckon (am minded: not passive, ‘ am
reckoned,’ as Vulg., Luther, Beza, Estius,
Bengel, al., which, as Meyer remarks, would
naturally require adv with TroAujoat) to
BCDF
KLNab
nol7
1—6.
, i? ~ ,
Ono y ° AoyiZouat 4 oAmyoat emt Tiwae ToUC * Noy: Zope-
Care ec fg N ote , 4
vouc nuUaCc we KkaTa oaoKka
6 4 ‘ ‘ ke x ~ i € ~ 2 on ,
peOa® 4 ra yao “onda tig oTparElacg Nuwy ov ™ capKuKa,
> ~ ~
aXXa suvatra “tw Dew ° mooc kaQaipecw
IIPOS KOPINOIOY®S B.
f ~
WEeplTWaTOvvTac.
Y \ ‘ i - > 2 STE , =
GapKt yae TEPLTATOVUYTEC ou kata oaoka
691
c = here only.
) Kings
xviii. 25.
Aoyi: Copevoc
Hew Gua
Adio divov-
Th, KiTAny
Xen. Anab,
ii. 2. 18,
d=ch. xi. 21
bis. Il. x.
232.
h?
Bn ey
J 7
oT PaTeEvO-
> Ld
Toyvowparwr*
r ay Ss ~ \ ~ eet > ,
5 oytopoue kabatoovytec Kat Tay ‘vpwua “ ETapOus- e Rom. viii. 26.
vov
TEC TaV
20. Phil. i. 22,24. Col. ii. 1.
ix. 7 rett. k = ch. vi. 7 (reff.).
n dat., Acts vii. 20 reff.
<i. 1 Mace. vy. 65.
27. Lam. ii. 2.
. Ezraiv.19. Dan. xi. 14 Theod.
reff. x ch. ii. 11 reff.
om tivas C?.
5. kaSaipouvytwv D!.
goth.
be bold towards some, (namely) those who
reckon (of) us as walking according to
the flesh (wepimareiv kata odpKa is well
explained by Estius, ‘hoc est, secundum
carnales et humanos affectus vitam et ac-
tiones instituere..... Putabant enim Pau-
lum, quando presens erat, sive captandee
gratiz causa, sive quod timeret offendere,
vel simili affectu humano prohibitum fuisse,
ne potestatem exerceret, quam absens per
literas venditabat’). 3.| The yap
here shews that this verse is not the refuta-
tion of the charge kata odpxa mepimateiy,
but a reason rendered for the d€oc1 above ;
and évy capkt and Kata odpra allude only
to the charge just mentioned. This indeed
is shewn by the use, and enlargement in
vv. 4—6, of orparevdueba, instead of aepi-
matoouev :—they who accuse us of walking
after the flesh, shall find that we do not
war after the flesh: therefore compel us
not to use our weapons. év cap.
wepir.| Although we walk in the flesh,
i.e. are found in the body,—yet we do not
take our apostolic weapons from the flesh
—do not make its rule, our rule of warfare.
4.| Enlargement of the idea in
otpatevopeda. If the warfare were ac-
cording to the flesh, its weapons would be
carnal: whereas now, as implied, they are
spiritual, duvata 7G OeG,—powerful in
the sight of God (i.e. ‘in His estimation,’
‘after His rule of warfare’ It is nota
Hebraism; see on ref. Acts; and for the
dat., Winer, edn. 6, § 31. 4. Some
render it, ‘by means of God,’ —Beza, Grot.,
Estius, Bengel, al.: others, ‘for God, —
God’s means of shewing his power,—Bill-
roth, al., but wrongly) in order to pulling
down of strongholds (see ref. Prov. So
4 = , Vv - ~ \ Ww , '
Kata TNC yvwaoews ~ TOU Beov, Kat “ atypadwriCov-
, , a ¢€ ‘ - ~
*vonua sic thy * uTaKkony TOU YptoToU,
1 Tim. iii. 16. Philem. 16.
o =ch, viii. 19 reff.
r Rom. ii. 15 only. Prov. vi. 18. Jer, xi. 19.
t Rom. viii. 39 only. Job xxiv. 24, Jndith x.8. xiii. 4 only.
om 2nd ca: F Ambrst-ed.
1 Cor. iv. 1.
Amo3 vi. 5.
6 ; f Rom. viii. 4,
Rom. i. 3
Kato yen
h = Gal. ii.
ich. iv. 2 reff. jl Cor.
m 1 Cor. iil. 3 reff.
q here only. Prov.
8 = Acts xix.
uch.
w Rom. vii. 23
11 Tim. i. 18 only +.
p ver. 8 reff.
Vv gen, object., ch. ii. 14.
y and constr., Rom. i. 5 reff,
at end ins ayovtes DF
Philo de Abrah. § 38, vol. ii. p. 32, roy
émiterxiomoy Tay evavTiwy Sukay KaBaipety,
—see also de Confus. ling. § 26, vol. 1.
p- 424, Cf. Stanley; who thinks that
recollections of the Mithridatie and
piratical wars may have contributed to
this imagery. The second of these,
not more than sixty years before the Apos-
tle’s birth, and in the very scene of his
earlier years, was ended by the reduction
of 120 strongholds, and the capture of more
than 10,000 prisoners). 5. | The nom.
Ka9apoovtes refers to nueis, the implied
subject of ver. 4;—this verse carrying on
the figure in 4yuvpapdatev. By Aoyuopovs
he means, as Chrys., tov TOpov Toy ‘EAAN-
vindy, kal TGV Topicpatwy Kk. TOV TVAAO-
yiouav thy icxdv :—but not only these:
—every towering conceit kata odpka is
also included. k. wav vy. | And every
lofty edifice (fortress or tower) which is
being raised (or, raising itself) against
the knowledge of God (i. e. the true know-
ledge of Him in the Gospel ; not subjective
here, but taken objectively, the comparata
being human knowledge, as lifted upagainst
the knowledge of God, i. e. the Gospel
itself), and leading captive every intent of
the mind (not ‘thought, as HE. V.: not
intellectual subjection here, but that of the
will, is intended) into subjection to Christ
(in the figure he treats 7 braxoy T. XpioTod,
the new state into which the will is brought
by its subjection, as the country into which
it is led captive: compare Luke xxi. 24).
6.] But perhaps some will not thus
be subjected. In that case we are ready
to inflict punishment on them : but not till
every opportunity has been given them to
join the ranks of the obedient ; when your
yo ve
~ « here only.
692
Y Tide epee yell! zo
Polyb. ii. 34, ev ETO EXovrec
2. (-ws Execv, €
Acts xxi. 13
reff.)
a Rom. xii. 19
rei.
b Rom. v.19.
Heb. ii. 2
only t.
(-ovecv,Matt. ae
A
“Kata
7Ta
« - ~ Ly
cautw © yowsTou Etvat,
IIPOX KOPINOIOY® B.
a’? ~ -
EKOLKNOaL Tacay
TOUTO
X:
b tel:
TapaKkony, oTrav
Pe 8 ee ee ’
tAnowIy Vuwv 7 “ VTakon.
Ww
“woocwrov BXémere; et TIC
f réeroWev
‘raAdw ! ap
h AoyiZéoIw
he a JP BN ~ e \ e o
= kafloc auTtoc KOloTou, OUTWC Kat pMELC.
eee : , , m , ‘
ec = John iii. 9 8 s W
Rinte: oDaat éav ‘ [re yao | ™ qr E0LTGOTEDOY Tt Kauyyowpat TEPL
viii. 23. dw. gen. subj., Rom. v. 19, xv. 18. xvi. 19 al. e ver. 1. f constr. dat., Phil.
i. 14, Philem. 21. Prov. xiv. 16. Isa. xxviii. 17. inf., Rom, ii. 19. & = 1 Cor. i. 12. iii. 23. h constr.,
Rom. ii. 3 reff. i = 1 Cor, xii. 21. jch. iii. 5 reff. k = Rom. i. 26. vii. 7. Ich. ii. 7 reff.
m Luke xii. 4 only,
6. for ev eroiuw, eTouws D!.
n uTakon bef vuwy D'F lat-ff.
7. for memoev, doxer remobeva B.
ms.
xptorov, with DKL rel Damase (ce:
Thdrt Th] Ambrst Pelag.
8. om te BF d 17 Chr Thi:
ins kat bef reprocorepov, with D3KLN* rel Chr Thdrt Damase Thl:
vt bef mepioo. F Ambrst Vig:
latt copt goth Cc.
obedience (stress on dudr) shall have
been completed. He does not mention
any persons —not the disobedient, but
every (case of) disobedience, and throws
out buets into strong relief, as charitably
embracing all, or nearly all, those to whom
he was writing. Lachmann, strangely, and
as if seems to me most absurdly, puts a
period at Tapakony, and joins étav TAn-
pwb7 wu. 7 bmaKon, Ta KaTa mpdswmrov
BAémrete. More complete ignorance of the
Apostle’s style, and non- appreciation of
the fine edge of his hortatory irony, can
hardly be evinced, than this.
7—XII. 21.) A digression, in which
he vindicates his apostolic dignity, his
Sruitfulness in energy and in sufferings,
and the honour put on him by the Lord
in revelations made to him. (—11.]
He takes them on their own ground.
They had looked on his outward appear-
ance and designated it as mean. Well
then, he says: ‘do ye regard outward
appearance ? even on that ground I will
shew you that I am an Apostle—I will
bear out the severity of my letters: I
will demonstrate myself to be as much
Christ’s, as those who vaunt themselves
to be especially His.’ This rendering
suits the context best, and keeps the
sense of kara mpdéswrov in ver. 1. The
imperative rendering of Vulg., Ambrose,
Theophyl., Billr., Riick., Olsh., De Wette,
al.,—‘ look at the things before your eyes,’
is objectionable (Mey er), (1) from altering
the meaning of kata mpdswmov: (2) be-
cause it gives too tame a sense for the
energy of the passage: (3) because BAémere
generally in such sentences, in Paul’s style,
comes first, see 1 Cor. i. 26; x. 18; Phil.
ins CDKLN rel Thdrt Damase (ce Ambrst.
aft mAnpw6y ins mpotepov C 39 fri Aug.
aft xpiorov ins dovdAos D'F flor Ambrst-
for ap, ep BLN; apud vulg D-lat F-lat ; intra G-lat.
om BCD'FN 17 latt syrr goth eth arm Chr
rec aft nuers ins
rec
om BCD!FR! ¢
om 71m Sedul. Kavxn-
iii. 2 (8ce); Col. iv. 17. Another way, is
to take it as said without a question, but
indicatively. So Chrys., Calvin, ‘Magni
facitis alios qui magnis ampullis turgent,—
me, quia ostentatione et jactantia careo, de-
spicitis.’ But in that case, surely some fur-
ther intimation would have been given of
such a sentiment than merely these words,
—the break after which, without any con-
necting particle, would thus be exceedingly
harsh. Others again fancifully mix up
with kata mpdswr. the supposed charac-
teristics of the (?) Christ-party, the having
seen Christ in the flesh: the being headed
by James the brother of the Lord, &e. &e.
et Tis ....] If any one believes
himself to belong to Christ (lit. ‘trusts in
himself to belong.’ From 1 Cor. i. 12,
it certainly was one line taken by the ad-
versaries of the Apostle to boast of a nearer
connexion with, a more direct obedience
to, Christ, in contradistinction to Paul:
and to this mind among them he here
alludes), let him reckon this again out
of his own mind (i. e. let him think afresh,
and come to a conclusion obvious to any
one’s common sense [a¢” éavtod | and not
requiring any extraneous help to arrive at
it), that as he is Christ’s, so also are we
(that whatever intimate connexion with or
close service of Christ he professes, such,
and no less, is mine). 8.] This is
shewn to be so. Even more boasting than
he had ever yet made of his apostolic
power, would not disgrace him, but would
be borne out by the fact. For if we were
to boast (édy is not concessive, but hy-
pothetical, as in 1 Cor. xiii. 1. Te yap
generally has a corresponding clause fol-
lowing, with te, kal, 5¢€, or #, as Eur.
+ UULOV
BDFKL
Rabed
efghk
lmno
17
7—11.
IIPOS KOPINOIOY®= B.
693
bad n? ’ € ~ oF p v7 c , ’ q , a ;
tne "eSovatac numv °a)¢ COWKED O KUOLOG ELC OLKOOOMNY nse 1 Cor. ix.
Ses ray , chs Ds. MG re ,
kat ovk ei¢ ‘Kkabaioesty vawy, ovK atoxvvOnconat,
. , tue t » , ~ Cre ‘ - > -
pn do&w ‘we ‘av “ Ex pope vuac Ola TwY emtoToAwy.
Z sand passim
. = ch. xiii. 10.
CVG oattr., Acts i.
1 reff.
p so Matt. x. 1
al. fe.
= Rom. xiv.
o e \ » ty - ae ea
10 Gre at piv exiatodat * pnow ~ Bapstat Kat “iaxueat, 1 9 ip tert
4. ch.
oe y , - , z? ff) ‘ VF y , a? @ r ver.
€ Taoovsta TOU GWwuUaTOC advEVIC Kal O¢ oyoc eEou E- = xiij. LO onlyt.
1
Mace. in.
, Mee) b ! c ~ be Meth?
vnpevoc. 11” pour AoyiZéoIw "0 “rowovrog, "ort otot (ony
5.) s Luke xvi. 3. Phil.i.20. 1 Pet. iy.16. 1 John ii. 28 only. Ps. xxxiv. 4. t w, inf., here
only. Heya@Aa xXpyuata ws Gy elvac ‘Podwmos, Herod, ii. 135.
v see nofe.
y 1 Cor. xvi. 17 reff.
¢ Acts xxii. 22 reff,
xxvi. 6. (-Bos, Mark ix. 6.)
x 1 Cor. i. 25 reff. iv. 10.
reff. b ver, 7.
coun LX cf k Thi.
D'F D-lat F-lat G-lat fri Idac.
Thdrt (ie: om BC D'(and lat)§! 17 am(with tol al)
9. dofwpev D'F Ambrst. (not F-lat.)
Bovrtes D G-lat(altern).
10. emioroda bef wey BR'.
Phen. 13138, euds re yap tats yas BAwN
irepOavav,.,.. Box 5 SGua wav, SO in
reff. and Thucyd. i. 12 bis,—but some-
times the corresponding clause is wanting,
being understood, or, as apparently here
and in Heb. ii. 11, allowed to pass out of
mind while following out the thought of
the first clause. See Hartung, Parti-
kellehre, i. 115. 5) somewhat more abun-
dantly (than we have ever done: or than
in vv. 3—6) concerning our power
which the Lord has given for building
you up and not for pulling you down
(kal mas not, Aoyicuods KaPatpovrTes 5
Ste avtd TodTO wdAtoTa oikodouys €ldds
eort, TO Ta KwAVMaTa dvapeiv, Kal Th
cabpa dicdeyxew, Kat TH GANIR ouv-
Tibevar ev oikodouH. Chrys), I shall not
be put to shame (ov SexOqoouar wWev-
Sduevos o0¥dt GAaCovevduevos, Chrys.).
9.] follows on, ver. 8, but requires
some clause to be supplied such as ‘And
I say this,’ or the like. Meyer would join
it immediately to aicxuv6., and regard it
as the purpose to be served by the fact
verifying his boast. But as De W. ob-
serves, a particular result like this can
hardly be bound on to a general assertion
like that of ver. 8. To suppose the pur-
pose of Paul’s boast of apostolic power
being borne ont, to be merely iva wh ddtw,
&e., would be out of keeping with the im-
portance of the fact. So that iva Mn
ddéw is much better taken subjectively —1
say this, because I wish not to seem, &e.
és av,—as Vulg. ‘tanquam terrere vos.’
It takes off the harshness of éxpofetv. “ as
&v in later (? see ref.) Greek, has the sense
of ¢ quasi, tanquam,’—dy losing its proper
force, in a commonly current expression ;
and the sense is much the same as that of
6m nuwy C! 662, 219! Syr copt Chr.
ree aft kupios ins nu, with D3FKLX® rel goth
gaow B latt(exe D-lat).
u here only. Levit.
w = Matt. xxiii. 23. Acts xxv. 7 (refl.).
z see 1 Cor. i. 25. a Rom. xiv. 3
for kuptos, Beos
eeth(Syr copt Chr Thl).
om ws av D!. for expoBew, expo-
etovdernuevos B,
&s alone.’ Meyer. Winer takes és &
expoBeiy as = ws by expoBoim, Gram.
edn. 6, § 42. 6, and is followed by Olsh.,
but this, in the presence of the above
idiom, is unnecessary. Sia TOV
émgrokGv| He had written two be-
fore this, see 1 Cor. v. 9; but this is not
necessarily here implied : for he may reckon
this which he is now writing. Still less
can we infer hence that a third had been
written before this (Bleek). 10. |
gyoiv, taken by Winer (edn. 6, § 58.
9. b), De W., and Meyer, as impersonal —
heift e8, ‘men say; but why should not
the tis of ver. 7, and 6 Towodros of ver.
11, be the subject ? Bapetar! see
in Wetst., definitions from the rhetori-
cians of Bapitns in discourse. Among
other illustrations of it, Aristides mentions
Srav tt trowov éavt@ KaTapdon’ oior,
TeOvdvat madAov 2) Tad7 cipneévar Bovdo-
ua (see 1 Cor. ix. 15), and bray cis xplow
aydyns tev Tebvedtwv evddtwy, . «
oiov, mnArlkov bv orevdtaev of mpdyovor
(see 1 Cor. xv. 18). mapovoia....
aoGevijs | No countenance is given by these
words to the idea that Paul was of weak
physical constitution, or short in stature.
His own explanation of them is sufficient as
given in 1 Cor.ii.1 ff. It is, that when he
was present among them, he brought, not
the strength of presence or words of the
carnal teachers, but abjured all such influ-
ence and in fear and trembling preached
Christ crucified. It was this, and not
weakness of voice, which made his Adyos
to be éfoudevnuevos. At the same time,
the contrast being between his epistles and
his word of mouth, his authority as wnac-
companied or accompanied by his presence,
it must be assumed, that there was some-
694
dG Rom. xv. 18,
Col. iii. 17.
} Joho iii. 18. e
’
Eo peEV
~
TW Ey.
: = def
Gee 1 Gori. " wapovres ov ap inna: eykpivat cdeks
= Led x 5) 5 ouykpivat ‘ eavrovc Tot Twy aur die J gumotavovtwr"
a k.? h
he 5 adXa avrol év Eavroic EavTovuc \ ueTOOUVTEC, Kal auy-
reff.
g here only +. Jos. B.J. ii. 8.7, eis Tov Oucdov eyKpivetac. h here bis. 1 Cor. ii, 13 only t. Gen. x1. 8
al, = Wisd. vii. 2. xv. 18. i lst pers., ch. iii. ) reff. jch. isi. 1 (reit.). k Mait. vii. 2
bis. Mark iv. 24 bis only. las above (k). Lukei. 38. Rev. xi, J, 2. xxi. 15, 16,17 only. Exod. xvi. 18.
12. for roAuwuer, ToAMw B: ToAMwy mM.
D', aA’ D'Lam 17.
thing (see on ch. xii. 7) which discom-
mended his appearance and delivery. See
the traditional authorities for the Apostle’s
personal appearance, in Winer’s RWB.
vol. ii. p. 221, note. 11.) Aoytféobw,
as in ver. 7. 5 rowTS. viz. who
thus speaks. The introduction of the verse
without any connecting particle gives force
and emphasis. After mwapévtes supply
éopev, not eodueba. Not only the conduct
of the Apostle on his next visit, but his
general character, is in question.
‘12— 18.] The difficulty of this passage
is universally acknowledged. In early times
Theodoret wrote : acapas Grav 7h xapnua
TovTo yéypa¢er, and adds as a reason, évap-
ya@s éAéykat tods aitlovs od BovAduevos.
He substantiates what has just been said,
by shewing how unlike he is to those vain
persons who boast of other men’s labours ;
—for he boasts of what God had really
done among them by him, and hopes that
this boast may be yet more increased.
12.] disclaims resemblance to those
false teachers who made themselves their
only standard. For we do not venture
(ironical ;—‘‘dum dicit quod non faciat,
notat quid isti faciant.”” Bengel) to number
ourselves among (cvvapOufjoa, Theo-
phyl., Gicum., ‘inserere,’ Vulg.: see
examples of this usage, with eis prin-
cipally, but also with werd and exif w. gen.,
in Wetst.), or compare ourselves with
(avyxpivew is properly, in classical Greek,
‘to compound, or ‘unile:? but in later
Greek, ‘40 compare: 6 ouyKpitixds Tpd-
mos, With the grammarians, is the com-
parative degree) some of those who com-
mend themselves (the charge made against
him, éavtdv ocuviardver, see ch. ill. 1;
v. 12, he makes as a true one against
the false teachers) ;— but (they), them-
selves measuring themselves by them-
selves, and comparing themselves with
themselves, are not wise. The render-
ings are very various. Chrys. al., read
cvviovow, and make it a particip., rout-
écrit, ph aigOavonévois mwas eciot Kata-
yédaoro Towita &dAaCovevduevor: and
see again below. Others, reading the
llPO2 KOPINOIOYS B.
‘ro oyw Oe extatoAw@y
12
om 8rd eavtous X!:
X.
bs] , ~ \
Fleet TOLOUTOL Kat
nx
xpiva Fn. aft eyxpivat ins eavrous
ins X-corr! ob1,
same, take it rightly, as = cvviaow, but
make setpotytes, &c., the object of cur-
tovow: ‘know not that they are mea-
suring,’ §e.: but the corresponding sen-
tence, juezs 5€ x.7.A., Shews that this sense
would be irrelevant ; for the Apostle does
not oppose their ignorance of their foolish
estimate of themselves to his own prac-
tice, but that foolish estimate itself.
Others again, as Emmerling and Olshausen,
take GAAa—avmotow (or -ao.v) to apply
to the Apostle himself, as contrasted with
the riwés: ‘ We do not venture, &c.,—but
we ourselves measure (supply écper, ‘are
in the habit of measuring’) ourselves by
ourselves (i.e. as ver. 18, by what the
Lord has really made us to be), and com-
pare ourselves with ourselves, foolish as
we are (reputed to be :—ouvotow being a
participle). But foolish we are not: we
will not boast ourselves,’ &e. But (1)
this rendering would absolutely require
the article before ob ouvioticw, which,
anarthrous, would imply, not an imputa-
tion, but the fact: (2) the mode of
expression (aitol év é€avtTots éauvt. erp.)
would be a most extraordinary one to
convey the meaning supposed :—and (38)
the meaning itself would be irrelevant when
obtained. Another variety of this render-
ing is to take (as Bos, Schrader, al.) éav-
Tots, ov Guviovo.lvV, = EavTois, ov ToS
ovviovoiww—with ourselves, not with the
wise: which is also inadmissible.
Others again (see var. read.) would omit od
ovriaow (or -ovow)* jets 5¢,—which has
been an evident correction, on the suppo-
sition that @AAa@ adrol «.7.A. belonged to
the Apostle, to expunge words so much
in the way of such an interpretation.
I may observe that much of the difficulty
has arisen from taking adroi with aAAd
as the subject to od cuméaaw, whereas
it belongs to what follows, @AAa abtol ev
€auT. €avT. meTp. K-T.A., aS in the version
given above: the subject of cuéow being
to be supplied, and the construction being
an inaccurate one. Calvin well illustrates
the sense, by the reputation which any
moderately learned man gained among the
BDF
<LN ab
lm
nol7
12-15. IIPOS KOPINOIOY®S B. 695
€ - ,
13 etc Oe ouK m Rom. xv, 21
= n= ver. 16.
/ e A e ~ , ~
KPLVOVTEC €auToOuc EaUTOIC OU os OvuUVIadlyV.
n? 0%” ne , > A ‘ ‘ ,
M-oo- &¢ Ta GueTpa Kavynooucba, aAXa Kata TO HET oon TOV ch. xii. 6.
peba.. 7 aA ee ec . émacvetv
BDEK Ps Kavovoc Tov * EMEpLOEV mm 0 feog Dl gaa * epexéoOar cic
a ee ed at. Alc. i.
cdefg ‘aype kat vnov. | ov yee we a * Epucvodmevor ste dite onlet.
e = € / ~
nol7 uvuac " UTEOEKTELVOMED ’ gautouc, ‘axon yap Kal Uieiov tea 18)
w? , x? ~ 15 vv. 15,1
epOacamer gy TW evayyerlw TOU XeusTou" ou« ” Gal vt,
v.r.Jonly. Mic. vii. 4. Judith xiii. 6 only. = Job xxxviii.
r Rom. xii. 3 (reff.).
(ver. 8.) 1 John 11, 25.
t = Acts xi. 5 reff.
2 Chron. xxviii. #.
vat. only.
w Rom. ix. 31 reff.
2nd eavrois bef 4th eavrovs DK m Chr Thart.
txt BN-corr!3 m 17 Thdrt-ed.
cuvcacw XN! 742:
lat) F Ambrst Sing-cler Sedul Vig.
of the words.
13. rec ovxt, with D% rel Qe:
ets TO awetpov D'F:
om D!(and lat).
new FL.
14. for ov yap ws, ws yap B 114. 116.
F: adixovmevos 106: edixouevor Chr.
ignorant monks of his day — “Si quis
tenuem modo gustum elegantioris litera-
ture habeat, . . spargitur de eo mirabilis
fama, adoratur: miter sodales .... Inde
precipue monachis insolentissimus _ ille
fastus quod se metiuntur ex se ipsis: quum
in eorum claustris nihil sit preter bar-
bariem, illic nihil mirum, si regnet luscus
inter cecos. Tales erant isti Pauli emuli:
sibi enim intus plaudebant, non consi-
derantes quibus virtutibus constaret vera
laus, quantumque a Pauli et similium ex-
cellentia distarent.” 13.] But we
(opposed to those spoken of in last verse)
will not (ever: will never allow ourselves
to) boast without measure (lit. ‘boast as
Sar as to things unmeasured, eis with
an adj. and the art. is used to signify the
extent to which; so Herod. vii. 229, kar-
exéato ey “AAmnvotat OpOarmia@yTes és Td
éoxatov: as éxt with the same denotes the
direction towards which, as émt 7d metGor
koguouvres,... eml Td pvdddes exvevi-
anxéta, Thucyd. i. 21,—without measure,
scil. as they do who compare themselves
with themselves and measure themselves by
themselves, —for there is no standard for,
no limit to, a man’s good opinion of him-
self. The plur. 7a &merpa, instead of 7d
&metpov, seems to be chosen to generalize
the negative—‘we adopt no such vague
standard for our boasting’), but according
to the measure of the rule (7d meézp. Tov
kav.—‘ the measure pointed out by the rule,’
gen. subj.) Which God apportioned to us
as a measure, to reach as far as to you—
ob euepirey qiv 6 0. werpov = dv euep. TE.
6 @. weérpoy, which (kayév) God appor-
Dan. viii. 7 Theod,
5 Aq.(omapriov, LXX.)
s here bis only ¢.
v Ist pers., ver. 12.
x Rom. i. 9. ch. viii. 18 al.
q attr.,
Sir. x'iii, 27, 30
u here only ft.
rec gumevow, with D'KL rel:
om ov guviac nets Se D' (and
(Perhaps the transcribers eye passed from
ov above to ov follg, and so omitted all between:
or perhaps on acct of the difficulty
See the readings discussed in Stanley’s note.)
txt BD'FKLX c m 17 Chr Thdrt Damase Thi.
in immensum (and so ver 15) latt.
for euepioev, euetpnoev M a 49. 64. 672. 74 Thli-ms.
for Oeos, kupios D Epiph Vig.
kavxwuevot FG Sing-cler:
om
agpicecOa I’ 109 Chr-ms.
for EPLKVOULEVOL, APLKY. K: apikomevos
2nd yap NX! d: ins X-corr’.
tioned to us as 2 measure,—or, as De W.,
Tov méeTpov d euep. nu. 6 8., in which latter
case méTpov is in appos. with caydvos: but
I prefer the former. Mr. Green, Grammar
of the N. T. dialect, p. 269, makes uérpov
governed by épixéoOat, as in oitw TapBous
apikdunv, Kur. Phen. 361; tod Biov eb
fovtt, Herod. i. 30. My objections to
this construction are, (1) that épicvodmevor
eis buas is used absolutely in the very next
clause, which makes it probable that the
same usage is found here :—(2) that an un-
necessary harshness is introduced, which I
cannot persuade myself that the Apostle
would have used, and which is apparent
even in Mr. G.’s English, ‘ of advancing in
standard as far as even you.’ See Stanley’s
note. édixéofar is the inf. of the
purpose, that we should reach: or per-
haps (but not so well) of the result,
that we reach.’ 14.] Further expla-
nation of epic. &xpe x. bu. For we are
not stretching ourselves beyond [our
bounds |, as (we should be doing) if we
did not reach to you (not, as if we had not
reached to you, as Luth., Beza: the pres.
betokens the allo/ment of the field of apos-
tolie work as his own, ‘ ut si non pervenia-
mus.’ The uf shews that the case is only
a supposed one: so also 1 Cor. iv. 18, but
compare 1 Cor. ix. 26, ds otk aépa dépwr,
where the case is the veal one: see Winer,
edn. 6, § 55. 1): for even as far as you
did we advance (the proper meaning of
0dyw must hardly be pressed here: the
Apostle would not introduce a distinct
thought by a word of secondary importance
in the sentence) in the gospel (the element
696
IIPOS KOPINOIOY® B.
X. 16—18.
, N ” , ’ > ! reer!
y Rom. ii. 17 "etc ta °aperoa * Kavywuevot Jey * aXXoretoc KOTOLC,
rei. ae , , \ 7 b , , ~ , e
cis adding éAtioa 6& EXOVTEC avSavonevne TNC MWlOTEWO VUWV
ach. vi Sreff. » We
b = Matt. xiii. EV URLV
32. Markiv.
i e ' ee ‘
&, COLL: © areousaetav, |! cig ra
2 only.
Exod. i 7
trans., 1 Cor.
iii. 6 reff. oacbat.
c = Matt. xxiii.
pa f epee ) Pe Nu
UTEOEKELVA = UNWV euay ye toa-
’ ] , d , h ? ed h ,
ofa, ovk ev *adXAorpi “Kavou " ELC Ta EToIa * Kavyn-
Wig 8 f yg iw % kavyacbw*
oO Of ie ane’ ey Kuply avx
oumotavwy, | Ekelvog Eativ ™ OOKmMOC,
XT. 1 °”Ogerov ° avetyeobé pou ? pixpov ? re 4 appoov-
2° ro yap ya * Meou
6. Lukei.58 18 > N e. ye N
(Asis =a OU yep O EauUTOV
reff.) only. %
Gen.xixi9. aX’ Ov o Kootog * ouviatnaty.
d ver. 13 reff. ,
e Boo 17.
ch. vill, 2.
James i. 21 > ‘ Vou ,
only. Eccles,
Ba : vnc. adda Kat ° aveyeoBE pov.
1 Pet. i. 25.
see Heb. ii. 3. g here only t. h ver. 13.
ver, 12. -dvacr, Rom, iii. 5 reff.
n 1 Cor. iv. 8 reff.
Heb. ii. 7.
s Rom. x. 2. see Acts xxii. 3.
15. om de LM ec] n.
18. for ov yap 0, o yap (but corrd) X?.
1 so Mark vii. 15. John i. 18, 33 al.
o = Acts xviii 14. 2Tim.iv.3. Heb. xiii. 22.
q Mark vii. 22. vv.17, 2lonly. Job iv. 6.
for vuwy, nuwy Bd.
1 Cor. i. 31. k -avew,
m = Rom. xiv. 18 reff.
Job vi. 26. p ver. 16 only. see
r=Gal.iv. 17 bis. Zech. i.14.
i Jer. ix. 24.
for nuwy, vuwy &.
rec (for cuviotayvwv) cumotwy, with DSKL
rel Eus Dial Mac Chr: ovmoray d: txt BDF MX m 17 Orig Ephr Thdrt Damase.
doxipos bet eativ DN! vss: eat o dor. F.
»
Cuar. XI. 1. wpedov DSFKL mn 17 Chr-ms Gc: txt BD'MNX rel Chr Thdrt Damase
Thl. (o@:Aov D?.)
elz nvecxecOe, with (none of our mss) Chr-ed Thl: avexeo@e
B(Beh) Kd mn! 17 Chr-ms Thdrt: txt B(Mai) DFLN rel Chr-2-mss Damase (Ec Thl-
ms.
Steph om 7, with FKL rel D-lat(with G-lat fri) Chr Thdrt Damase Thl-mss
(Ke Lucif: ins B D-gr MX n 17 vulg(and F-lat) goth Th] Bede.
elz ins tns bef
appoourvns, with F a d Thl: om BDN n 17.—Steph 77 agpoovryn, with KL rel copt
gr-ff.—add pov F latt. (M defective.)
in which our advance was made: ‘the
gospel’ = ‘the promulgation of the gos-
pel’). 15.] in apposition with ov yap
x.7.A, ver. 14, and carrying out the thought.
Not boasting without measure in other
men’s labours (the element of the boast-
ing), but having a hope if (or, as) your
faith grows, to be enlarged (not as many
Commentators, ‘celebrated ;’ the metaphor
of measure still remains) among you (so
Chrys., Theophyl., Est., Meyer. év tu.
is not to be joined with avé., as Luth.,
Calv., Beza, Olsh., De W., in which case
it would be superfluous) according to our
rule (i. e. our apportionment of apostolic
work, for we seek not tmepertelve éav-
Tovs) unto abundance (‘so as to abound
more than we now do,’ viz. as ver. 16 ex-
plains). 16.]| (with a view) to preach
the gospel as far as (see on eis Ta tu.,
ver. 15) the parts beyond you (Wetstein
quotes from Thomas Magister, émékewa
phropes A€youo..... Vrepexetva 5€ uudvor
of atppaxes, la canaille),—not (with a
view) to boast ourselves within another
man’s line (xavdév throughout seems to be
used of a measuring /ine: according to
the metaphor so common among us, ‘in
his line,’—i. e. ‘within the line which
Providence has marked out for him’)
avacxeobe &.
with regard to (or, ‘to the extent of ;’ ‘to
extend our boasting to’) things ready
made to our hands. 17.| He sets
forth to them, in contrast (6€) to this
boasting themselves in another’s line,
which was the practice of his adver-
saries, wherein i only legitimate boast-
ing must consist: viz. in the Lord, the
Source of all grace and strength and suc-
cess in the ministry; see 1 Cor. xv. 10.
18.] The reason of this being, that
not the self-commender, but he whom
the Lord commends by selecting him as
His instrument, as He had the Apostle,
and giving him the emotoA} cvoratikh,
to be known and read by all men, of souls
converted and churches founded, is 5é«mos,
approved, i. e. really and in the end abiding
the test of trial. éketvos brings out
the distinction of the man who is d5éximos,
—see reff. and Winer, edn. 6, § 23.
4. We have the usage in English in
affirmative sentences, e. g. ‘The Lord, he
is the God, 1 Kings xviii. 39: but not in
negative ones. XI. His BoAsTING
OF HIMSELF: and 1—4.] apologetic intro-
duction of it, by stating his motive,—viz.
jealousy lest they should fall away from
Christ. 1.) dvelyeo@e is the Hel-
lenistic form,—velx. the Attic, not ‘ uti-
BDFK
LMNab
cdefg
hklm
= ‘ ‘ | , € ~ ,
* peyaduvOnvat Kata tov “Kavova nhwy sic nol?
697
t here only.
Prov. xix. 11.
XI. 1—4. TIPO KOPINOIOY®S B.
c ZinAdw* ‘ hopooauny yao oe Ev i avdot" Lone ayyny
w Boi SE * , ca u con Bex xiv,
0 Bn el :
paki ase TW XeloTW" oe pune E "WC, we aes
* Opec * Enmarnoey Evav ev TH " wavoupyig avrou, rates
c ~ d e? ‘ ne “4 Prov, xix. 13.
© Buea Ta vonuata vuwv °amro THC ‘an abana Kat (ch, vite 1
>’
re
4 et ey yao ow ee
y 1 Cor. ix. 27 reff.
b = 1 Cor, iii. 19 (reff.).
f Rom. xij.
t ,
‘ele TOV Xptorov.
xch. xii. 20. Gal. iv. 11.
a Rom. vii. 11 reff.
e = Rom. vii. 2. ix. 5 (reff).
h = ch, viii. 22. Eph. i. 15 al.
~ € , ~
T™n¢g Sayvornrocg THC
16,19. xii. 1. ch. iv. 14. Ps. v. 3.
z Rev. xii. 9. xx. 2. GEN. iii. 1 ff.
¢ 1 Cor. iii. 17 reff. dch. ii, 11 reff.
8 reff. g ch. vi. 6 only t.
8. for rws, rote F a Chr-comm,: om wy mws D)(and lat) vulg fri Lucif Aug.
rec evay bef efnmarnoev, with DKL rel vulg(and F-lat) fri syr Clem, Orig, Lucif: txt
BFM®& 17 Syr copt «th Clem, Eus Orig, Damase Orig-int, Jer. ‘for EVGY, UjLiY
X1, but evay written above by Nor, om ev D!-gr yulg F-lat fri Lucif. rec
ins outw bef péapy, with D*3KLM rel vulg(and F-lat) syrr «th Chr Thdrt Damase
Th] Ge Orig-int; Archel lat-ff; om BD!FX old-lat copt arm Clem, Gaud. rec om
kat ts ayvot., with D°KLM rel vulg(and F-lat) Syr Clem, Eus Chr Thdrt Orig-int,
lat-ff :
appy arose from the similarity of endgs.
ins BFR'[N! has it in brackets] a 17 tol syr-w-ast copt goth eth Archel
Augsepe Bede, and (but transp ama. and ayv.) D!(with lat) Epiph,.
Meyer and De Wette suppose ayv. to have
(The omission
been a gloss, to explain ami., and afterwards to have found its way into the text.)
om tov FX d 80. 89.
nam tolerassetis,’ as Calv., al.: the imper-
fect is put after ¢¥e, ai, Wpedov, &e., ‘ ubi
optamus eam rerum conditionem, quam non
esse sentimus:’? Klotz ad Devar. p. 516,
cited by Meyer. pou and adpoovvys
are not both genitives after pixpdy ti, as
Meyer : nor is it so in the passage quoted
by him, Job vi. 26, LXX: ob5€ yap judy
P0eyua phuaros avekoum. In both cases
the personal pronoun is governed by the
verb, as indeed here in avéxeo@é ov im-
mediately following—and pixcpdy ti adpo-
cvvns is the accusative of remote reference,
as in the double accus. construction.
GAG «.] But (why need I request this ?
for) you really (see note, ch. v. 3) do
bear with me. The indicative is much
better than the imperative rendering (as
Vulg., Beza, Calvin, Grot., Estius, Bengel,
al. ),—which, after Gdehay avelx., Is very
flat, and gives no account of the caf. He
says it, to shew them that he does not ex-
press the wish as supposing them void of
tolerance for his weakness, but as having
experienced some at their hands, and now
requiring more. 2.] ‘That forbear-
ance which you do really extend to me, and
for more of which I now pray, is due from
you, and I claim to have it exercised by
you, because I haye undertaken to present
you to Christ as a chaste bride to her hus-
band, and (ver. 3) I am jealous for fear of
your falling away from Him.’ Geod
fyr@] so eiAikpivela Tod Oeod, ch. i. 12:
a godly jealousy: see note there. Meyer
after Chrys., Estius, al., would render it,
‘with God’s jealousy, ‘with such a jea-
lousy as God has.’ But though @cod (jA@
and 7G tod Oeod ChAw are for most pur-
poses identical, I cannot but think that
the latter expression would have been
chosen to express such an idea as ‘ with
the zeal which God has. And the ren-
dering, ‘ with a godly zeal,’ i. e. one which
has God’s honour at heart, satisfies well
what follows: see below. Tppo-
odpnv| I betrothed you (viz. at your
conversion : mpouvhetwp suay eyerduny
kal Tov yduov peoitns, Theodoret.. Or-
dinarily, the father, or the bridesman
(mapavdudios) is said apud (ew: the middle
voice is used of the bridegroom only.
So among other examples in Wetst.,—
elxev ev Sduois AvyioOos, 00d’ tpuole vup-
gly tivt, Kur. Electr. 24,—and apuoca-
mévov Acutoxidew Tépkadoy thy XtAwvos
Ouyarépa, Kal cxav yuvaika..., Herod.
vi. 65. But in Philo we have yduos by
apud (erat ndovy, de Abr, § 20, vol. ii. p. 15)
to one husband, to present (i. e. in order
that I may present in you) a chaste virgin
to Christ (viz. at His coming: 6 ev obv
mapov Kaipos uvnotelas éeotiv' 6 Se péeA-
Awy TeV yaucov, ote Kpauyh yiverat,
idod 6 vuutos. Theophyl.). TO Xp.
is not in constructive apposition with éy)
avdpl, but explains and fixes it: the em-
phasis being on mapOévoy ayvihv.
8.] But he fears their being seduced Srom
their fidelity to Christ. 6 dgis}| He
takes for granted that the Corinthians re-
cognized the agency of Satan in the (well-
known) serpent: see vv. 13 —15, where his
peracxnpatiouds for the sake of deceit is
alluded to. év TH Tav. avtov} in
(i. e. by means of, as the element in which
698
i particip.,
Gal. v. 8, 10,
1 Thess. v.
24.
k Acts ix. 20
reff.
1 Acts viii. 15
reff.
m = Gal. i.Gal.
h ver. 1.
o constr., Rom. xiv. 14 reff.
reh, xii. 11 only t.
mv a“
ETEOOY O
yéduov
4. for inc., xpicrov F 4! vulg arm Ambrst Pelag.
in & the 2nd erepoy is written twice, but marked for erasure by N! or corr},
IIPO> KOPINOIOY®S B.
p Acts xxiv. 5. 2 Tim. ii. 7.
XI.
i?’ , ” k? - , a > , ,
eoxousvoc adXov “ Inaovy *“ knotace ov ov« exnovSaner,
x | - mv 1 x , a inom eX , xn >
n mvevma " Ereoov 'AauBavere 0 ovK eAaPere, 7) evay-
ovux edekacbe, Kadtwc ™ avéxeobe,
- 4 ~
re AoyiZouat Pyao pndev ° VaTEpyKéevat Tw * umeoAlav
q constr., Rom. iii. 23. (ch. i. 7 reff.)
for edaBerte, cdetacbe F.
rec
nverxeode (see ver 1), with rel Chr-ed Thdrt-ed: avecxec6e DGKLMN b! e f g m o
Chr-ms Damase, everyeore F: txt B17 Cyr, patimini fri.
5. for yap, de B 178.
the deed was done) his versatility (or
subtlety),—so (o%7w has been a gloss from
the margin) your thoughts (‘ sentiments,
ref. and ch. x. 5) be corrupted from (preg-
nant construction, = be corrupted, and
seduced from) your simplicity (singleness
of affection) and your chastity towards
Christ (eis xp. is not = ev xpiaT@, as
Vulg., E. V., Beza, Calvin, al.).
4, 5.)] The thought here seems to be
this :—‘ If these new teachers had brought
with them a new Gospel, superseding that
which I preached, they might have some
claim to your regard. But, since there is
but one gospel, that which I preached to
you, and which they pretend to preach
also, I submit that 7x that one no claim to
regard is prior to mine.’ Observe, that
the whole hypothesis is tronical : it is fixed
and clear that there can be no such new
gospel: therefore the inference is the
stronger. For (the whole sentence is
steeped in irony :—‘ the serpent deceived
Eve by subtlety: I fear for you, but not
because the new teachers use such subtlety
—if they did, if the temptation were really
formidable, there would be some excuse.’
All this lies in the yap) if indeed («i pév
introduces a reality, and is full here of
deep irony. Cf. Il. a. 135, @AX’ ei pev
Sdcovar yepas meyabuuo Axaol: ‘if the
Achzeans shall really give me another gift ;’
and uw. 138—142, ef péev dy Avtimdxoro
daippovos vices EoTdv . . . vow pev dh Tov
marpos aeéa tloere AOBnV... , ‘if ye
really are, &c., . . . ye verily will’. ...
See Hartung, Partikellehre, ii. 414) he
that cometh (viz. the false teachers gene-
rically thus designated : but here too per-
haps there is irony: 6 épxyduevos was a
pijua ceuvdv) is preaching (the indicative
pres. carries on the ironical assumption,
so AauB. below) another Jesus whom we
preached not, or ye are receiving a dif-
ferent Spirit (AAos, distinctive of indi-
viduality, €repos of kind), which ye re-
ceived not (from us), or another gospel
wich ye accepted not (€Adf., éed€t.,—
‘verba diversa, rei apta. Non concurrit
aft vorepnievat ins ev vary D'(and lat) fri(with fuld tol).
voluntas hominis in accipiendo Spiritu,
ut in recipiendo evangelio.’ Bengel. But
singularly enough, in English, usage has
attached the voluntary act to the verb
‘accept’), ye with reason bear with him
(irony again: for they not only bore with,
but preferred them to their father in
the faith. The sense is: ‘there seems
to be some excuse in that case,—but even
in that, really there is none,—for your
tolerating him.” On the rec., Bengel
remarks : ‘ Ponit conditionem, ex parte rei,
impossibilem: ideo dicit in imperfecto,
toleraretis : sed pro conatu pseudaposto-
lorum, non modo possibilem, sed plane
preesentem: ideo dicit in presenti, pre-
dicat.’ Similarly Meyer. See Winer, edn.
6, § 42. 2). That the rendering above
given is right, seems to me beyond ques-
tion. It is the only one which reaches
the depth of the exquisite irony of the sen-
tence, at the same time that it satisfies all
grammatical requirements. 5.| See
above. (‘Seeing that there is but one
gospel, and they and I profess to preach
one Jesus and impart one Spirit, they have
no such claim: mine is superior’): for I
reckon that in no respect do I fall short
of (the perf. sets forth the past and pre-
sent truth of the fact) these overmuch
Apostles. TOV UmEpAiav amor. has
very commonly been taken to mean bona
fide ‘the greatest Apostles, i. e. Peter,
James, and John, or perhaps the Twelve :
but (1) this hardly seems to suit the ex-
pression émepAfay, in which I cannot help
seeing, with De W., some bitterness: (2)
it would be alien from the spirit of the
passage, in which he institutes no com-
parison whatever between himself and ¢he
other Apostles, but only between himself
and the false teachers. (3) had any such
comparison been here intended, the * punc-
tum comparationis’ would not have been,
personal eminence in fruits of apostolic
work and sufferings, still less, seeing that
the other Apostles were unlearned also,
the distinction which immediately follows,
between an idmrys, and one pretending
BDFK
LMNab
cedefg
hkIim
nol7
5—8. TIIPOS KOPINOIOY®S B. 699
droorodwy. 6 et 88 sal "Wide ne TW ‘oy, "adr ov THs s Acts iv. 13
* yrooe, adn” ‘ev “ wart * pavepwoavrTec Yev Y raow cic hog be inl
reff.
72
' ab? 2 > ‘ cd
n * auapriay ETOLNGA, ELAVUTOV
vbwOnre, ore
vac.
vueig ©
TATELVWY iva v= 1 Gor xii.
w ch. iv. 8 reff
f \ ~ ~
dwocav ro tov ® Meov * evayyédtov Yes 8S
hy? , Cys § i’ , Kae \— ymasc., 1 Cor.
eunyysrtoaunv ULLY 4 aAdXAac eKKAnolac esvAnoa AaBov ps os
12. Heb. xiii. 4. zso 1 Cor. vi. 2. a John viii. 34. ane v.15. 1 Pet. ii.22. 1John
ce Matt. xxiii. 12
das above (c). Matt.
e Acts ii. 25. xiii.
iii. 4, 8,9. 3 Kings xvi. 19 . bsol Cor. vi. 18. Gen. xxxix.
bis. Luke xiv. 1] bis. xviii. 14 bis. Jamesiv.10. 1 Pet. v.6. Ps. feaeeil 15.
xviii. 4. Luke iii. 5, from isa. x1. 4. ch. xii. 21. Phil. ii, 8. iv. 12 only.
7 al. Deut. xvii. 20. {= Rom. iii. 24 reft. Rom. xv. 16 reff. h constr.,
1 Cor. xv. 1 reff, i plur., Rom. xvi. 16 reff. here only t+. Ep. Jer. 18 only. see Acts
xix. 37. Rom. ii. 22. Col. ii. 8. (-evecv, Exod. iii. 22 Symm. ?)
6. om de D!(and lat with G-lat) am(with demid F-lat) copt goth Jer. aft iwrns
ins eu: D'(and lat) G-lat vulg(some mss). rec pavepwlevtes, with D°K LN? rel fri
syrr copt Chr Thdrt Sedul(manifesti sumus): pavepwOes (manifestus or -status sum)
D!2(and lat) G-lat(altern) am(with demid flor F-lat) lat-ff: -pw0evr: 1. 108: txt BFN
17 and, adding eavrovs, M 108? 8-pe goth arm: gavepwoa: eavtous 67°. (The variety
appears to have arisen from the difficulty of pavepwoaytes, which became pay. eavtous,
and then -gwhevtes.) om ev raow F yulg fri Syr Ambrst.
7. aft # ins uy F vulg fri. for euavtov, eavtoy FL h 93.
to more skill,—but priority of arrival and
teaching in Corinth. (4) the expression
wWevdardoroAos ver. 13, seems to me to
refer to, and give the plain sense of, this
ironical designation of barepAiay amrdoToAo:.
(5) the same expression ch. xii. 11 appears
even more plainly than here to require this
explanation. The above explanation is
that of Beza, Michaelis, Schulz, Fritzsche,
Billroth, Riickert, Olsh., Meyer, De Weite.
brepAiav is not found in classic Greek :
but Wetstein cites from Eustath. Od. a.
p- 27, 35: €or: yap mote kal 7G Alay
KaTa Thy Tpaywdlay xpacba Karas, Kal?
0 onmawomevoy A€youey Tiva wvmepAlav
aopév. Meyer instances as analogous,
bmeparyav (2 Mace.+x. 34), bwépev (bmépev
memoAitevyot, Demosth. 228. 17), and the
frequent use by Paul of compounds of
brep. It has been the practice of Pro-
testant Commentators (e. g. Bengel, Mack-
night) to adduce this verse against the
primacy of Peter, and of the Romanists
(e. g. Corn.-a-Lapide) to evade the in-
ference by supposing the pre-eminence to
be only in gifts and preaching, not in
power and jurisdiction, All this will fall
to the ground with the supposed reference
to the other Apostles. 6.] Explains
that, though in one particular he may fall
short of them, viz.in rhetorical finish and
word-wisdom, yet in real knowledge, not
so. i8ieTys ] a laic,—a man not
professionally acquainted with that which
he undertakes, see reff. The Apostle dis-
claims mere rhetorical aptitude and power
in 1 Cor. ii. 1 ff. Aha brings out the
contrast, see refi. i—et TOL OU Ye TewiTOD
Hh mpoopas, GAN tiv tovTd eat ov
meptomréov, Herod. v. 39. TH yee |
the depth of his knowledge of the mystery
of the gospel, see Eph. iii. 1—4.
GAN év wavtt| But in every matter we
made things manifest (i. e. the things of
the gospel, thereby shewing our yy@ots ; —
not, tiv yr@ouw. Meyer and De W. sup-
pose pavepéaavtes to have been a gloss
for avepwhéytes, especially as it is fol-
lowed in some mss. by éavrov’s, and to
have been the more readily received into
the text, because it might easily be taken
with yvéo.v. But how improbable that
the easy Pavepw0évres should have been
replaced by the harsh -cavres. Much
rather would the latter be replaced by
gpavepwévres from ch. vy. 11) before all
men (ev maow, being separated from év
mavtt by the verb, cannot be coupled with
it, as in ref. Phil., but must mean among
all) unto you (i. e. with a view to your
benefit: not = ‘to you,’ in which sense
the peli a always found after gavepdw :
see Rom. iii. 21, mepavepwrat Sa
mayras K. em) mavTas... .). ital]
Another particular in which he was not
behind, but excelled, the tmepAlay aad-
atodo; viz. the gratuitous exercise of his
ministry among them. On the sense, see
1 Cor. ix. 1 ff. and notes. The supposition
is one of sharp irony. ép. Taewov |
See Acts xviii. 3. The exaltation which
they received by his demeaning himself
was that of reception inta the blessings
of the gospel, which was more effectually
wrought thereby : not merely, their being
thus more favoured temporarily, or in
comparison with other churches. ott
Swp., kc. is epexegetical of euavtdy Ta-
mewo@v ;—in that I gratuitously, &e.:
not, as Meyer, auapt. éroinca bt, maldng
euaurdy ... dYw0. parenthetical. It was
his wish to preach to them gratuitously,
700 IIPO=
let yd m
1 Loke iii. 14.
fm. ri oywyiov
or. ix
only t. Esdr. uuag Kal F
iv.
1 itnce. iii. ‘ voréonna pov
KOPINOIOY®S B.
A A € ~
TOO0¢ THY UUWY
‘ >
vateonGeic ov * KaTevapknoa
7 cf
2 ToocaveTAnowaav ol
XT.
° mpoc
ovevog ° (70 yao
aded pot EM Dovree
D 8 , \o ‘
takoviay, K@l TaOwy
28. xiv. 32
ly. ‘ot? t ‘
m =cb. vill. 19 amo Makééoviac ) Kal &v a “aBaon é Emavrov uty
res ee vi3 OP ye ? 2
n= 2Tim-ie, “eTnonoa Kal THONTW. 10 © tor * adnfea * Xptarou | “ev
o Acts xii.20. 2 ot ES. f , e
(RHEE, EMOL, OTL N ~ KAVYNGIC auTH ov * poaynaerat rita EME ev
20 only, ~ ’ ~ > a2 b ‘ fe Py + : ~
p=Lakexy. TOC *xAtuaow tne Ayatac. ea tly Ort ovK ayaTw
12. Heb. xi. 37. Sir. xiii, 4.
r 1 Cor. xvi. 17 reff.
v = | Tim. v. 22. da 27. Wisd.x. 5.
Rom. iii, 7. xv. y Rom. iii. 27 reff,
6. (tugparr. Pr, nee vi, 22 Theod.)
a Rom. xv. 23 reff,
q ch. xii. 13, 14 onlyt. (vapkgv, Gen. xxxii. 25,32. Job xxxiii.19.)
sch. ix. 12 onlyt. Wisd. xix. 4 only
w Acts xiil. 15.
tch. iv. 8 reff.
1 Cor. viii.7. 1 John i. 8. X see
z Rom. iii. 19. Heb. xi. 33 only. Has. ii,
b Rom. ix. 32 reff,
u here poe! ‘
8. ree ovSevos: txt BMX m 17 Damasce(appy).
9. ree vu bef euavrov, with DF LN? rel: om vay K m! Chr Thl-ms: txt BMX! m?
17 vulg D-lat.
10. Steph (for ppaynoeta) oppayiocetat, with d: oppaynoeras 14. 74. 238: txt BD
FKLMN rel.
ll. om ot: B. om 6 D! Thdrt.
which necessitated his tamewobdv éavrdy,
i. e. not exercising the apostolic power
which he might have exercised, but living
on subsidies from others, besides (which
he does not here distinctly allude to) his
working with his own hands at Corinth.
See Stanley. 8.| The ‘ other churches’
were the Macedonian, cf. ver, 9. Among
them the Philippians were probably con-
spicuous, retaining as doubtless they did,
their former affection to him ; see Phil. iy.
15, 16. éovAyoa is hyperbolic, to
bring out the contrast, and shame them.
éy., see reff., wages; more pro-
erly here subsidy. ™mpos T. Up.
seed ] in order to (to support me in) my
ministration to you, gen. obj.
&Aas and tpav stand in the emphatic
positions, as contrasted. In the former
sentence, he implied that he brought with
him from Mabodotins supplies towards his
maintenance at Corinth: AaBav ... mpds
7. du. diax.: here, he speaks of a new supply
during his residence with the Corinthians,
when those resources Jailed. KaT-
evapknoa | apparently = kat eBdpnoa, ch.
xii. 16, Hesych. interprets it éBdpuva.
Jerome, Ep. exxi. (cli.) ad Algasiam, queest,
10, vol. i. p. 879, says, ‘multa sunt verba,
quibus juxta morem urbis et provincia suze
familiarius Apostolus utitur: e quibus ex.
gr. pauca ponenda sunt... . Et, od nar-
evdpxnoa buds, hoc est, non gravavivos.,..
quibus et aliis multis usque hodie utuntur
Cilices.’ Theophylact and Geum. mention
a rendering, ov« peAnoa, } paduuorépws
mpos 7d Kkhpuvyua yéeyova: and Beza, follow-
ing the etymology , interprets ob« évdpxnoa
Kar’ ovdevds, Scum cujusquam incommodo,’
But the former meaning suits the context
better. The word is found nowhere else
for ets ewe, ev euar F a! 2
120. om tys F,
in Greek. dmovapxkdw occurs in Plutarch,
de Liber. Educatione, p. 8, F (Wetst.), azro-
vapk@ot kK. ppitrovar mpos Tovs Tévous.
On the government of the genitive by verbs
compounded with card, see Matthiz, § 376.
9.] For (reason why he burdened
no one) the brethren (who, he does not
say: their names were well known to the
Corinthians. Possibly, Timotheus and Silas,
Acts xviii. 5) when they came from Mace-
donia (not as E. V., ‘which came, oi
eA@dvres) brought a fresh supply of my
want (or perhaps zposav. is used without
the idea of additional supply, as in ch.
ix. 12, the mpés merely denoting direc-
tion): and in every thing I kept myself
(‘during my resideneé :’ not, ‘have kept
myself, as E. V.) unburdensome to you,
and will keep myself. 10.| The truth
of Christ is in me, that ...; i.e.‘ I speak
according to that truth of which Christ
Himself was our example, when I say,
that .. .;’—there is no oath, nor even as-
severation, as E. V. and most Commenta-
tors introduce. The expression is exactly
analogous to Rom. ix. 1. 7 Kavx.
.| this boasting (not = kavxnua,
here or any where else) shall not be
stopped (supply 7d ordua, which is not
expressed, because kavynois being itself a
matter of utterance, suits the sense of the
verb without it) as regards (or against)
me (kavx. is as it were personified—shall
not have its mouth stopped as regards me)
in the regions of Achaia (where the xav-
xnois is imagined as being and speaking).
11.] He, presupposes, and negatives, a
reason likely to be given for this resolu-
tion ; viz. that he loves them not, and there-
Sore will be under no obligation to them :
for we willingly incur obligations to those
BDFK
LMNab
edefg
hklm
no 17
9—138. FPO: KOPINGIOY > B: 701
vac; * Oeoe Solder, 126 88 row, Kal TOUMoW, iva © H.xii. 2 8.
22.
iene my © apopuny TOY Oehovrwy * apopany, iva © Ep akom. xi. 22,
23 reff.
e ~- e
e * kauxwvrat x evoeOwow kafuc Kal NMELC. Bt ot ya bs rl
* rowovrot ee icacrodory© é arat ” d6Ato1 EeTAo = fey “ee
? Py 2 “He xX” g Rom. ii. 17
reff. h — 1 Cor. iv. 2 reff. i Acts xxii. 22 reff. k here om see Rev. ii. 2.
Lat. ix. 37 al.t Wisd. xvii. 17 al. = Phil. iii. 2 m here only. Proy. xii. 6. (-covv, Rom.
iii. ne n here dce. 1 Cor. iv. 6. Phil. iii. 21 Pes Eo ¢ 1 Kings xxviii. 8 Symm,. Jos. Antt.
Vii.
whom we love. olSev, scil. Ot: iuas
ayare. 12.] The true reason :—
But that which I do, I will also con-
tinue to do (kal movjow must not, as
Erasmn., be coupled to me:d, and dia TodTo
moiw supplied before tva,—because it is for
his resolution respecting the future that
the reason is especially given) in order
that I may cut off the occasion (trv,
which would be furnished if I did not so)
of those who wish for an cccasion (viz.
of depreciating me by misrepresenting my
motives if I took ee of you). Many
(Chrys., Theophyl., Calv., Grot., Billroth,
al.) take this occasion to be one of aggran-
dizing themselves above Paul if all took
money, assuming that the false teachers,
as well as Paul, took none: which is ex-
tremely unlikely, from the prominence
which he gives to the boast of his own
abstinence in this point,—and seems di-
rectly opposed to ver. 20 and to 1 Cor. ix.
12. wa év @ x.7.A.] that, in the
matter of which they boast, they may be
found even as we. Such appears gene-
rally acknowledged to be the rendering :
but as to the meaning, there is great
variety of opinion. (1) Many of the an-
cient Commentators assume that they
taught gratis, and were proud of it,—and
that Paul would also teach gratis, to put
both on an equality and take this occasion
of boasting from them. This would suit
the sense of the present verse, but seems
(see above) at variance with the fact. (2)
Theodoret, whom Meyer, al., follow, sup-
poses them to have pretended to the credit
of self-denial, while really making gain,
and that Paul means, that he will reduce
them from pretended to real self-denial.
But this too is inconsistent with the con-
text. Paul’s boast of disinterested teach-
ing was peculiarly kis own, and there is
nothing to shew that the false teachers
ever professed or made any boast of the
like. His resolution did not spring out of
an actual comparison instituted by them
between their own practice and what they
might falsely allege to be his, but was
adopted even before his coming to Corinth,
arguing @ priori that it was best to cut off
any possible occasion of such depreciation
of him from his probable adversaries. (3)
Others, Cajetan, Estius, after Aug. de
Serm. Dom. in Monte ii. 16 [541], vol. iii.
1292,—also Bengel, —join w@a....
jueis with apopuhv,—‘ occasion that they
may be found even as we, and explain
ev & Kavx. asa parenthesis, ‘that they
may be found (a point in which they
boast) even as we:’ i. e. § that in point of
selfishness and covetousness, we may be
both on a level.’ But this meaning would
require rather cipeP@uev Kabws Kal adrol,
‘we may be reduced to their level’ (4)
Olsh., adopting in the main the last
interpretation, would understand éy
Kavxavrat of the taking of money of which
they boasted, accounting it an apostolic
prerogative. But to this the last stated
objection applies even more forcibly: and
besides, the supposition is wholly arbitrary.
(5) De Wette, believing the second iva to
be parallel with the first, as in (1) and (2),
understands év ¢ kavx@vra: as applying
to their boast of apostolic efficiency: ‘that
they may, in their apostolic work which
they vaunt with such pretension, be found
even as we,’ and thinks the transition to
what follows thus made easy. But the ob-
jection to this is, that the punctum compa-
rationis in the rest of the chapter is not
apostolic efficiency, but rather matters
kata odpka. (6) 1 cannot adopt any one
of the above accounts of the sentence, for
the negative reasons already given, and be-
cause all of them seem to me to have missed
the clue to the meaning which the chapter
itself furnishes. This clue I find in vv. 18
ff. The cavx@vra is there taken up, de-
scribed as being kata odpka: the Ka@ws
kal jueis is taken up by ‘Efpaiol ciow;
Kaye’ &e. From thisit is manifest to me,
that his meaning in our present clause is,
‘ that in the matter(s) of which they boast
they may be found even as we:’ i. e. ‘we
may be on a fair and equal footing :’ ‘ that
there may be no adventitious comparisons
made between us arising out of misrepre-
sentations of my course of procedure among
you, but that in every matter of boasting,
we may be fairly compared and judged by
facts.’ And then, before the ydp of ver.
13 will naturally be supplied, ‘ And this
702
o Rey. xvii. 6
only. Job
XVii. 8. xviii.
2U only.
p see Eph, v.
8. 1 Thess.
, s .Y € ~
auTtoc y¢0o Oo oaTavac
P i .e 15 4
v. Sal. pwroe 0
q = 1 Cor. ix.
11 only.
Gen. vig ”
Isa. xlix. 6.
r see Gal. ii. 17. ©F7AE
s see ch. iii. ¥.
t = Rom. vi.
¥ d0én ™ appova elvat*
21 reff. 9 ‘ A
uRom.ii6. *% XZ t 7 a
een, deEacbé pe, iva Kayw * wuKpov
13. Ps.
xxvii. 4.
v = 1 Cor. iii.
18 reff. w Lake xi. 40. Rom. ii. 20 al. L.P., exc. 1 Pet. ii.15. Prov. passim.
17. Luke vy. 36, 37. x. 6. xiii. 9. xiv. 82 only.
vii. 15 al. aver. 1.
dso John vii. 10. e ver. 1 reff.
14. rec (for @avua) Cavuaoroy, with D?3KLM rel: txt BD!FX a 17 Orig.
IIPOS KOPINGOIOYS B.
, ’ , ‘2 ~
prariZouevot £l¢ aToatoAoue XOlstou.
u ‘ \ of > -
Kata Ta Epya aQuUTWDV.
y
b absol., 1 Cor, i. 20. iy. 7 al.
XT.
M4 kat ov ° Catma’
n U ’ ”
petasxnuaricerae eg ayyeAov
(+ oes oS Es ‘ « , ? - on
U Méya OUV & Kal OL draKovut QUTOU- [LETA~
iy e Ts , s , 4 ey /
oXNMaTICOVTal we OuaKovat dukawovvnc, @Wv TO téAoc
16 Tédw Neyw, un TIC [Me
, vn ”
ep ote = nye, Yay we “ apoova
a b , 17 a
Fe Kavyowuat. oO
Aarw, ov “Karta °Ktprov AaAw, aAN “we Vév ° apoosvyy,
x Matt. vi. 1. ix.
z see Matt. x. 14. ch.
¢ see ch, vii. Y—J).
Acts v. 15 reff.
for
eis ayyeAov, ws ayyedos D'(and lat) Cypr Ambrst.
15. om ovy D'(and lat) spee Syr goth Lucif Philastr.
lat).
16. om ye D.
BDFKLMX rel latt Syr arm gr-lat-ff.
for eotat, ect D'(and
rec pixpoy tt bef kayw, with (none of our mss) syr (ec: txt
17. rec AaAw bef kara xvpioy, with DLM rel vulg(not F-lat) fri syr copt goth: txt
BFKR a d (m) 17 Chr Damase.
will end in their discomfiture : for realities
they have none, no weapons but misrepre-
sentation, being false Apostles, &e.
13.] For (see above: the yap implying also
that the choice of the above line of conduct
has been made in a conviction of their
falsehood and its efficacy to detect it) such
men are false Apostles (not, as Vulg. and
most expositors, ‘ such false Apostles are
épy. S0X.,’ which destroys the whole em-
phasis of the sentence, wherein the trep-
Alav ardororo of ver. 5 are pronounced
now to be wev8ardcroAe: and besides,
suggests an irrelevant comparison between
oi ToLvovTor W. and w. of some other kind.
6 TotovTos is a familiar designation with
the Apostle, see reff.),—dishonest work-
men (in that they pretend to be teachers
of the Gospel, and are in the mean time
subserving their own ends),—changing
themselves into (in appearance : the pres.
participle indicates their habit and con-
tinual endeavours to assume the shape)
Apostles of Christ. By a fair compari-
son between us, this mask will be stript
off ;—by the abundance of my sufferings,
and distinetions vouchsafed by the Lord,
my Apostolicity will be fully proved, and
their Pseudapostolism shewn. 14,
15.] ob Batpa—so Aristoph. Plut. 99, Kal
Oaiud y obddév, od8 Cyd yap 6 Brérwr.
avtés yap 6 a.| If any definite
allusion is here intended, it is perhaps to
Job i. 6, &e.: but I would rather suppose
the practice of Satan in tempting and se-
ducing men to be intended. 14. ayy.
¢wtds} God is light, and inhabits light,
and His angelic attendants are surrounded
with brightness, see Acts xii. 7; Ps. civ.
4: whereas Satan is the Power of dark-
mess, see reff. and Luke xxii. 53.
15.] ei wat, if also, i.e. as well as him-
self, or perhaps better applying to the
whole sentence, if, also. . . peTAcy.
@s, i.e. petacx. Kal ylvovrat &s:—so
Rom. ix. 29, ds Téuopfa by d&uoiwOnuer.
avros, the father of falsehood and
wrong (John viii. 44), is directly opposed
to dikaocvvn Oeov, Matt. vi. 33, that
manifestation of God by which He is
known to us in the Gospel, Rom. i. 17.
&v 76 TeX. | Of whom (notwith-
standing this disguise) the end shall be
correspondent to their works (not to their
pretensions). 16—21.] Excuses for
his intended self-boasting. 16. ]
mwahiv—referring to ver. 1, not repeating
what he had there said, but again taking
up the subject, and expanding that re-
quest. The avéxoua of ver. 1 in fact
implies both requests of this verse :—the
not regarding him as a fool for boasting,
or even if they did («i d€ whye after a
negative sentence implies ‘ but if it cannot
be so, ‘if you will not grant this,’ see
reff, Kay elliptical: the full construe-
tion would be kav as tpova détacPa
dén, SétacGé we: so in reff.) as a fool (i.e.
yielding to me the toleration and hearing
which men would not refuse even to one of
whose folly they were convinced) receiving
him. Kayo, as well as they. 17. |
Proceeding on the &s &ppova, he disclaims
for this self-boasting the character of inspi-
ration—or of being said in pursuance of his
mission fromthe Lord. kara Kup.) asin
BDFK
LMNab
edefg
hklm
nol7
14—21.
> ’ ane , - ,
év TauT)) ™7 brocracst TIC g KaVUY 1GEWC,
IIPOS KOPINOIOY®S B.
703
’ \ \ :
as émet TOAAGL Heh (8
b ~ Nah. (XS hy t2 2 ok ib , iii. 14 sa
KaUYWUTAaL kata TyV oapka, Kayw pints Shi: tn: 1 only.
ito ‘ Koon SF ~ > , 1 XEXViii. Aa
191 B8ewe yao “ avéyeabe trwv “ appovwr, ppovipior Ovrec’ g Rom. iit 27
20k ? re 0 y: y Lace 8 r Si h John viii. 15
aveyecve yap, el TIC Uuag KatacovAol, eb THe? Kareas PINE
0 ” oO , ” p? ’ ” Cee ena , Rom. i. 3 reff.
let, e¢ TIC ° Aauf3aver, et TiC ETAIDETAL, EL TIC | ELC | TOOC=. Calvi. 8
¢- ror 9 Vt? ’ , ‘ou? Gigi gi P
w7Tov vuag dépet. 1s cara aTiulav NEyw “we ont nace =i e7 en
ee ix.17. (-d:07a, ch. xii. 9.)
o=ch. xii. 16.
cule: Isa. ix. 12.
s = 1 Cor. vii. 6.
r Acts v. 40 reff.
18. om tnhv DFN! 17 Chr Damase.
k ver. 1.
aus m Gal. ii.4only. Gen. xvii. 21.
1 Rom. xi.25al. Prov. xv. 21. iron., J Cor.
n Mark xij. 40 | L. Gal. v. 15. Rev. xil.S
=ch. x. 5 reff. q see Matt. xxvi. 67.
i
P
t Rom. i. 26 reff. uch. v.19. 2 Thess. ii. 2.
20. rec vuas bef eis mposwrov, with D?KLM rel goth Chr Thdrt: txt BD'3FX mo
17 latt syr Damase lat-ff.
reff. after the (mind of the) Lord, in pur-
suance, 1. e. in this case, of Ocomvevatia
from above : not asin 1 Cor. vii. 10, 25, 40.
as év adp.| as it were in folly,i.e.
‘putting myself into the situation, and
speaking the words of a foolish man vaunt-
ing of himself.’ , trootaget, as ch. ix.
4, in this present confidence, not as Chrys.
‘ subject, —‘this subject of boasting,’ iva
fe) voulons TavTaXov avontaive avtTdy,—
and so al.: but the sense would be in-
sipid in the last degree: nor could such a
meaning well be expressed without -ye,—
ev Tavtn ye TH Uw. De Wette also ren-
ders bm. ‘subject-matter, and under-
stands, ‘since we are come to boasting ;’
but here again ye would be more naturally
found. He objects to ‘confidence, that
the boasting was not begun: but as
Meyer replies, it is conceived of as having
begun in Paul’s mind, by the use of the
present AadAé, I am speaking.
18.] Since many (viz. the false teachers,
but not only they : —‘ since it is a common
habit,’—for he is here speaking as eis raév
appdvwv, see Job ii. 10) boast according to
the flesh (not = év capxi, as Chrys., al.,
but ‘in a spirit of fleshly regard,’—‘ having
regard to their extraction, achievements,
&e.’ as below vv. 22 ff.), I also will boast
(scil. kata thy odpka, Riickert thinks
these words are omitted purposely, thereby
to imply that the Apostle’s boasting was
not fleshly ; but this is distinctly contra-
dicted by the context: he is speaking as
one of the woAAol of of &ppoves, see next
verse). 19.] Bitterly ironical. They
were ¢pdvimor—as 1 Cor. iv. 8, Kexopec-
pévoir—so full of wisdom as to be able to
tolerate complacently, looking down from
the ‘sapientum templa serena,’ the follies
of others. This, forsooth, encourages him
to hope for their forbearance and patron-
age. Compare the earnestness of 1 Cor.
iii. 1—4. And the irony does not stop
here: it is not only matter of presump-
tion that they would tolerate fools with
complacency, but the matter of fact testi-
fied it : they were doing this: and more.
20.| for (proof that they could
have no objection to so innocent a man as
a fool, when they tolerated such noxious
ones as are adduced) ye endure (them), if
(as is the case) one brings you into
slavery (the mere abstract act_as regarded
them, not the man’s own selfish view,
being in the Apostle’s mind, the active, not
the middle, is used. Thucyd. iii. 70, uses
the active similarly : Aéyoures tobs *A6n-
vatous thy Kéepxupay katadovAody. But
the enslaving understood, is to the man
himself, not to the law :—see ref. Gal.), if
one devours you (by exaction on your pro-
perty, see reff. Mk. L. So Hom. Od. y.
315: wh To. kata TWavTa pdywot KTHMaTa,
and Plaut.,Ter., and Quintil., in Wetstein),
if one catches you (as with a snare, ref.:
not, ‘takes from you’), if one uplifts
himself (so freq. in Thucyd., e. g. vi. 11,
xp? wh mpds Tas TUXas TaY evayTiwy
eraipec9a. See other examples in Wetst.),
if one smites you on the face (in insult,
see 1 Kings xxii. 24: Matt. v. 39; Luke
xxii. 64; Acts xxiii. 2. This is put as the
climax of forbearance. ‘That such vio-
lence might literally be expected from the
rulers of the early Christian society, is also
implied in the command in 1 Tim. iii. 3,
Tit. i. 7, that the ‘bishop’ is not to be ‘a
striker.’ Even so late as the seventh cen-
tury the council of Braga (c. 7), 4.D. 675,
orders that no bishop at his will and
pleasure shall strike his clergy, lest he lose
the respect which they owe him.” Stanley).
21.| By way of disparagement (a7’
&Ti.,—SO Kata Antinv exTAdoaytes, Herod.
li. 152; nara O€av Hrev, Thucyd. vi. 31) I
say (assume) that (as 871, see ch. y. 19,
note,— does not positively state a fact, but
assumes one, or states the import of a say-
ing) WE (emphatic) were weak (when we
were among you). An ironical reminis-
704
IIPOS KOPINOIOY®S B.
XI.
. ~ ’ >
v= Rom.iv. Y aoQevnoapev’ ~ ev o & av tic * roAua, (ev ¥ apoosuvy
vv ~ Dzt ~ > >
x = ch. 2 Aéyw) *toANG Kayo. 224"EBoaioi cow; Kayw. * looand-
£ ie -~ , > ,
zAcivil (rat eow; Kayo. "oréona ABpadp sow 5 Kaya. 79° daKo-
Cee Sxix. vow SYplaTou EOL” § (‘ rapappovev Aad@) © UrEO eyo" EV
rl xP ? ae OFF
a Johni. 48. Acts ii. 22. Rom. xi. 1 al. b Rom. ix. 7 reff. ce Col.i.7. 1 Tim. iy. 6. see ch. vi. 4.
dhere only. Zech. vii. 11 only. (-via, 2 Pet. ii. 16.) eas ady., here only. Winer, eda. 6, § 50, note 2.
21. nobevnoauer bef nues F: noevnkawey BN m 80.—add ev trovtw Tw weper D vulg-
ed(not am fuld) Ambrst Pelag. om ® D)(and lat) vulg Syr Ambrst. om
Aeyw N!: ins N-corr!obl,
cence of his own abstinence when among Jewish extraction, are arranged so as to
them from all these acts of self-exaltation form a climax: so that ‘EBpaio refers to
at their expense, q. d. (ironically), ‘I feel the nationality,—lcpandtrat to the theo-
that I am much letting myself down by the cracy (Rom. ix. 4 ff.), and owépua ’ABp.
confession that J was too weak ever todo to the claim to a part in the Messiah
any of these things among you. This I (Rom. ix. 7; xi. 1, al.).’ Meyer. The
believe with Schrader, De Wette, and intcrrogative form of the sentence is much
Meyer, to be the only satisfactory render- more lively and consistent with the spirit
ing. See also Stanley. Most expositors ofthe context than the affirmative, as given
(1) refer A¢yw back to ver. 20, ‘I say it,,— by Erasm., Luther, Estius, al. 23. ]
©T speak, as E. V. So Chrys., Theo- Meyer remarks, that all three points of
phyl., Theodoret, Pelag., Erasm., Calv., al. Judaistic comparison, of so little real con-
(Chrys. remarks on &s é71,—doapts rd sequence in the matter, were dismissed
eipnuevov. ered) yap poptixdy jv, Sa with the short and contemptuous Kayo,—
TovTO obTws avTd TéHEKEV, Iva KAeWH Thy ‘that am I too. But that is not enough,
erdxGev TH aoapela), and (2) under- now that we are come to the great point of
stand Kxaté atm., ‘to your shame, and comparison; the consciousness of his real
(8) &s 811, ‘as though” But (1) can _ standing, and their nullity as ministers of
hardly be, seeing that Aéyw below and Christ requires the bép éya, and the holy
AaA@ ver. 23 have a forward reference: earnestness of this consciousness pours
(2) would require duév, and even then itself forth as a stream over the adver-
would be exceedingly harsh,—ef. the simi- _ saries, so as to overwhelm their conceited
lar meaning 1 Cor. xv. 34, where we have aspirations to apostolic dignity.
mpds évrpomhy iuiv AakG: and (3) it may tmapadp.A.] stronger than év appoo. A€yw:
be doubted whether &s 87: ever can mean —I say it as a madman. Hardly, as
‘as though,’ even in ref. 2 Thess., where Meyer, spoken from a consciousness of the
Winer, edn. 6, § 65. 9 [see German edn.], verdict wapappove? which the opponents
is disposed to give it that meaning: it would pronounce on this brép éydé,—but
is pleonastic, answering to our expression rather, as De W., from a deep sense of his
‘how that ’—‘I told him, how that’.... own unworthiness, and conscious how ut-
Winer [but not in edn. 6] instances the use _ terly untrue was dep éyo, in any boasting
of wie dafin asomewhat similar way: wie sense. He therefore repudiates it even
das ic) gehdrt habe,....where either more strongly than the toAu@ Kayo.
ivie or Daf would be enough. Besides the trép éyo must not be misunderstood. He
instances given on ch.v. 19, Meyer quotes concedes to them their being didx. xp., and
from Dion. Hal. ix. (with no further ref.) assumes (rapappovév) for himself, some-
emvyvovs, ws Ott ev eaxadTos ecioly ot Kata- thing more, if more abundant labours and
KAciaOévTes, év @ 8 dv] But in sufferings are to be any criterion of the
whatsoever matter any one (the ts of matter. That this is the sense is obvious
ver. 20) is bold (the & signifies habit, from the comparison being in the amount
recurrence: so Soph. Philoct. 290, rad7’? of labours and sufferings,—and not (as
iv éképtwv Taras eunxavounv' elra mip Meyer), that he denies to them the didak.
dy od maphv, and Eur. Phen. 412, wore yp. and merely puts it hypothetically.
bev em juap elxov, elt’ ovx elxov &y, ‘Well, then, if they are to be considered
where see Porson). Throughout this pas- did. xp., Z must be something more.” If
sage, compare by all means Stanley’s in-
teresting notes. év adp.| see ver.
Wie 22.| “The three honourable
appellations with which the adversaries
magnified themselves,—resting on their
so, the comparison would be not in the
degree of ministerial self-sacrifice, but in
the credentials of the ministry itself.
Both ave now assumed to be ministers ;
but if so, Paul is a minister in a much
BOFK
LMNab
cdefg
hklm
nol7
22—26.
IIPOS KOPINOIOY®S B.
705
f ch. vi. 6
ekorote » reptacorépwe, ev " gudanaic TEpLaaoTEpwC, év el Cor, i. 8
S mAnyaic
24 bro ‘lovdalwv Eadie
éXaBov, * rpic *
; evavaynoa,
26 v odorToptiatc mwoAXakte,
only. (-Badrew, ch. iii. 10.)
of wAny-, see Luke xii. 47, 48.
onlyt. Judg. vi. 11.
there only. Exod.xv.5. Ps. cvi. 24.
iv.6onlyt. 1 Macc. vi. 4%.
cxiy. 3. (-vevecv, 1 Cor. xv. 30.)
23. for Aadw, Aeyw DF e Did.
‘ urepBarrdvrwe, év
"Teaoepakovta °
coapsdiaOny, anaé 7 eA BaaOny, Tplc
*vuxOinuepov ev rw
i i ae
Xv. 58 al.
a XXXi.
™ Oava maT Ote ToAAa aKtc
ae i. 12 reff.
maga play } Matt. xxv. 36,
Heb. xi.
ke bake x. 30.
xii 48. Acts
"Baty “ wemoinka’ Xi 53, 3
w Deut. xxv.
TOTAMWY, KUV= | here only.
Job xv. 11
m =ch.i.10. Ps. ly. 13. (see 1 Cor. xv. 31.) mpoamoOyiakw Tod-
Aovs Gavatous imopéevwy ar’ Evds Tov TENEUTALOV, Philo, Flace. § 20, vol. ii. p. 542.
o=here only. Herod. ix. 33.
q Acts v. 26 reff.
(-@iGecv, Luke y. 7.)
(-petv, Acts x. 9.)
xX gen., = 1 Pet. i. 2, puyt. aip.
n ellips.
p Acts xvi. 22
r1 Tim. i. 19 only f. s here only t.
u = Acts xy. 33 reff. v John
Ww here (8 times) and Rom. viii. 35 only. Ps.
rec ev mAnyats umepB. bef ev mudakas Tepicc.,
with D2KLMN? rel syrr copt Chr Thdrt Damase Hil, and FX! Orig, which put wepioc.
with wAny. and uzepB. with ua. :
D-lat goth wth lat-ff.
om ev 7A. ur. Clem Tert: txt BD! vulg(and F-lat)
25. rec eppa8d., with M rel Chr: txt BDFKL®& 17 Orig Chr-ms Thl Cc.
26. for woAAanis (and in next ver), roAAas D}(with lat) ; 3 so also vulg in ver 27.
higher degree, more faithful, more self-
denying, richer in gifts and divine tokens,
than they. The preposition is used ad-
verbially, see reff. év Kdtrots Trepic. |
By (the ev is instrumental:—the direct
dative is adopted ver. 26 :—these facts are
proofs of the trép éy#,—not as Estius,
al., parallel with it, which would only
apply to the comparatives and not to ev
@avarots moAAakis) labours (occurring)
more abundantly (the adverbs belong to
the substantives in each case and are used
adjectively ; so Thy éuhv avactpophy
mote, Gal. i. 13: Tis us mapouvolas
maAiv, Phil. i. 26),—by prisons (impri-
sonments) more abundantly (but ove such
is mentioned in the Acts [xvi. 23 ff.] pre-
vious to the writing of this Epistle.
Clement, in the celebrated passage of his
1st Epistle to the Corinthians [e. v. p. 220]
on the labours of Paul, describes him as
éntdkis deaua popécas. This whole cata-
logue should shew the chronologists of the
Apostle’s life and epistles how exceedingly
unsafe it is to build only on the history
in the Acts for a complete account of his
journeys and voyages), by stripes more
exceedingly (particularized below), by
deaths often (see reff. and ch. iv. 10.
Such was the danger escaped at Damascus,
Acts ix. 23, at Antioch in Pisidia, xiii. 50,
at Iconium, xiv. 5, 6, at Lystra, ib. 19, at
Philippi, xvi., at Thessalonica, xvii. 5 f., at
Bercea, ib. 13, and doubtless many others
of which we know nothing. See below).
24, 25.| are parenthetical, explain-
ing some of the foregoing expressions :
the construction is resumed, ver. 26.
At the hands of the Jews five times re-
Vou. II.
ceived I forty save one (in Deut. xxv. 3,
it is prescribed that not more than forty
stripes should be given, ‘lest thy brother
should seem vile unto thee.’ For fear of
exceeding this number, they kept within it.
This seems a more likely account of the
thirty-nine stripes than that given by
Wetst.,— that thirteen were inflicted on
the breast, and the same number on each
shoulder, and the fortieth omitted, lest one
part of the body should receive more than
another. See the Rabbinical authorities
in Wetst., and cf. Joseph. Antt. iv. 8. 21
and 23, and Stanley’s note here. He calls
it Tyuwpia aicxiotyn: and Meyer remarks
that Paul might well number it among the
Odvaro., for it was no rare occurrence for
the criminal to die under its infliction.
None of these scourgings are mentioned in
the Acts),—thrice was I beaten with rods
(scil. by the Roman magistrates, see Acts
Xvi. 22, 23, which is the only occasion
mentioned in the Acts), once was I stoned
(Acts xiv. 19), thrice I suffered shipwreck
(not one of these shipwrecks is known to
us. ‘Thus we see that perhaps three, per-
haps two, voyages of Paul, but certainly
one,—previous to this time, must be some-
where inserted in the history of the Acts:
see Prolegg. ch. iii. § v. 5), a night and
day have I spent (reff.) in the deep (i. e.
the sea: probably on some remnant of a
wreck after one of his shipwrecks alone or
with others. To understand 6 Bvdds, as
Thi. [Twes dé daow ey Tim ppeati pera
Tov ev Avarpous KivOuvoyv Kataxpupbets, BYO@
Acyouéevm, viv TovTo A€yet |, seems to be
taking it out of its connexion here. Wetst.
gives from lian, H. An. viii. 7, &0éarov
ZZ
706 IIPOS KOPINOIOY® B. p.%
v Epp., here
f 3 | wv, ~ KLvOU cK * ye z U ¢& BDFK
Evp bere Stvowe “ Ayotwv, “ Kuwdvvote EK * yévouc, “ KvdbvoLe &&
LMNab
i. 13 - , ’ , , ’ a?’ ,
fiom ser. €0vwv, “Kiwovvote ev TOA, “KWdvvag Ev * Eonmta, edefe
vii. 1) al.
2 = Acts xviii.
w , ? , w , , b , 117
Fats xvi. “ KwddvOLC ev Duracoy, Kev pare ev PevdadEehporc, no
2 Macc. xii. § , ,
a i cde encar ** u0X9w, ev “aypuTviat woAXaKtc, &v
a Matt. xv. L ; é
fi = \ oh , d ’ , ’ i , ‘
33 | Mk. Heb, 'S 8 P
oF Ik eieb-.”) Anes ad dipe, ev “ vnoretare ToAXAKIC, Ev | PoyeL Kat
Ezek x . fgk 4 1 ‘ m s CP el, ,
,. ) ! yURYOrNTE: 28 Xwptc twv " TapeKTOg 7H " ETtoTacIC
b Gal. ii. 4
only t. cl Thess. ii. 9. 2 Thess. iii. 8 only. d ch. vi. 5 (reff.). e as above (c)
only, Num. xxiii, 21. f Deut. xxviii. 48 only. g Rom. viii. 35. h here only. Exod.
xvil, 3. i John xviii. 18. Acts xxviii. 2 only. Gen. viii. 22
(Heb. iv. 15.) Gen. xxvi. 1.
Aq. constr., here only.
v.r.) Num. xxvi. Y.
k as above (f,g). Rev. iii. 18 only.
m Matt. v.32. Acts xxvi. 29 enly +. Deut.i. 35
n Acts xxiv. 12 only +. =2 Macc. vi.3? (only.) émiavc., (Acts as above,
27. rec ins ev bef xomw, with KLM X-corr!(?)3 rel vulg(and F-lat) Orig lat-ff: om
BDER! goth.
28. rec emiovoraois, with KLM rel Chr(explaining it: of @dpuBo1, ai tapaxal, ai
moAtopkia TaY Shuwy Kal TaY TéAewy pod. So also Thdrt al) Damase Thl (ec: txt
vhxerTOa ev Bvég. Still less must we
think of the characteristic interpretation
of Kstius: “Subjunxit aliud periculum
marinum longe gravius, nempe quod de-
mersus fuerit ex naufragio in profundum
maris, ubi tamen divina ope fuerit servatus
incolumis noctem et diem, atque inde
postea liberatus”). 26.| ‘The construc-
tion is resumed from ver. 23, but now
with the instrumental dative without the
preposition. By journeys frequently,
by perils of rivers (the genitives denote
the material of the perils; rivers and rob-
bers being the things and persons actually
attacking. Winer, edn. 6, § 30. 2, ren-
ders it dangers on rivers, justifying it
by «. ev wéAec: but in my view a distinc-
tion is pointed out by the variety of con-
struction. Wetst. quotes xiv5. 0adAacocay
from Heliod. ii. 4. The ‘perils of rivers’
might arise from crossing or fording, or
from floods. The crossing of the rocky
and irregular torrents in Alpine districts
is to this day attended with danger, which
must have been much more frequent when
bridges were comparatively rare. And this
is the case with a road, among others, fre-
quently traversed by Paul, that between
Jerusalem and Antioch, crossed as it is by
the torrents from the sides of Lebanon.
Maundrell says that the traveller Spon lost
his life in one of these torrents: see Cony-
beare and Howson, edn. 2, vol. i. p. 502,
note: and Stanley in loc.), by perils of
robbers (see note on Acts xiii. 14), by
perils from my kindred (the Jewish na-
tion, ex, arising from: they not being
always the direct agents,—but, as in many
cases in the Acts, setting on others or
plotting secretly : or yévovs,—and dy.
below,—imports generically the source, or
quarter whence the danger arose), by perils
from the Gentiles (not merely “from
Gentiles,” as Stanley: this would be e
edvixav. The art. is omitted after the
preposition, the word being thus categor-
ized in Greek; but it must be supplied
in our English idiom),—by perils in the
city (in Damascus, Acts ix. 23 f.,—Jeru-
salem, ib. 29,--Ephesus xix. 23 ff., and
many other places), by perils in the desert
(the actual desert ? or merely the solitude
of journeys as contrasted with ‘the city ?’
but any how, not ‘zm solitude: the art.
must be supplied as in ev wéAex), by perils
in the sea (not, as De W., a repetition
from ver. 25: there are many perils in the
sea short of shipwrecks), by perils among
false brethren (who were these? Grot.,
al., suppose, ‘qui Christianos se simula-
bant, ut res Christianorum perdiscerent,
deinde eos proderent,’—and so apparently
Chrys., &c. But Paul’s use of this com-
pound leads us rather to persons who bona
Jide wished to be thought aderpol, but
were not, scil. in heart and conduct, and
were opponents of himself personally,
rather than designed traitors to the Chris-
tian cause. Cf. Wevdardarodo: above, ver.
13); 27.| by labour and weariness,
by watchings (see on ch. vi. 5) frequently
(the ev is here resumed, perhaps arbi-
trarily, perhaps also because xé7os and
#é6x00s are more directly instrumental,
—aypumv., &c., more conditionally), by
hunger and thirst, by fastings frequently
(voluntary fastings, ‘ad purificandam
mentem et edomandam carnem,’ as Es-
tius, see also ch. vi. 5, note. De W. here
too [see also Stanley] holds to ‘involun-
tary fastings;’ but he is clearly wrong,
for vnot. is distinguished from Am. k.
diy.), in cold and nakedness (insufii-
cient clothing :—or, literally, when thrust
into prison after his scourgings, — or
after his shipwrecks). 28.) He
27-—-30.
now ho Kal! nugoav, n? meouuva :
9 rig
+) el PAL 6 ~ A ’ ~ woe Pe
Kal OUK EyW TUOOUMAL 5 9 Et “Kavyacbat det, ““ ra
only. Sir, xlii. 9.
“aobever, Kat ove “acbeves tic * cxavdaXiZerat,
q ch. viii. 18 reff.
IPOS KOPINOIOY®S B. 707
~ ~ , ~ me
Taswv tov 4 EK Kn qTlwV, o-Actsil. 46
Pp and constr.,
Matt. xiii.
y - 221 (rake
T? xxi. 34.
Ig i Pet. v. 7)
r = Acts xx. 35, or Rom. xiv. 1. s1 Cor,
n absol., vv. 16, 18, y constr., Rom. xiv.
Vili. 13 reff. t1 Cor. vii. 9 reff.
lval. w constr., ch. ix. 2. Prov, xxvii. 1.
BDER k 17.
passes from. particulars, omitting others
which might have been specified, to the
weight of apostolic care and sympathy
which wason him. Not to mention these
(afflictions) which are besides (these) (the
Vulg., E. V., Beza, Estius, Bengel, under-
stand mapextds as = tkwOev, ‘the things
that are without,—-a meaning which it
never has, always implying eaception, see
reff. Chrys., al., join xwp. 7. maperr.
with the foregoing, and put a period after
mapext., interpreting it rightly, mAclova Ta
maparcpbevta Tay arapiOunleyTwy :
but this seems to break the connexion too
abruptly, besides giving a strange and un-
likely termination to the long sentence pre-
ceding),—my care (é€ior. may be either
‘delay,’ ‘hindrance,’ as Soph. Antig. 225,
moAAas yap elxov ppoytibos emotdcets,
and Xen. Anab. ii. 4. 26, cov 8 dv xpévov
To qyoumevov TOD oTpaTEVMaTOS emLOTT-
Gele, TOTOUTOY Fv avayKn xpdvoy BV bAou
Tov oTpatevtparos yiyverOat THY émlora-
oiv,—or, as very frequently in Polybius,
see Schweigh., Lex. Polyb.,—‘care,’ ‘at-
tention,’ ‘matter of earnest thought ?’ e. g.
viv brép Tay bdwy exloracw kK. SidAny,
vill. 30. 18, ‘curam summ2 rei,’—ov« é«
mapépyov, GAA’ e& emotdcews iii. 58. 3, —
ayew Twa eis ericraci, ‘attentionem ali-
cujus excitare,’ ix. 22. 17, al. The ree.
reading, émusvetacts [which has perhaps
been introduced from erforac:s not being
understood (see digest here and on ref.
Acts) and then wo: has been altered to
fov as easier], can only mean concursus,
in a hostile sense, see ref. and examples in
Wetst.: and so Chrys. [see var. readd.],
&e., take it here: others metaphorically,
as Beza, ‘agmen illud in me quotidie con-
surgens, i. e. sollicitudo de omnibus eccle-
siis :;—somewhat similarly De W.,—‘ that
which sets upon me, importunes me, daily :’
and so KE. V. Stanley, with Est. al., ren-
ders it, ‘ the concourse of people to see me
but this is doubtful, as departing from the
hostile sense. In Beza’s sense, there is
something Pauline in the rece., “the daily
outbreak against me,” and the reading
cannot be considered certain) day by day,
(viz.) My anxiety for all the churches
(the construction is an anacoluthon : not,
as Meyer, efor. the subject and pépmuva
4
rec (for wot) wov, with DKLMN% rel vulg: txt BFN! 17.
the predicate, which would be a very fiat
sentence,—‘ my daily care is, anxiety &e.
As it stands, # émlor. is general, and
7 Mépyuv. particularizes it. Nothing need
be supplied. 7% émfor. occurs to the Apos-
tle’s mind, and is uttered, in the nomina-
tive, the construction being disregarded).
29.] ‘Cura certe cuumadeay ge-
nerat: que facit, ut omnium affectus in
se suscipiat Christi minister, omnium per-
sonas induat, quo se accommodet om-
nibus,’ Caly. Olsh., after Emmerling,
strangely understands, ‘Who is weak, if I
am not weak?’ i. e. ‘Who can be called
weak, if Iam not so ?’ The acddvera
of the t1s may be in various ways ; in faith,
as Rom. xiv. 1 al., or in purpose, or in
courage: that of the Apostle, see 1 Cor.
ix. 22, wasa sympathetic weakness, a lean-
ing to the same infirmity for the weak
brother’s sake, but also a veritable @opu-
Bodua Kk. tapdéocouc (as Chrys.) in him-
self, on the weak brother’s account.
tis oxavd.| “ Non priore, sed hae versiculi
parte addit ego: nam illic infirmo se ac-
commodat: hic dissimilem se scandalizantis
fatetur, partes a scandalizante neglectas
scandalizati causa ipse suscipiens. Partes
a scandalizante neglecta sunt amor, pru-
dentia, &e. Idem tamen Paulus etiam
partes scandalizati, sive incommodum quod
scandalizatus sentit, in se suscipit.” Bengel.
Tupovpet,—with zeal, or with in-
dignation. 30.] partly refers back
to what has past since ver. 23. The
acGevera not being that mentioned in a
different connexion in ver. 29, but that of
ver. 21, to which all since has applied.
But the words are not without a forward
reference likewise. He will boast of his
weaknesses—of (ra Tis a8.) those things
which made him appear mean and con-
temptible in the eyes of his adversaries.
He is about to adduce an instance of es-
cape from danger, of which this is emi-
nently the case: he might be scoffed at as
6 capyavopdpyros, or the like—but he is
carried on in his fervency of self-renun-
ciation amidst his apparent self-celebration,
and he will even cast before his enemies
the contemptible antecedents of his career,
boasting in being despised, if only for
what Christ had done in him. The as-
Zz2
708
x Rom. vi. 19.
1 Cor. ii. 3
reff.
y Rom. xv. 6
reff.
z so ver. 11.
a Rom. ix. 5
reff. and note.
b Rom. ix. 1
reff.
IIPO> KOPINOIOY® B.
x ? ' Ww , .
aobevetac flov — Kavxnoopat
v Aapacky
XI. 31—33.
3l af
© yz nN \ N -
o ¥’ Oeo¢ Kat ¥ watnp Tov
’ , dre es (eee Vee i Fa 2 Mt ia Bi
kuptov Incov * oidev, 0 wy * evAoynTog “Etc ToUG “ atwvac,
cl 2. \b 50 32 ,
ott ov © Wevdomat. E
ec
O
c elvapxne "Apéra
~ , , ‘ , J
TOU Baciréwe a Epoovost THY TOAW Aapacknver © mutcat
, \ ‘ f , , , h?
ne One HE [O2Arwr], 33 Kat ova fupidoc ep & caoyavy eXa-
.Xv.1,2 7 ict (ty al Viegs ‘ - 9: aes
st ne Nao Onv » Sta Tou TELYOUC Kal ; eSépuyov Tac YEloag auTOV.
Antt. xiv. 7. = ~ ‘ > l , = ’ ,
ae en bate 1 “* Kavyac9at 2) OV GULPEPEL [MOL eAcvoomuat
Phil. iv. 7. 1 Pet.i.5 only+. Jndith iii. 6. e Acts xii. 4 reff, f Acts xx. 9 only. Josh. ii.
g here only t. h Acts ix. 25 (reff.). i Rom. ii. 3 reff.
k absol.,
lconstr., but w. aor. inf., Matt. xix.10. Esth. iii. 8.
1h, 18.
ch. xi. 16, 18, 30.
30. om pou B.
31. rec aft xupiov ins nuwv, with DM rel vulg(with fuld F-lat) Syr copt Thdrt Aug:
om BFKLX e gh1lmn 17 amsyr goth Chr Damase. rec aft imo. ins xpiorou,
with DKLM rel vulg(with fuld F-lat) Syr copt Thdrt Aug: om BFR m 17 am syr
oth Chr.
5 82. rec dayackynvev bef moAw, with D2KLM rel Chr Thdrt Damasc: txt BD'3FR a
m 17 vss. om @eAwy BD! (and lat) vulg(and F-lat) Syr arm Procop Ambrst
Pelag: ins D?KLMX® rel goth Chr Thdrt, and (but bef maga: we) F syr copt.
33. om ev capyavy F.
Cnap. XII. 1. *xavyacbat dst ov oULpEOOV ev eAgvoonat oe B(see
table)FR 17 vulg: kavxac0ar 8n ov cuueper wor eAcvoouce yop DKL rel Ath Chr
Thdrt Damase (Ke Ambrst Sedul.—ins e: bef kavx. 8? 39 lect-17 vulg(and F-lat).—
det (on the confusion between y and e« ef Tischdf N. T. prolegg. p. xxxvii) BD3FL
defgmnosyrr goth: de D'X copt Thl: 67 KM eth arm Ath Chr Thdrt Damase.—
om po D! Syr goth.—add ra B 213.
severation in ver. 31 may be applied to
the whole, but I had rather view it as con-
nected with the strange history about to
be related: —‘I will glory in my weak-
nesses—yea, and I will yet more abase my-
self—God knows that I am telling sober-
truth—&e.’ If the solemnity of the as-
severation seem out of proportion to the
incident, the fervid and impassioned cha-
racter of the whole passage must be taken
into account. It will be seen that I differ
from all Commentators here, and cannot
but think that they have missed the con-
nexion. Meyer supposes that vv. 32, 33
were only the beginning of a catalogue
of his escapes, which he breaks off at
ch. xii. 1: and that the asseveration was
meant to apply to the whole catalogue :
but surely this is very unnatural.
32, 33.] On the fact, and historical dif-
ficulty, see note, Acts ix. 23. 82. |
év Aap. followed by Aauacknyay is pleo-
nastic, but the pleonasm is common
enough, especially when for any reason,
our words are more than usually precise
and formal. eOvapxys| Prefect, or
governor, stationed there by the Arabian
king. The title appears to have been
variously used. The High Priest Simon,
as a vassal of Syria, is so named in reff.
1 Mace., and Jos. Antt. xiii. 6.7. It was
bestowed by Augustus on Archelaus after
his father’s death, Jos. Antt. xvii. 11. 4;
B. J. ii. 6. 3. The presidents of the seven
districts into which Egypt was divided
under the Romans, bore it (Strabo, xvii.
798): as did a petty prince of the Bos-
porus under Augustus (Lucian, Macrob.
17). Also the chief magistrates of the Jews
living under their own laws in foreign states
had this title (Jos. Antt. xiv. 7.2; xiv. 8.
5. B. J. vii. 6. 3). But apparently it must
here be taken in its wider sense, and not in
this latter: for the mere chief magistrate
of the Jews would not have had the power
of guarding the city. Doubtless he was
incited by the Jews, who would represent
Paul as a malefactor. capyavn, Kddi-
vos, Hesych. ;—of wév, cxolvidy Tt, of Ge
mwA€yua TLeK okKowlov. Suidas (see Wetst.),
= onupls, Acts ix. 25. Probably it is, as
Stanley, a “rope-basket ;” a net.
Cnap. XII. 1—10.] He proceeds to speak
of visions and revelations vouchsafed to him,
and relates one such, of which however he
will not boast, except in as far as it leads
to fresh mention of infirmity, in which he
will boast, as being a vehicle for the per-
Section of Christ’s power. In order to
understand the connexion of the following,
it is very requisite to bear in mind the bur-
den of the whole, which runs through it—
év tats aabevelais Kkavxjooua. ‘There
is no break between this and the last chap-
BDFK
LMNab
cdefg
hklm
nol7
ie Ot,
ST; 2:
‘ od m? U NO rr , ,
yap &¢ omtaciag Kat "azoxaAvpeac Kuplou.
” <<" > ~ A ’
avOpwrov ty Xotorw ° po ETWV dekaTEecodowy (elre P ey
xliii. 2, 16 only. = Dan. ix. 23 al. Theod.
i.1(Gal.i.12?) only. (obj., 1 Cor. i. 7.
i.9. Tit. i.2. John xii.l. Amosi.1. iv. 7.
ter. He has just mentioned a passage of
his history which might expose him to con-
tempt and ridicule—this was one of the
acbevernt. He now comes to another:
but that other inseparably connected with,
and forming the sequel of, a glorious reve-
lation vouchsafed him by the Lord. This
therefore he relates, at the same time repu-
diating it as connected with himself, and
fixing attention only on the ao@évera which
followed it. 1.] [I have in the last
and in this edition suspended the very dif-
ficult question of this reading, not finding
it possible to decide whether of the two
deserves a place in the text. Meantime,
the rec. is left in, and on it the following
note is written.] Let only the two read-
ings kavxacbat 51) ob ouppeper mor, eAcd-
coum yap, and kavxaobar 5e?, ob cTuupéepoy
pév? eAevcouat Sé, be compared, and it
would certainly seem as if the former more
resembled the nervous elliptic irony of the
great Apostle, and the latter, the tame
conventional propriety of the grammatical
correctors. The other variations, dé for
5, and the prefixing of ¢/, are too palpable
emendations to require critical treatment.
The difficulty however is considerably less-
ened, when the right connexion is borne
in mind. To boast, verily, is not to my
advantage: for (i.e. it will be shewn to
be so, by the following fact of a correction
administered to me iva ph tmepalpwuat)
[on the other reading, I must beast,
though it is not to my advantage: but |
I will proceed to visions and revelations
of the Lord. 6% in this sense implies a
consciousness of a reason why the asser-
tion is true, and is therefore naturally fol-
lowed by yap, if the sentence is completed.
The same sense is found in Plato, Pheed.
p- 60, & Séxpates, totatov 5) oe mpos-
Epovdot, viv of emitHdetot, Kal ob TobTOVS,—
the completion of the sense being,—‘ for
you are to die to-night :’—zoAAol Kkakds
apasoouciv, ov ov 5% pdvos, Eur. Hee.
464: i.e. ov ob 5) pdvos KakGs mpdocers,
moAAot yap &wAAo.... (See Hartung,
Partikellehre i. 270, who however explains
57 in these examples somewhat differently).
The force of it here then, is: “ J am well
aware that to boast is not good for me:
for I will come to an instance in which it
was so shewn to me.” eis OTT. kK.
am. kup.| q. d. ‘and the instances I will
select are just of that kind in which, if
IIPOS KOPINOIOY:S B.
2 Thess. i. 7.
709
Pie m Luke i. 22
olda xxiv. 23. Acts
XxXvi. 1YoOnly.
L.P.t Mal.
iii. 2. Sir.
n= 1 Cor. xiv. 6 reff. w. gen. subj. (see note), Rev.
1 Pet. i.7, 18. Sir. xiii. 1.) o see 2 Tim.
pch.v.6. Heb. xiii. 3.
boasting ever were good, tt might be al-
lowed :’ thus the ydép gives a more com-
plete proof. étragia is the form or man-
ner of receiving amoxdAviis, the revela-
tion. There can hardly be an dértacia
without an amokdAviis of some kind.
Therefore Theophylact’s distinction is
scarcely correct, 7 amokdAviis mA€oy TL
éyer THS OmTaclass 7 pev yap pdvov
BAérew Stdwow arn 5¢ Kal te Babdtepov
TOU Opwuévou amoyumvor. Kuptov,
gen. subj., vouchsafed me by the Lord,
—not obj., ‘of the Lord,’ for such is not
that which follows. No particular po-
lemical reason, as the practice of particular
parties at Corinth to allege visions, &ce.
(Baur), need be sought for the narration of
this vision: Paul’s object is general, and
the means taken to attain it are simply
subordinate to it, viz. the vindication of his
apostolic character. 2—4.| An ex-
ample of such a vision and revelation.
The adoption of the third person is re-
markable : it being evident from ver. 7 that
he himself is meant. It is plain that a
contrast is intended between the rapt and
glorified person of vv. 2, 4,—and himself,
theweak and afflicted and almost despairing
subject of the oxdéAoy 7H capkl of vv. 7 ff.
Such glory belonged not to him, but the
weakness did. Nay, so far was the glory
from being his, that he knew not whether
he was in or out of the body when it was
put upon him: so that the éya airés, com-
pounded of the vots and capt (Rom. vii.
25), clearly was not the subject of it, but
as it were another form of his personality,
analogous to that which we shall assume
when unclothed of the body. It may be
remarked in passing, as has been done by
Whitby, that the Apostle here by implica-
tion acknowledges the possibility of con-
sciousness and receptivity in a disembodied
state. Let it not be forgotten, that in
the context, this vision is introduced not so
much for the purpose of making it a ground
of boasting, which he does only passingly
and under protest, but that he may by it
introduce the mention of the oxddo TH
oapkt, which bore so conspicuous a part in
his &o0éverat, TO BOAST OF WHICH ts his
present object. 2.| I know (not,
‘knew,’ as E. V.: which introduces serious
confusion, making it seem as if the apd
éray dexar. were the date of the know-
ledge, not, as it really is, of the vision) a
710 IIPOS KOPINOIOY®S B. ) ‘ XII.
> P 7 , g ” q > ‘ ~ , > 4 ce
ql ee vi. 18 GWLRATL OUK oloa >» <E €KTOC TOU OWMATOC OVUK oloa, O BDFK
Es) xi. 11,31. r bh r s ¢ t t - uv ’ LMNab
Josh.xxii. 22. Oedc oidev ) apmwayevTa TOLOUTOYV EWC TOLTOU cdefg
s = John vi. 3 hklm
es ses \ io t b! t = ” 0 o Pp ?
an Tones Kal OLO@ TOV TOLOUTOYV aYV OWTOV (cire €v nol7
es
TOV
1 eee ee
ovoavon.
i 7 a7
iv. 7. Rev. P gayuate E€lTé
\ ~ , ? °
“ xwolc TOV GWMATOC OUVUK olca, 18)
¢
" Geo¢
; et 4 rhs , , ‘ w 19 5 ee
1Cor.v. 5,11." oLoev) * Ore npmwayn l¢ TOV ~~ TapaoEtoov Kal YKOVGEV
xii. 5.
t Acts xxii. 22.
ch. ii. 5, 6.
x.1l uso Matt. xi. 28. Luke x. 15.
‘xxiii. 43. Rev. ii. 7 only. Gen. ii. 8, and fr.
2. om Tov bef cwuaros Bd.
Deut. iv. 11.
v = Johni.3 al. w Luke
ins tov bef rpitov F. (so also tas bef om. in ver.
il), [for rprrov 8! wrote tovtov which he then altered to tpurov. |
3. rec (for xwpis) extos (from ver 2), with D?3FKLMN: txt BD! Meth).
ovk o1ba B Meth.
man in Christ (€v xp. belongs to dvép.,
not to oida, as Beza; &v@. év xp. = ‘a
Christian,’ ‘a man whose standing is in
Christ ;? so of kat mpo euod yéyovay év
xpiat@, Rom. xvi. 7),—fourteen years
ago (belongs not to oiSa, nor to év xp. as
Grot.: ‘hominem talem, qui per 14 annos
Christo serviat ;—but to aprayévra. On
the idiom see reff.,—the date probably
refers back to the time when he was at
Tarsus waiting for God to point out his
work, between Acts ix. 80 and xi. 25. See
the chronological table in the Prolego-
mena), whether in the body, I know not,
or out of the body, I know not: God
knoweth (if in the body, the idea would be
that he was taken up bodily : if out of the
body, to which the alternative manifestly
inclines,— that his spirit was rapt from the
body, and taken up disembodied. Aug. de
genesi ad litteram xii. 2—5 [8—14\], vol.
lil. pp. 455 ff., discusses the matter at
length, and concludes thus,—‘ Proinde
quod vidit raptus usque in tertium ecelum,
quod etiam se scire confirmat, proprie
vidit, non imaginaliter. Sed quia ipsa a
corpore alienata utrum omnino mortuum
corpus reliquerit, an secundum modum
quendam viventis corporis ibi anima fuerit,
sed mens ejus ad videnda vel audienda in-
effabilia illius visionis arrepta sit, hoe in-
certum erat,— ideo forsitan dixit, ‘sive
in corpore sive extra corpus, nescio, Deus
seit.” ’ And similarly Thom. Aq. and
Estius: not, as Meyer thinks, making the
alternative consist between reality and a
mere vision, but between the anima, the
life, being rapt out of the body, leaving it
dead, and the mens, the intelligence or
spirit, being rapt out of the body, leaving it
‘secundum modum quendam vivens’); such
an one (so Tov To.odToy resumes after a
parenthesis, 1 Cor. v. 5) rapt (snatched or
taken up, reff.) as far as the third
heaven. What is the third heaven?
The Jews knew no such number, but com-
monly (not universally: Rabbi Judah
said, “Duo sunt coli, Deut. x. 14”)
recognized seven heavens: and if their
om
arrangement is to be followed, the third
heaven will be very low in the celestial
scale, being only the material clouds. That
the threefold division into the air (nubi-
ferum), the sky (astriferum), and the
heaven (angeliferum), was in use among the
Jews, Meyer regards as a fiction of Grotius.
Certainly no Rabbinical authority is given
for such a statement: but it is put forward
confidently by Grotius, and since his time
adopted without enquiry by many Com-
mentators. It is uncertain whether the
sevenfold division prevailed so early as the
Apostle’s time: and at all events, as we
must not invent Jewish divisions which
never existed, so it seems rash to apply
here, one about whose date we are not
certain, and which does not suit the con-
text :—for to be rapt only to the clouds,
even supposing ver. 4 to relate a further
assumption, would hardly be thus solemnly
introduced, or the preposition €ws used.
The safest explanation therefore is, not
to follow any fixed division, but judging
by the evident intention of the expression,
to understand a high degree of celestial
exaltation. I cannot see any cogency in
Meyer’s argument, that ‘ the third heaven
must have been an idea well known and
previously defined among his readers,’ see-
ing that in such words as tpls pardpios,
&e. it is manifestly inapplicable.
3, 4.] A solemn repetition of the fore-
going, with the additional particular of
his having had unspeakable revelations
made to him. Some, as Clem. Strom. v.
12 [80], p. 693 P., Iren. ii. 30. 7, p. 162,
Athan. Apol. 20, vol. i. p. 263, Orig. (or
his interpreter) on Rom. xvi. lib. x. 43,
vol. iv. p. 688, Gicum., al., think that this
was a fresh assumption, ews Tpitov oipavod
KaneOey eis Tov Tapadeicov, and with these
Meyer agrees: but surely had this been
intended, some intimation would have been
given of it, either by raf, or by placing eis
Tov mapadeicov (as the stress would be
then no longer on the fact aprayivar as
before, but on the new place to which
npwdyn) in the place of emphasis before
sr 0s 8S e
, a > y? oy > , ~
appnra pnuara a ov * ehov avOowrw Aadjoa.
~ , ~ y
‘rov ‘rowbrov “Kavynoopat, *vmp S& EuavTou ov * Kav- y
TiPOS KOPINOIOYS B.-
711
5
x here on!y t.
Lev. xvii. 23
Symm.
Matt, xii. 4.
Acts ii, 29
a uTo
cf # ~ - Fy a> 0 I G28 ~ only. Esth
«-ouM. YNoOMal, & UN EV Talc aaUevelatc | mov]. tay yap jy .
0 yf , ff) > w b »” en aXn0 z ch. vii. 14.
sAnow Kavyyoadvat, ovK eEcomat appwy adneav © ixie.
io gow" “ ped Oé, my ef ie elle ; Bf bon at 6,19
yao sow peloomat O&, My TIC ELC EME Aoytonrat UT Gp PCN ACB
a / x > , , ’ ~ \ mo het Rom. ix. |.
Axacm™m Q BXére me, N aKkove [re] é= guov. ' Kal TH | UTEO- “ Eph. iv. 25.
“ABDF Ps. xiv. 2.
KLNab d=hereonly. (Rom. xi. 21 reff.) Isa. liv.2. Men. Cyr.i. 6.19, 35. (ui petdou didcioxerv, Eur. Orest.
; 387.) e=ch. x. 13,16 b. f = here only. (Hos. vii. 15.) g ~1 Cor. iy.
cdefg 6. x. 13. h Rom, yii. 13 reff. Jos. Antt. i. 13. 4. ii, 2. 1.
hklim :
nol7
5. om tov M.
om ov (from preceding termination) &'. (corrd by 8! appy-)
om pov B D}(and lat) 17 syrr copt arm: ins (from ch xi. 30?) D3FK LMR rel vulg goth
eth Ath Thdrt Damasce lat-ff.
6. om 7: (as superfluous) BD3FX' m 17 am(with demid tol harl*) eth arm Orig: ins
D!(and lat) KLN? rel syr goth Chr Thdrt Damase Thl le Ambrst.
iipmayn ;—or, by both combined,—ér: Kat
eis Toy Tapddeccov npmayyn. As it is,
with the verb preceding in both clauses,
and therefore no prominence given to the
places as distinguished from one another, I
must hold ews tpitov ovp. to be at least so
far equivalent to ets roy mapddeisoy, as to
be a general local description of the situa-
tion in which 6 wapddeicos is found. ‘The
repetition of efre ... . oldev is equally
accountable on either explanation, being
made for solemnity and emphasis. The
mapadeicos cannot here be the Jewish
Paradise, the blissful division or side of
Hades (Scheol), where the spirits of the
just awaited the resurrection, see note on
Luke xvi. 22,—but the Paradise of which
our Lord spoke on the Cross,—the place of
happiness into which He at His Death
introduced the spirits of the just: see on
ref. Luke. Gppyntra pypata, i. e.
as explained below, words which it is
not lawful to utter:—as Vule., “arcana
verba, que non licet homini loqui.” The
interpretation, “que dici nequeunt,” as
Beza, Estius, Calov., Olsh., al., is hardly
consistent with the narrative ;-for in that
case, as Bengel remarks, ‘Paulus non
potuisset audire.” The passages adduced
by Wetst. mostly refer to the mysteries,
or some secret rites: e.g. Demosth. contra
Neeram, p. 1869, atrn 7 yuvh tuiv eve
Ta Uppnta fepa brep tis mdAcws, Kal
eldev, & ov mposijkey adthy dpav kévny
ovoay. & ov €fov| which it is not
lawful for a Man to utter (see above) :—
imparted by God, but not to be divulged
to others: and therefore, in this case, in-
tended, we may presume, for the Apostle’s
own consolation and encouragement. Of
what kind they were, or by whom uttered,
we have no hint given, and it were worse
than trifling to conjecture. “ Sublimitatis
certe magne fuere: nam non omnia ceeles-
tia sunt ineffabilia, v. gr. Ex. xxxiv. 6,
Isa. vi. 3, que tamen valde sublimia.”
Bengel. 5.] Of such a man he will
boast, but not (see above on ver. 1) of him-
self, except it be in his infirmities.
Tov ToLovTov must be masc. as before, not
neuter, as Luth., al., take it. This is
shewn by d7ép, used of the person re-
specting whom (reff.), whereas éy is said
of the thing on account of which, a man
boasts. He strikes here again the key-
note of the whole—boasting in his in-
firmities. He will boast of such a person,
so favoured, so exalted; but this merely
by the way: it is not his subject: it was
introduced, not indeed without reference
to the main point, but principally to bring
in the infirmity following. 6.] For
(supply the sentence for which ydp renders
a reason: ‘Not but that I might boast
concerning myself if Iwould’)—if I shall
wish to boast (stp euavrod), I shail not
be a fool (I shall not act rashly or im-
prudently, for I shall not boast without
solid ground for it): for I shall speak
the truth :—but I abstain (reff.), that no
one may reckon of me (reff. and add
cis padakiay oxémrtwy, Demosth. 308. 18)
beyond (by a standard superior to that
furnished by) what he sees me (to be),
or hears (if 7: form part of the text, or
hears any thing: a pleonastic construc-
tion = 7) ef tT: dkover) from me. Lest he
should seem to undervalue so legitimate a
subject of boasting, he alleges the reason
why he abstains: not that he had not this
and more such exaltations, truly to allege :
but because he wished to be judged of by
what they really had seen and heard of
and from himself in person. 7105]
He now comes to that for which the fore-
going was mainly alleged: the infirmity in
his flesh, which above others hindered his
personal efficiency in the apostolic ministry.
‘TIPOS KOPINOIOY® B.
; aroKahinpewy [é0 ]
™oKkoArow ©
712 ATT
4 ‘ e ,
iva un ‘ Umepainwpat, eh.
def
e gapKi, ayyeXoc oarava iva Me tk) 5
i ver. 1.
k arrangement
of words, ch.
ii. 4 reff.
1 {here bis.]
Body rav
£000n foot
lm
2 Thess, ii. 4 ° koAagily ie iva to)
, UTepatowpat |.
84 UTED TOUTOU
only
Ix xi. 14. m here only. = Num. xxxiii 55. Ezek. xxviii. 24. n dat., 1 Cor. vii. 28. see
Gal. iv. o Matt. xxvi. 674 Mk. 1 Cor. iv. 11. 1 Pet. ii. 20 only t. Pp pleonasm » Rev. ii.
6. Matt. on 18. Winer, edn. 6, § 65.6. q = ver. 5.
7. om 3:0 DKL rel vss Ath Chr Thdrt, Iren-int Aug :
ins pov F vulg Cypr.
aipwuat (as superfluous :
Chr Iren-int Tert, Aug:
lat-ff.
ins ABFX 17. aft capri
rec (for eel gatay, with A?D?*3KL &*(appy) rel Orig,
Ath Mac Chr Thdrt Damase: txt A'BD'FR! (Orig, tov carava).
but the repetition has special emphasis) ADF! 17 latt eth
ins BK LN? rel syrr copt goth Orig, Mac Thdrt, Damase Bas
om iva bn vITrEp-
8. ins ka bef vrep A Orig Thdrt, Iren-int.
7.| And that I might not, by the
abundant excess of revelations (made to
me), be uplifted (the order of the words is
chosen to bring 77 bepB. «.7.A. into the
place of foremost emphasis: see reff. The
6:6 can hardly stand with the present
punctuation. If it forms part of the text,
it must begin the sentence, and we must
with Lachmann join xa 7H brepB. TeV
amok. to the foregoing, as in apposition
with do@evelais. But thus a very strange
sense would be given), there was given me
(‘by God:’ certainly not, as Meyer, al.,
by Satan, of whom such an expression as
2560 would surely hardly be used: ef.
n xapis 7 Sobciod MOL, SO often said by
the Apostle,—Rom. xii. 3, 6; xv. 15 al.,
and the absolute use of €5667 for bestowed,
portioned out by God, 1 Cor. xi. 15; xii.
7,8; Gal. iii. 21; James i. 5) a thorn
(the word may signify a stake, or sharp
pointed staff, tbAov oft, Hesych.,—so in
Hom. ll. o. 176, nepadrhy... witar ava
oKohbmecat ; but in the LXX, reff, it is
‘a thorn, and such is the more likely
ae here. Meyer cites from Artemid.
33, UkavOar Kal oxddAomes ddbvas on-
ebburi dia 7d dtd [compare ref. Ezek.,
axddroy mplas Ka &kavOa ddbvns|. See
however Stanley’s note, who rejects the
meaning ‘¢horn,’ and supposes the figure
to refer to the punishment of impalement)
in my flesh (the expression used Gal. iv.
14 of this same affliction, Tov meipaoudy
juav év TH capt pov, seems decisive for
rendering the dative thus, and not as a
dativus incommodi: see also ref. 1 Cor.),
the (or, an) angel of Satan (even if we
read ocardy, it can only be the genitive.
If taken as the nom., the expression would
inean either, a hostile angel, which would
be contrary to the universal usage of
Satan, as a proper name: or, the angel
Satan, which is equally inconsistent with
N. T. usage, according to which Satan,
though once an angel, is now &pxav THs
ekovalas tod dépos, Eph. ii. 2, and has his
own angels, Matt. xxv. 41), that he (the
angel of Satan,—not the oxéro, which
would be an unnecessary confusion of me-
taphors. ‘The continuation of a discourse
often belongs to the word in apposition,
not to the main subject, Meyer) may
buffet me (oAa{(y is best thus expressed,
in the present. ‘The aorist would denote
merely one such act of insult. Thus
Chrys. : . &ste BinveKots deta Par Tov
xadivovd' ov yap elmev, iva kohapion,
GAN iva oral (n,—Theophyl., ox va
Gamat me KoAapion, GAN del,—and similarly
(Ecum.), that I may not be uplifted (the
repetition gives force and solemnity,—ex-
pressing his firm persuasion of the divine
intention in thus afflicting him). As
regards the thorn itself, very many, and
some very absurd conjectures have been
hazarded. ‘They may be resolved into three
heads, the two former of which are, from
the nature of the case, out of the question
(see below): (1) that Paul alludes to
spiritual solicitations of the devil (‘in-
jectiones Satanz ’), who suggested to him
blasphemous thoughts,—so ‘Gerson, Luther
(how characteristically !), Calov..—or re-
morse for his former life, so Osiander,
Mosheim, &e.: or according to the Ro-
manist interpreters, who want to find here
a precedent for their monkish stories of
temptations, —zncitements to lust, —so
Thom. <Aq., Lyra, Bellarmin, Estius,
Corn.-a-Lapide, al. (2) that he alludes to
opposition from his adversaries, or some
one adversary nar ekoxhv; so many
ancient Commentators, Chrys., Theophyl.,
Seum., Theodoret,—Calvin, Beza, al.,
and recently, Fritzsche, and Schrader.
(3) that he points to some grievous
bodily pain, which has been curiously
specified by different Commentators. The
ancients (Chrys., Theophyl., Gicum., Je-
rome on Gal. iv. 14 [lib. ii. 4, vol. vii.
p- 460]) mention kepadradrdyla: some
have supposed hypochondriac melancholy,
which however hardly answers the con-
ditions of a oxddoy, in which acule pain
seems to be implied ; alii aliter, see Pool,
Seo)
nol7
8—10.
\ ‘ 7 r ar sel
TPLC TOV KUOLOV TaptKa toa tva
9
, > , od
€v ; aa bevera bs reAgiTal.
saat 2 / ; u "A ~ c , ‘ My
Kal eLOnKED fot OKEL oot Vy xXaore fou ) yao uvvapttc
«78 bv paddov ? Kavyt
HOlOTa OvV pa Ov Kavy7)-
TIPOS KOPINOIOY®S B. 713
‘Groary: aa Mob. «am
Luke xy. 28.
Acts xxv. 2.
s 1 Cor. i. 10
reff.
, ¢= Acts v. 38
y 2 ~ vy? U el 2? / , , reff.
copa» év taic ‘ aobeveiatc pov, iva ETLOKNVWOY ET EME satt. xxv.
mt Svvapic TOU Xotorov.
only. (See Luke ii. 3).
19. -dcov, Sir. xxii. 11.)
Polyb. iv. 18. 8.
9. for epneev, exrey F Chr Thdrt.
10 S16 *° evdoxw
vi. 8. Heb. xiii. 5. 3 John 10) only. Num. xi. 22.
Rom. ii. 27.) Eur. Bacch. 99.
y Rom. ii. 17 reff.
ach.v.8. Rom. xv. 26, 27 reff.
9. John vi 7.
xiv. 8 (Luke
iii. 14. 1 Tim.
v=ch., xi. 30. w — here
x ver. 15 onlyt. (-déws, ch. xi.
zhereonly t. émok. mi tas olKias,
b 1 Cor, x. 5 reff.
? v? ,
Ev aceveiate,
rec aft duvauis ins mov (see note), with
A?D?3KLN% rel syrr copt Orig Chr Thdrt Pallad: om BD!FN! goth wth arm Iren(gr
and lat) Archel Isid Orig-int, Bas Tert Cypr Jer Ambrst al.
D°KLN3 rel Orig Ath: txt ABD'FR!.
rec TeAciovTa, with
om pou B 672. 71 syr copt Iren-int.
10. aft ao@everas ins wov F vulg(not am F-lat).
Synops. ad loc. ; and Stanley’s note, which
is important in other respects also, and
full of interest. On the whole, putting
together the figure here used, that of a
thorn, occasioning pain, and the kodAa-
pisuds, buffeting or putting to shame, it
seems quite necessary to infer that the
Apostle alludes to some painful and tedious
bodily malady, which at the same time
put him to shame before those among
whom he exercised his ministry. Of such
a kind may have been the disorder in his
eyes, more or less indicated in several pas-
sages of his history and Epistles (see notes
on Acts xili. 9; xxiii. 1 f.:—and Gal. iv.
14 (15?); vi. 11 (?)). But it may also
have been something besides this, and to
such an inference probability would lead
us; disorders in the eyes, however sad in
their consequences, not being usually of a
very painful or distressing nature iz them-
selves. 8.| In respect of this (angel
of Satan, not oxddroy, see below), I thrice
(rpls, not indefinite as Chrys., rouréots,
moAAakis. Meyer well observes, ‘At his
first and second request, no answer was
given to him: on the third occasion, it
came; and his faithful resignation to the
Lord’s will prevented his asking again’)
besought the Lord (Christ, see ver. 9)
that he might depart from me (the angel
of Satan, see Luke iv. 13): 9.] And
He said to me (this perf. can hardly in
English be represented otherwise than by
the historical aorist ; in the Greek, it par-
takes of its own proper sense—‘ He said,
and that answer is enough :? ‘He hath
said, —but this last would not contain
reference enough to the fact itself. The
poverty of our language in the finer dis-
tinctions of the tenses often obliges us to
render inaccurately and fall short of the
wonderful language with which we have to
deal. How this was said, whether ac-
companied by an appearance of Christ to
him or not, must remain in obscurity),
My grace (not,—‘ My favour generally ;’—
‘ My imparted grace’) is sufficient for thee
(@pxet, spoken from the divine omni-
science, ‘suffices, and shall suffice :’ q. a.
‘the trial must endure, untaken away:
but the grace shall also endure, and never
fail thee’), for (the reason lying in My ways
being not as man’s ways, My Power not
being brought to perfection as man’s power
is conceived to be) (My) Power is made
perfect (has its full energy and complete
manifestation) in (as the element in which
it acts as observable by man) weakness.
See ch. iv. 7, and 1 Cor. ii. 3, 4,—where
the influence of this divine response on the
Apostle, is very manifest. If I mistake
not, the expression THs Suvapews, there,
favours the omission of “ov here, as in our
text, and makes it probable that it was in-
serted for perspicuity’s sake, and to an-
swer to 7 ddv. tod xp. below. Most
gladly therefore will I rather (than that
my aflliction should be removed from me,
which before that response, I wished)
boast (cavx. is in the emphatic place,—
I will rather doast in mine infirmities.
Had paddrov signified ‘rather than in
revelations,’ or ‘rather than in any thing
else,’ it would have been padAdov év tats
aoGevelais pov Kavxfjooum) in my in-
firmities, that (by my do@éverm being
not removed from me, but becoming
my glory) the Power of Christ may have
its residence in me (see ref. Polyb.—‘ may
carry on in me its work unto completion,’
as above). 10.| Wherefore (because
of this relation to human weakness and
divine power) I am well content in in-
firmities (four kinds of which are then
specified, —all coming also, as well as ac@.
proper, under the category of ao6éveiai,
as hindrances and bafjlings of human
714
c = here (Acts
XXvii. 10, 21)
enly. Proy.
viii. 13 al.
d = 1 Cor. vii.
26 i a oe
ch.
e Mark; A 7 fl
Mr. x. 30.
Acts viii.
1. xiii. 50.
Rom. viii. 35.
2 Thess. 1. 4.
2 Tim. iii. 1 Tw
bis only.
Prov. xi. 19.
Lam. iii 19, pey
2 Mace. xii. 5
23 only.
f ay i. 9 reff.
x = Rom.iv. JY y
§ reff. féou .
h = 1 Cor. xiii. 1.
* UPpsow, ev
Xwpiac, Uméo Xptsrov"
EL[lts
1h Péyova ! agpwv"
,
év
| patho up UM
‘ onusta Tov
tit es
ties iad
13 rl yao
ich. xi. 16, 19 ret.
, 10. m = Rom. iii. 5 reff.
pl Cor. vii. 19 reff, q = Luke ii. 12.
15 reff. t Rom. ii. 7 reff.
w = Matt. vii. 22. 1 Cor. xii. 10 al.
2 Pet. ii. 19, 20. Isa. viii. 9. xx. 6.)
,
7Taoy)
IIPO2 KOPINOIOY®S B.
d ’ , ,
GREP AG €v
" ouviorasbar ovdey yao
° yreoA lav aTootoAwy, & Kal
amrootoXou
" onustowe TE Kal
eaTiv
nconstr., Rom. ili. 23. ch. xi. 5. (i. 7 reff.)
2 Thess. iii. 17 al. r
x constr. acc., as Matt. xvi. 26.
“= ver. 6.
XII.
5 SwwyHolc, gy
orav yao ®acleve, tore Suvatoc
Upete Me “ivayKasare.
, A ‘
Eyw yao
c
" voTéonaa
P ovdev elt. * 12 +4
Tr , , ‘age A ,
KatepyacOn —€v vuulvy EV
y , ‘ Ww ,
“Y réoaow Kat *” duva-
Sh cyese , Fae | \ A
oO noswOnre UTEO Trac Aowrac
k Acts x xvi. J1 reff. 1 = Acts xvii. 29. 1 Cor. xi.
o ch. xi. 5 only t.
8 = Acts xx.
v Acts vii. 36 reif.
y here only. (-rr@aGar,
Rom. ii. 9 ret.
u Acts ii. 22. Heb. ii. 4.
for ev avaykais, kat evaryKais &}. (corrd by orig] scribe to avayk., by X* to txt.)
for 5th ev, ka: BR':
kat eva: txt ADFK LN? rel,
om ev diwyors A.
11. rec aft appwy ins kavxwmevos, with L rel syrr gr-ff: om ABDFKN 17 latt copt
eth arm lat-ff. up nuwy A.
aft ovdey yap ins Tt B.
12. katypyacbn BIE d: karnpyacény D.
rec ins ev bef anueos (mechanical
repetition from the foregoing), with D8KL rel vulg-ed(with demid) copt Thdrt;
wot F Syr Chr:
Ambrst Bede.
13. [ noowbynte, so BD!8! 17:
te NB;
strength),—in insults, in necessities, in
persecutions, in distresses,—on behalf of
Christ: for whenever I am weak (apply-
ing to all five situations above), then Iam
mighty. Wetst. quotes from Philo, Vit.
Mosis, i. 13, vol. ii. p. 92, uh dvaminrere.
7d Gobeves iuav Stvauts core. 11—18. |
He excuses his boasting, and is thereby
led to speak of the signs of an Apostle
wrought among them, and to reassert his
disinterestedness in preaching to them, on
occasion of his past and intended visits.
11.) Iam Become (the emphasis
on yéyova,—I am verily become a fool,
viz. by this boasting, which I have now
concluded. ‘Receptui canit:’ Bengel.
But it is still ironical, spoken from the
situation of his adversaries) a fool: ye
compelled me (vucts emphatic). ForI (éyé
also emphatic, but more with reference to
what has past: ‘ye compelled me, it was
no doing of mine, for I &ec. The meaning
is not, as De W., “J, not mine adver-
saries,” who are an element foreign to the
present sentence) ought to have been re-
commended by you (emphatic, by you, not
by himself): for I was nothing behind
(when I was with you) these overmuch
Apostles (see on ch. xi. 5: but here even
more plainly than there, the expression
cannot be applied to the other Apostles,
seeing that the aor. would in that case
be inconsistent with the fact—the Corin-
thians never having had an opportunity
om ABD'FR! a 17 am(with fuld tol) Syr goth Chr Damase
rec om te, with ADF KLN-corr! rel:
eAatwOntat F}.
ins BX! a 17 Damase.
eyw bef avros F m Jatt goth.
of comparing him with them), even though
I am nothing (see similar expressions of
humility, 1 Cor. xv. 9—11).
12.| Confirmation of the oi8iv trrépnoa
. The signs indeed (the uéy is ellipti-
cal,—see Hartung, Partikellehre, ii. 411,
—corresponding to a suppressed ¢ Guws de
....3 ‘in this case, the signs indeed &c.,
but, notwithstanding, I am not recom-
mended by you.’ So Soph. did. Col. 526,
jveyxoy Kaxdtat @ kévol, Hveyk, aékwv
mev, eds toTw. It always throws out
into strong emphasis the noun, pronoun,
or verb to which it is attached, as here
onucia) of aa Apostle (rod generic, —‘ ejus
qui Apostolus sit,’ Bengel) were wrought
out among you (“the Apostle’s own per-
sonality as the worker is modestly veiled
behind the passive. > Meyer) in all (pos-
sible) patience (endurance of opposition,
which did not cause me to leave off work-
ing. tropovy is not one of the onucia,
as Chrys.: 0éa motov mp@rov Tidno., Thy
UTouovnv. TovTO yap amoordAouv Betypa,
To pepe mavra yevvalws,—but the ele-
ment in which the onueta were wrought
out), by signs and wonders (cnu. not as
above, but as constantly found with répac:,
as an intensitive synonym) and mighty
works (see ref. Heb.). 13—15.| His
disinterestedness, shewn in his past, and
resolved in his future dealings with them.
The question ti yap «.7.A. is asked in
bitter irony. It is an illustration of év
: OTEVO~
ABDF
KLNab
cdefg
hkim
nol7
11—15.
a? U td , @ a , s ?
ExKAnolac, &l MY OTL aUTOC EYW OV
“ XapicaaBe: ovis THY
i rouro] | EroIWG Hee eNDew moc
vapKnow®
ou yap
” opethee ra Tikva ToIc epee
yovetc role TEKVOIC* 15
SatravnPyoonat uTEO TOV
k ver. 9.
n = Heb. xiii. 17.
1 Acts as ti reff.
1 Pet. ii.
14. ree om Touro, with KL rel Thdrt ec:
gd? ' ,
aouKklav sinha
© Gur Ta yaey, adAa v vac.
eyo oe * ndiora | camarnew Kal
"buyer UMOV, Et
m here only ¢. Polyb. xxv. 8. 4, €kdaTargy tas Mposddous.
o ch. i, 12 refi.
IiPOS KOPINOIOY®S B. 715
b .
sunercplonie: UROY 5 eo der pr
£235 bch xi. 8 only
toouU * roirov (reff. ).
e b c = ae Zz
= Ure
unac, Kal ov Rand d = here only.
< \ Thue. tii. 66.
ov Be. oo xiii. 1
" Onoavpicay, avd’ ot fActS xxi. 13
m ? g Lor. x. 24
h ver. 11.
° mEoisauTtiows El xvi. 2
ins ABFX ab ecdm o 17 latt syr goth
zth arm Chr Damase Thl Ambrst Pelag, and (but bef tp:tov) D 93 copt Did. (see note.)
rec aft katavapkynow ins vuwy (from above ;
would never have been ejected, leaving the verb standing alone.
had vuwy been in the text origly, it
This is further shewn
by the var vpas), with D?-3KL rel vss gr-lat-ff; vuas D'F: om ABN 17 eth Damasce.
[aAAa(1st), so ABDFLX adefkmn.]
15. aft damavnow add kar exdaravnow D}(and lat) Ambrst.
G-lat Ambrst.
maon vronorH, and of the distinction con-
ferred on them by so long manifestation
of the signs of an Apostle among them.
‘ Was this endurance of working which I
shewed, marred by the fact that I worked
gratuitously among you 2?’ joo. vwép does
not imply that all churches suffered loss,
and that the Joss of the Corinthians was
oaly not greater than that of other
churches : but the comparative, implied in
ijoo. is carried out by the dwép,-—-‘ ye suf-
Jered loss in comparison with the other
Churches. 13. et ph Str] except that
one point, in which of all others they had
least reason to complain. This one is put
forward to indicate their deep ingratitude,
if they did complain, seeing that the
only point of difference in their treatment
had been a preference : ‘die tief gefvantte
Liebe redet,’ Meyer. On Katevdpk. see
ref. Xap. p. T. 26. Tavtnv| The irony
here reaches its height. 14.] tpitov
(the todro, though so strongly attested, can
hardly have been omitted, had it ever been
in the text, and therefore has probably
been inserted from ch. xiii. 1) ér. Ex édO.,
must, from the context, mean, I am ready
to come the third time ;—not, ‘Z am the
third time ready to come, i.e. ‘ this is the
third time that I have been ready to come
to you.” This latter meaning has been
adopted by Beza, Grot., Estius, al., Paley,
al., and even De Wette, hesitatingly, in
order to evade the difficulty of supposing
Paul to have been before this twice at
Corinth. But on this see Prolegomena to
1 Cor. § v. Here, the context has abso-
lutely nothing to do with his third pre-
paration to come, which would be a new
rec aft ec ins kat (to give {mistaken | emphasis :
adda (2nd) &.
om et D'(and lat)
see notes), with
element, requiring some explanation, as in
1 Thess. ii. 18. The natural, and, I am
persuaded, only true inference from the
words here is, ‘ I am coming to you a third
time,—and I will not burden you this time,
any more than I did at my two previous
visits.’ Our business in such cases is,
not to wrest plain words to fit our precon-
ceived chronology, but to adapt our con-
Jessedly uncertain and imperfect history
of the Apostle’s life, to the data furnished
by the plain honest sense of his Epistles.
ov yap fn7G . . . .| Wetst. quotes
Cicero de Fin. ii. 26: ‘Me igitur ipsum
ames oportet, non mea, si veri amici futuri
sumus.’—-relCova éri(nT@, Wuxas avTl xpn-
pdtwy, ocwtnplay aytl xpualov, Chrys.
ov yap ddeider . . Paul was the
spiritual father of the Corinthian church,
1 Cor. iv. 14, 15 : he does not therefore want
to be enriched by them, his children, but
rather to lay up riches for them, seeking
to have them as his treasure and thus to
enrich them, as a loving father does his
children. The @ncavpés is left indefinite:
if pressed strictly, it cannot be earthly trea-
sure in the negative part of the sentence,
heavenly, in the positive ;—cf. next verse.
Notice, opefAe: is not impersonal, but
the common verb to réxva and yoveis, agree-
ing by proximity with the former. 16. |
eyo b& Tay puoe matépwy Kal mA€ov TL
moiety émaryyéAAouat, Theodoret: and
similarly Chrys. and Theophyl. They lay
up treasures: I will spend them :—xat rf
A€yo, xphuara Saraviow ; auTds eye €k-
Saravnbncopat’ TOUTEOTI, Koy Thy capa
dén Sanavinjoa umép THS TwTnplas Tov
Wuxev bay, ov detoouat, Theophyl. Cf.
716
p = here
(1 Cor. xi. 17)
y. 2 Mace. , t ~
ww. 9 KateBapnoa vac.
gq here onlyt. © ew Fae 17 5
(-puvecy, vuac eAaov. by)
Mark xiv. 40.
2 Kings xiii.
25
r Acts viii. 16
reff.
s here only.
= Job v.12.
(good sense,
Proy. xiii. 1 ?
is ~ 3 =p ie
xxvii.2.) | OV TOLG AUTOLE © LY VEC
IIPOS KOPINOIOY®= B.
~ > -~ id ,’ ~
vac ayavwv ' nooov ayaTwpat.
> ‘re , s ~ t ,
aXAa “ vraoywv * ravovpyoc dodw
eo) = > ' . &
° Oc avrov “ exXsovextnsa vac 5
\ Wee) 0 ie , w? ,
kat ) ouvarécreAa * Tov adeAgov’ py te “ exdAeoveKtnoev
© ~ , > ~ ae ie , ,
ywac Tiroc; ov tw avtw “mvevuate * weoleTaTHOAamE”Y 5
XII.
16 "Rory oé, eyo ov
= b] , ‘ c ~
Tiva WV amwéotaAka TpPoc upac,
18 * TapexaXeoa Titov,
(-yéay ch. xi. , ~ ° de a= e? , f
ont 19 ¢ TlaXau Soxeire OTe ° viv atoXoyoupueba. KaT-
t — siii. 10
ff.
u = ch. xi. 20. v constr., Luke xxi. 6. Rom. viii. 3. Gal. i. 20. w ch. ii. 11 reff. x = 1 Cor.
xvi. 12. ch. viii. 6. y here only.
a constr., Acts xxi. 21 reff.
x. 13. Heb,i.1l. 2 Pet.i.9. Jude 4) only t.
xix. 35 reff. f =ch. ii. 17.
D23KLN? rel syrr Chr Thdrt Damase Pelag: om ABD!FR! 17.
[nooov, so ABD'N!' 17: edAaccor F. |
ovk eBapnoa D!: ov karevapknoa vuwr FR (a)
[aAaAa, so ABD! FLX a m.]
ayarw &!b! da 17.
16. aft eyw ins de F syr Thi.
20. 23'. 39. 47. 57. '73 Chr.
Exod. xxxiii. 2, 12.
b Rom. iv. 12 refi.
(Isa. Xxxvii. 26 only.)
Rom. iv. 17 only. (Luke xix. 30 al.) Exod. xxxii. 11] F.
Esdr. v. 2 only. z see ch. viii. 1X, 22.
c = (see note) Mark xy. 44 (Matt. xi. 21. Luke
d dat., see 1 Cor. ix. 3. e Acts
for ayarwr,
19. rec (for mada) madw, with DKLN3 rel G-lat harl! syrr copt goth Chr Thdrt :
txt ABFN! 17 vulg D-lat Ambrst-comm Pelag Bede.
Hor. Od. i. 12. 38: ‘animeque magne
prodigum Paullum.’ ei is less strong
than ef kal, which has been apparently a
gloss on it. It assumes the case, but does
not bring out the contrast between the
course of action and the state of circum-
stances so strongly. Here, it appears as if
fiooov ayan@puor were by the ef connected
with éexdaravnOjoouat,—‘ and will be spent,
used up, in the service of your souls, if, the
more abundantly I love you, the less I be
loved ? implying, that such a return for
his love was leading to, and would in time
accomplish, the exdamavnijcoua.
16—18.] He refutes a possible, perhaps
an actual calumny,—that though he had
acted disinterestedly towards them himself,
he had some side-way of profiting by them,
through others. 16.] €otw S€—‘ but
let us suppose the former matter dis-
missed :’ let the fact be granted, that I
myself (emphatic) did not burden (= kar-
evdpknoa) you. Then the sense breaks off,
and the force of the concession goes no
further, the following words making a new
hypothesis. Nevertheless, being (by habit
and standing, érdpx.) crafty (unprincipled,
and versatile in devices), I caught you with
guile (with some more subtle way. Caught
you, in order to practise upon you for my
own ends; but €AaBov is not émAcov-
éxtnoa, as Chrys.:—see ref. and note).
17, 18.] Specification, in refuta-
tion, of the ways in which this might be
supposed to have taken place. The con-
struction Twa y . . . di avrov is an ana-
coluthon. He sets twa av amréor. mp.
du. forward in the place of emphasis ; how
rec (for Katevaytt) Kat-
intending to govern tia, is not plain:
but drops the construction, and proceeds,
5? avrod k.7.A. See examples of the
same in reff., and Winer, edn. 6, § 63.
2. d. 18.] mapexadeoa, scil. ‘to go
to you: see reff. This journey of Titus
cannot, of course, be the one spoken of
ch. viii. 6, 17, 22, 24; but some previous
mission to them before this Epistle was
written : probably that from which he re-
turned with the report of their penitence
to Paul in Macedonia, ch. vii. 6 ff. We
certainly have not elsewhere any hint of
6 &5eAods having accompanied him on this
journey : but this is no reason why it should
not have been so. TOV adehodov—per-
haps, one of the two mentioned ch. viii. 18,
22: some other, well known to the Corinth-
ians, but absolutely unknown to us: but not,
a brother, asin K. V. It is plain from this
and from what follows, that this brother
was quite subordinate to Titus in the mis-
sion. TS aut. mwvevp.| dat. of the
manner; see ref. The Spirit in which
they walked was the Holy Spirit: 7é
avTe MvevwaTin@ YXaplowati’ xdpioua
yap Kade? Td aTevotmevoy mh dAaBeiv,
Theophyl. Tois aut. txv.] in the
same footsteps, viz. each as the other:
ovde puxpdv, onal, mapeenAOov Thy euhy
65év, Theophyl. The dative txveow, as
in ref. = év %xveow: see also Acts xiv.
16; Jude ll. Meyer cites Pind. Pyth. x.
20,—éuBéBakev txveow marpds, and Nem.
vi. 27, tyveow ev Mpakibduavtos édv dda
véuwy. Cf. also Philo de Caritate, § 2,
vol. ii. p. 385, rots abrots txveow eraxo-
AovOjaa, 19—21. | He refutes the no-
ABDF
KLNab
edefg
hklm
nol7
16—21.
IIPOS KOPINOIJOY= B.
ray
, - I ? .
EVaVTL Bootie ev Xplore nb oun ie Oe wavra, : Sah g Rom. ix. 1.
! k h Ae eon
THTOL, ‘ume me vay orxodonne. * poBovpar yap an eich
1 k Rom. xiv. 19
TWC elOov ovx olovc Oerw ' pw upac, Kayo ™ supe tapes 4
Nis ee eee > Or Fo Ve eC | Large
uutv olov ov OéXeTe” | en | wwe °P9 3 Epetc, P ZnAoc, ** Bupoi, pa Ut
to) t hou n dat., Luke
Oetat, katahaAtat, a iacea ee puawooes,, aKata- nae eer
, 2 PAT o rae 1.
oTaclal i) waAdw tAQ6vroc * Zou Y ramEvwoet * me ra * Aco p Gall v. 20.
qasabove (p). Rom. xiii.13. 1 Cor. iii. 3. Sir. xl. 5. ry = Eph. iv.3lal. plur., Gal. v. 20
only. (Wisd. vii. 20.) s Rom. ii. 8 reff. t 1 Pet. ii. 1 only +t. Wisd. i. 11 only. (-Aos,
Rom. i. 30.) u here only. Eccles. x. 11 only. (-or7s, Rom. i. 30.) v here
only t. (-ocvvv, 1 Cor. iv. 6 al.) w 1 Cor. xiv. 33 reff, x constr., Acts xxi. 17 reff.
y ch. xi. 7 reff. constr., Col. ii. 8.
evwriov, with DKL rel Thdrt Thl He: txt ABFX m 17 Damasce.
om ABD!FR! m 17.
txt BDFKL rel latt syr copt goth Thdrt Damasc Tert Ambrst.
@eov, with I)?-3KLN3 rel:
17 Syr arm Chr Thl :
z Rom. i. 8 reff.
rec ins Tov bef
epis (itacism?) ANbDdfghk
rec (mAot, with D3 KLX rel latt syr copt Chr Thdrt Tert: txt ABD'F 17 Syr
goth arm Damase.
21. rec cA@ovta me (grammatical correction), with DKLN3 rel goth: txt ABFR!
vss lat-ff(ewm venero).
gr-lat-ff: txt BDFL (c?) df g k n Me.
tion which might arise in the minds of his
readers, that he was vindicating himself
BEFORE THEM as judges, see 1 Cor. iv. 3;
and assures them that he does all for their
good, fearing in what state he might find
them on his arrival. 19.] waar was
misunderstood, and mad appears to have
been a conjectural emendation, from ch. iil.
1; v.12. maXdat does not suit the znter-
rogative form of the sentence, which would
throw it out into too strong emphasis.
Lachmann, Tischendorf, Meyer, De Wette
read it as in text :—Ye have been some
time imagining (i. e. during this my self-
defence) that it is to you that I am de-
fending myself. Then the answer fol-
lows: the assumption being made, and
elliptically answered, as in ver. 16.
kat. Qeov is emphatic, and opposed to
but. év xp. Aahovpey, as in ch.
ii. 17, which see. Ta S€ wavta |
supply either AaAoduey, or better under-
stand 7a mavra as ‘ all our things’ (1 Cor.
xvi. 14), i.e. our words and deeds, and
supply yivera, as there. Grot., Gries-
bach, Scholz, and Olsh., would read tdde
mayra, and join with Aadoduer. But
(1) Paul never uses the pronoun éd¢; and
(2) if he did, it must apply to what follows,
not to what has preceded. 20. | < Edi-
fication, of which you stand in need, for,
&e. He here completely and finally
throws off the apologist and puts on the
Apostle, leaving on their minds a very
different impression from that which would
have been produced had he concluded
with the apology. Lest, when I arrive,
I should find you not such as I wish (in
ovx olouvs G€Aw, is an indefinite possibility
rec tarewwon (gramml corrn or itacism ?), with AKX rel
rec om pe, with KL rel: ins ABDFR d.
of aberration from ofovs @€Aw, presently
particularized, uh wws Epes, x.T.A.), and
I should be found by you (sui merely
the dative of the agent after the passive
verb. Meyer makes it ‘7 your judgment,’
but I much prefer the other: the passive
form is adopted to bring out the éyé into
emphatic contrast), such as ye wish not
(not odx ofov @éAeTe, because there is now
no indefiniteness ; his disposition towards
them in such a case could be but of one
kind, viz. severity : tovtéott, Tyuswpds kK.
koAaoT hs, Theophyl. Chrys. brings out
another point,—ov« eimey, oioy ov Oédrw.
GAAG TANKTLKOTEpov,—otov ov BovdAccOe).
What follows, viz. uj mws .. . émpatay,
is an epexegesis of the last sentence, but in
it the definiteness is on the side of the
ovx olovs 0éAw, the indefiniteness on that
of viov od @ێAere, which latter is only
hinted at by the mild expressions of being
humbled, and lamenting the case of the
impenitent. BY tes, scil. dow (or
evpeO@ov) ev tuiv. “The vehemence of
his language has caused him to omit the
verb.” Stanley. ép8etar, self-seek-
ings, seen ote on ref. Rom. wie. se-
eret malignings,—karaX. open slanders.
axcatacr., see reff. and note. 21.]
py carries on the wh mas... wh mos,
but with more precision, dropping the in-
definite ws. The sentence loses much in
foree and, indeed, becomes inconsistent
with the context, if with Lachmann (and
Liicke, Conjectanea exeget. i. De W.) it be
made interrogative (which it may be gram-
matically with either reading, ratewéce
or -on), in which case the answer would be
negative. mwadwv here, as Meyer ob-
718 IIPO2 KOPINOIOY®S B. XIII.
a =(?see note) 2 = es Sib y. ae eas - ABDF
fe ) prov * mpoc vuae, kat wevOnow. tls dove twy © moonnag- ABDF
reff. < de , ’ ~ > , \ =
bloor.v.2 THKOTWY Kal pL) MéeTAaVONoAaYTwWY © ExL TH ® axaQapata Kar c4ets
reff. constr., le e hkim
here only. Gen. xxxvii. 34 al. ech, xiii. 2 only +. depp., here only. Actsii. 38 ref. e here nol7
only. Joelii-13. Amos vii. 3. f = 1 Cor. xiv. 16. g Rom. i. 24 reff.
serves, must belong to the whole éA@dvtTos
pou Tamewa@oet pm. 6 0. w. Tpds bu., because,
éA9év having been used without méAw just
before, the emphatic situation of mdéAw as
applying to it would be unmeaning: see
also the very different way in which it is
connected with €A@w, ch. xiii. 2.
tamewooet} ‘Nihil erat quo magis exul-
taret apostolus, quam prospero suze preedi-
eationis successu (1 Thess. ii. 20): contra
nihil erat, unde tristiore et demissicre
animo redderetur, quam quum cerneret, se
frustra laborasse,’ Beza (Meyer). The
fut. (ref.) indicates an assumption that the
supposed case will really be. That this
humbling, and not that of being obliged to
punish, is intended, seems evident: the
exercise of judicial authority being no hu-
miliation, but thecontrary,and humiliation
being the natural result of want of success.
6 @eds pov expresses the conviction
that whatever humiliation God might have
in store for him would be a part of His will
respecting him. mpos tas] among
you, as the generality of interpreters: ‘in
regard to you, in my relation to you, as
Meyer. Either may be meant: but if we
take the former, we must not join it, as
Grot., al., with éA@dvros: it belongs at all
events to Tamewdoet. amevOyow | Theo-
phyl. explains, uh) eA@av KoAacn avtors,
Kal mevOijon bia TovTO: TovTéoTL, TH Eo-
xata AvrnbA: so also al. and Billroth,
Rickert, Olsh.,and De Wette. But punish-
ment seems out of place in this verse, which
expresses his fear lest he should be humbled
for, and have to lament the case of the im-
penitent,—and then, as he declares ch.
xiii. 2, be forced to proceed to discipline ;
but this point is not yet introduced. I
much prefer therefore taking it as Chrys.—
Tovs wh petavootytas wevOel, Tos Ta
aviata vooodvtas, Tovs ev TH Tpavuare
Bévovtas. evydnoov Tolvuy amooToAiKhy
apethy, Stay undéy Eavt@ ouverdws To-
vnpdv, tmép aAdotplwy Opnry Kak@v, Kal
bmep tev Erépois TWANMMEANMEVMY TaTel-
v@Tal. TovTO yap mdAioTta Si5acKdAov,
7) oUTw ouvadyety tals Tay pmalnTdv
cuppopais, To KémTec8ar Kal wevOciv emt
Tos Tpavuact TOY apxouevwy. Similarly
Calvin : ‘ veri et germani Pastoris affectunr
nobis exprimit, quum luctu aliorum pec-
rata se prosequuturum dicit. Et sane ita
agendum est, ut suam quisque Pastor Ee-
clesiam animo inclusam gestet, ejus morbis
perinde ac suis afficiatur, miseriis condoles-
cat, peccato lugeat.’? So Estius, but per-
haps too minutely fixing the meaning of
mevdeiy to mourning them as “ Deo mor-
tuos:” and Calovius (Meyer): “non de
pena hic Corinthiorum impenitentium, sed
de mcerore suo super impeenitentia :” and
so likewise Meyer. aoAX. T. Tponi. |
Why moaAdovs ? Why not all? I believe
he uses 7oAAobs T&V moonuapTnKdTwY As <
mild expression for tovs moAdovs Tovs
Tponuaptnxdras, and that we must not
therefore press too closely the enquiry as
to what the genus of mponu. is, of which the
moAAot are the species. Liicke (as above)
cited by Meyer, explains—“ Cogitavit rem
ita, ut primam poneret Christianorum ex
ethnicis potissinum Tay mponm. kK. wn meTa-
vonodyTwy genus universum, cujus generis
homines essent ubique ecclesiarum, deinde
vero ex isto hominum genere multos eos
qui Corinthi essent, designaret definiret-
que.” But this seems travelling quite out
of the way. Meyer explains the genus to
be all the sinners spoken of in ver. 20,
the species (moAAovs) those designated by
a&kabapo., mopy., and aceAy. But this
again is unnatural; and does not accu-
rately fit ver. 20, in which not so much the
mponuapTnueva as the present state at the
Apostle’s coming, is the subject. The
distinction between the two participles,
mponu. and ueravongavtTwy, should be ob-
served. As Meyer well remarks, the perf.
TponmaptnKdtwy denotes the permanence of
the state from the time of the committal of
the sin: whereas the aor. petavontdytwy
has the sense of the ‘futurum exactum,’
—“and who at my coming shall not have
repented.” Yo what does mpo- refer? to
the time before their conversion ? Hardly
so: for the sins, of the incestuous person
1 Cor. v., and of these also, which would
give the Apostle such pain, must be con-
ceived to have been committed in their
Christian state: being in fact those against
which we find such repeated cautions in 1
Cor., e.g. ch. v. 11; vi. 15,18; x.8; xv. 33,
34. I would therefore understand the mpo-
indefinitely, almost pleonastically—point-
ing to the priority of sin implied in the idea
of repentance. petayv. éri| Meyer would
join together mevOqjow ... emi, and indi-
cates this as the natural connexion of ver,
object, and ground. But to say nothing of
the harshness of wev84jow modAods él, and
the almost necessarily reflective form of
Meravona. ém TH ak... . H Empatay,—l con-
1:2:
h ’ i 48 \ okeeywv
TOOVELE Kat aoéts ma Ui)
m ~ w ct - nN , Ss ,
TOUTO EP KX Ouat Tpoc vuac. €7l OTOMATOC CUO MaoTVpWwY
\ ben! , ~ t-
Kal TPLWVY 8 otalnosrat Tav pupa.
1 reff. 11 Cor. xii. 28 reff.
xvi. 15. n Matt. xviii. 16. 1 Tim. v.19.
xiv. 4. p Matt. xxiv. 25 ] Mk. ch. vii. 3 alt
TIPO KOPINOIOYS B.
e7oa av.
m[ch, xii. 14.] John xxi. 14. Num, xxii. 28, 32.
719
GS Toirov ee tae
i Mark vii. 22.
Rom. xiii. 13.
2 Pet. ii. 2
alt Wisd.
Xiv. 26 only.
k attr., Acts 1.
Judg.
ole. F. Rom.
\
P Tpoeipnka Kal
DEUT. xix. 15. see Heb. x. 28.
2 Mace. iii. 28 al.
Cuap. XIII. 1. ins dou bef tpitov (from ch. xii. 14) AN a bed fo vulg 17 eth
Damase Thl Pelag Aug Bede.
A Syr copt.
46 vulg sah arm Dial Ambrst Aug Pelag.
for epxouat, eTomws exw cAdev (from ch xii. 14)
ins wa bef em &! 35 G-lat arm’ Pelag Bede.
for kat, n & 32.
2. for Ist «at, yap D' o 42. 113-marg Ambrst Pelag Sedul Bede.
ceive the aorist érpagav to be fatal to this
arrangement. Thus taken, it would make
the Apostle lament over these impenitents,
on account of the impurity, &e., which they
érpatay—i. e. once practised, but which is
now gone by. The sense would require
mempaxact. Whereas if connected with
fevavonodytwy, the aorist expresses ‘and
shall not have [repented of the ax., &e.,
which they practised |,’ and would thus come
rightly after petavono., implying the re-
moval of the former state of sin. peTav.
is usually constructed with é7é, Acts viii.
22 (Heb. vi. 1), or éx, Rev. only,—ii. 21 f.;
ix. 20 f.; xvi. 11: but as Paul only uses
the word this onee, and as the construction
with en is perfectly legitimate and highly
expressive (see reff. LX X), there can be no
objection to it here. Cuap. XIII. 1—
10.] He warns them of the severity which
on his arrival, if such be the case, he will
surely exercise, and prove his apostolic
authority. To this proof, however, he ex-
horts them not to put him. 1.| This
third time I am coming to you: i.e.
‘this is the third visit, which IT am now
about to pay you. Had not chronological
theories intervened, no one would ever have
thought of any other rendering. The usual
one, ‘This is the third time that I have
been intending to come to you,’ introduces
here, as also in ch. xii. 14, an element not
only foreign to, but detrimental to, the
purpose. The Apostle wishes to impress on
them the certainty of this coming, and to
prepare them for it by solemn self-examina-
tion ; and in order to this, he (on this in-
terpretation) uses an expression which
would only remind them of the charge of
€Aappia which had been brought against
him, and tend to diminish the solemnity of
the warning. As another chronological re-
fuge, Beza, al., suppose his two Epistles to
be meant by the two former ‘ profectiones
ad illos? In answer to ald attempts to
give here any but the obvious sense, we
may safely maintain that had any other
been meant, we should certainly have had
more indication of it, than we have now.
On tpiroy rotto, Meyer compares Herod.
v. 76, réraptov 3) TodTo.... amikduevor:
see also reff.: and on Paul’s visits to Co-
rinth, the Prolegomena to 1 Cor. § v.
émt ordp. | i.e. ‘I will not now, as before,
be with you ev rds brouort as regards
the offenders: but will come to a regular
process, and establish the truth in a legal
manner,’ see reff. This explanation,
however, has not been the usual one:
Chrys., Calvin, Estius, al., and recently
Neander and Olsh. and Stanley, under-
standing the two or three witnesses, of
Paul’s ‘wo or three visits, as establishing,
either (1) the truth of the facts, or (2) the
reality of his threats: so Chrys.: &at
elroy x. devTepov, bre mapeyevdunv’ A€yw
Kal viv dia ypayudtwv. Kal édv per
axovonte, Sep emeOtuouv yéyover. eay
5& mapaxovonte, avaykn Aoimdy orTHoat
Ta cipnucva, Kal emayaryeiy Thy Tipmwplay,
—and Theophyl., wav pijua aaewdntuKdy
KkatactabjoeTa. But it is decisive against
the whole interpretation, as Meyer remarks,
that thus the sins committed since the
Apostle’s last visit would remain altoge-
ther unnoticed. Another view, connected
with the rendering of @yopa: ‘am intend-
ing to come,’ is given by Wetstein : “Spero
jam denique mihi successurum, ut vobis
demonstrem, serio me desiderasse ad vos
venire: sicut ea que trium hominum tes-
timonio probantur, in judicio fidem fa-
ciunt.” Similarly Grotius and Le Clere.
But it is fatal to this, that according to it,
the 8¥o udptupes had failed to establish
it. kal 7p., not for 7) tp.,—two (where
only two can be had), and three (where so
many can be obtained): ‘two and three
respectively. paptipwyv, the dual number
not occurring in the N. T. 2.] I
have forewarned you, and I now fore-
warn you, as (I did, mpvelpyxa) when
present the second time, so also (I do)
now (mpoAéyw) when absent. It cer-
tainly seems to me that this is the only
natural way of taking the words. Grct.,
720
Gal.v.21. 49 UL per N
s Thess. Ss TpoAEY, 2 mae.
nly. Isa.
xii 2 ealy. TOONLAOTNKOGLY Kal
x1 Cor. v.3
reff.
s Jude 5. (Gen.
xxvii. 36.)
t ch. xii. 21
only tT. > Atag - >? ce
a hereonly.. NA Suvaret EV VEY.
see Lidd. and A feos!
Scott, sub pelac b oNKNG ¢n
eis, ii. 2. ’ i
vy =2 Pet. ii. 4,5. Acts ¥x- 29. Ezek. xxxvi. 21.
viii. 3. z Rom. Biv. 4. ch. ix. 8 only t.
om ws D'(and lat) syr arm.
Chr Thdrt Damase Ambrst ;
Sedul Bede. om es To F.
3, for emer, ott F Ambr, Augalic:
HWPOS KOPINOIOY= B.
, ,
“ cle ro ° waAty ov * petoomau’
’ 4 -~ ~
gy guot AaAovYTOS XPLFTOY,
tx Suvapewc Oeov"
w Rom. v.
rec aft vuy ins ypapo,
Aeyw copt zth-pl: om ABD!FR 17 latt eth-rom Aug
NS , \ ° ‘ - -
TO ; SeUTEPOV Kal : aATWV vu, TOLC
- ~ - ¢ »\ a
roic Aowroig Tact, OTL FAV EADw
» \w ‘ x - ~
3 tre) © Soxyuny * CnTElTe TOV
a ? > ah > y >] ~
oc é&l¢ vpac OUK aoQevet,
\ ‘ ? 7 a6 ?
Kal yao esravowln e& * aobe-
\ A € ~
_ Kat yao NUELC
4 reff. x = 1 Cor. iv. 2. y = Rom.
al Cor. ii. 3 reff. b = 1 Cor. iv. 15 reff.
with D3KL rel syrr goth
e: Orig, Mac Thdrt,: # Orig, Dial Thdrts: a
Orig-lat lat-ff: quid Ambr : quomodo Ambrst: for ewe: Sokiuny, €T™ oucodouny 93.
4. ree aft Ist Kou yap ins et (see notes),
Orig, Chr (kat yop 7H-
om BD!FKR! 1! 17 copt
ins kat bef nuers (aPpy>
thus another ka added to give the emphasis),
Est., Bengel, al., and De
mapoy To devr. to mean, ‘as if I were
present the second time, meaning this
next time. But is it possible that the
Apostle should have written so confusedly,
as to have said in the same sentence Tpitov
TOUTO EpXOMAt, and ®s Tapov To SevTEpov,
both, according to these interpreters, with
reference to the same journey ? And would
he not have even on such an hypothesis
have said 7d SevTEpoy rovto? But if we
render as above, the Tm poectpynka (perf.
because the warning yet endured in force)
refers to his second visit (apy 7d devT.),
and the mpodéy@ to his present condition
of absence (aay viv), as being as (‘LD
did’ or ‘do,’ for it applies to both clauses),
and Kat the simple copula. TOUS
aponp.| the same persons as are thus
designated above, ch. xii. 21. It is not
necessary to fix the mpo- any more accu-
rately. qois hourois Tact | all the
rest of you, who may not have actually
sinned, but still require warning, on account
of your own personal danger, connexion
with the mponwapTnKoTesy ke. éav
ZO. cig TO 7.| at my next coming. This
was what he mpoeipykey when he was last
there, and now 7podéyet. 3.] émet
gives the reason why he will not spare:
they required the exertion of discipline ; and
they challenged him to the proof of his apos-
tolic authority. Soxupyy - - - XproTod |
The genitive is either objective, @ proof of
Christ speaking in me, i.e. ‘that Christ
speaks in me,’—or subjective, 4 proof
given by Christ speaking in me—‘a
token of my authority youchsafed by Christ
speaking in me. This latter meaning is
more suited to what follows, where Christ
Wette, take os
with AD3LN3 rel vulg(and F-lat) syrr goth
e. Chr-ms) Thdrty1.
eth Eus Thdrt, Damasce Thi Paulin.
as Meyer, the kar yap was taken as merely = namque, and
(Ec Dial Hipp Orig-int Ps-Ath-int lat-ff:
om 2nd yap F 112 arm.
with f g copt Chr: txt ABDFKLX® rel
becomes the subject. Such proof would be,
the immediate execution, by divine power,
of some punishment denounced by Paul’s
word, as in Acts xa, Vie ds, i. e.
Christ: see above. Suvaret, to answer
to acdeve, refers both to gifts and mira-
cles, and to the Power of Christ which He
would exert in punishment—eis juas and
év ouiv differ—the cis being hypothetical,
—the ev, matter of fact. The assertion
tends to remind them of the danger of
provoking Christ, who spoke by Paul.
4. | Confirmation of the fore-
going ovK acbever, GAAG Suvarel. The
rec. text, Kal yap ei, would be quite beside
the purpose, and would mean, ‘ Mor even
if He were crucified,’ ‘for even putting the
case that He was crucified’ kal ei cannot
be = «i Kat, though, as in Vulg. ‘ etsi,’—
and E. V. Hartung, Partikellehre i. 139,
shews that in kal «i, the climax belongs
only to the hypothetical particle ei, not
as in e kal, to the fact presupposed :
‘even if, not ‘if even, or ‘although.
Examples of al et are Plat. Sympos. 185,
kal eav TOUTO movhons a&mak 4 Bis, Kal
ei mdvu ioxupd €oTl, mavoerat. Hur.
Androm. 266, kal ‘yap el mépit o° Exel
qnktos bmdduBbos, ekavarTiTw o eye.
Sappho, kal yap ai pevyet, TAXEWS didket:
See more in Hartung, 1. c. For he was
even crucified (that «at ydp always means
‘for... evem’ - + + OF ‘for .. also,’
and never simply ‘ for, see Hartung,
i. 137 f., where he has collected many eX-
amples, e. g-:_ Hl. a. 63, Kal ydp 7 dvap éK
Atés eotiv,—Herod. i. 77; Kal yop ™pos
rovTous avT@ emeToinTo cupuaxin) from
(as the source,—the conditional element,—
by which His crucifixion became possible)
XIII.
3—7.
* aoBevorper év autw, adda
* Suvapewe * Oeou [sic yaac |.
’ 4 h
EOTE Dey Ty TloTét, EAUTOUC
atone: ‘eavrobe, 6 OTL fe Xoelsroc
yee Oe Ort yoseabe 6 OTE 5 eteeenaee
>
él 7 aN "Te ° adoKmol € tOTé,
e ~ > ’ \ oOo 2274 wp
NMELG OVK EGMEY COOCKLMOL.
‘ ‘ ~ e CS Sy / > ef
Qeov py Tommoat vac KaKkov pnoér, ovy wa
m 1 Cor. xiv. 25. n Luke ix. 13.
XXVii. 29 reff.
latt syrr goth Cyr Thdrt Damase Th] Mc lat-ff.
rec Cnooucba, with D3KL rel Chr Thdrt: txt ABD!FX 17 Damase.
om ek duvvauews Oeov F: om Geouv K.
in vobis joined with follg zpsis in D-lat(so also
ge: quas cd).
om eavtous dSoximatete A.
copt Clem Damase Ambrst Bede: txt BDKL rel syrr goth Chr Thdrt Jer.
ins AD? 3FKLN rel latt Thdrt.
D}(and lat) 17 Chr,(mss vary).
ers vuas BD flor arm Chr Sedul:
D!-gr):
5. om 7) X?.
eotty BD! 17 Clem Chr-comm, :
TTPO KOPIN@IOY®S B.
d , ‘ ° oe
Cnoopsy Guv auTWw
1 euyoueBa oe 4 TO0C TOV
1 Cor. vii. 5 only.
q here only. Nam. xi. 2.
ins AD! FKLN® rel (bef ex Suvau. bv
721
¢ ch. xi. 21, 29.
eK OS 1 Thess.
f e 4 g , > cbt
EavTOUC meloacEre €l er 1 Gor i.18
kA >
les3 ¢
Soxyatere’ * M1 OUK = emt 2nd pers.
~ , . &= Rev. ii. 2.
™ ey vuiy [Eorw | 9 iii 10. Ps.
XKy. 2. see
1 Cor. xvi. 13.
i= 1 Cor. iii.
fe 13 reff.
1 Cor. vi. 2
Ay ge Nar 9, 16,19.
- ’ 9 ete
nMELC doKt l constr., 1 Cor.
xiv. 37 reff.
o Rom. i. 28 reff. p Acts
r Rom. xiv. 18 reff.
for ev, cvv AF Syr copt.
for ouy, ev
om
xpirtos bef imoovs AFR vulg
om
6. [aft nwers € is written but marked for erasure by N?. ]
7. rec evxomat (conformation to ATCO, ver 6 2), with D3KL rel Syr goth Chr Thdrt
Ambrst Cassiod: txt ABD'FX 17 copt «eth arm Isid Damase Aug.
weakness, yet He lives by (source) the
Power of God (which raised Him from
the dead, Rom. vi.4; viii. 11; Eph. i. 20;
Phil. ii. 9). For we also are weak in
Him (i. e. 7 Him, in our communion with
and imitation of Christ, we, as He did, lay
aside our power and spare you: we par-
take of His voluntary abnegation of power
which we might have used. The context
requires this explanation, and refutes that
of Chrys., also Theodoret, Theophyl., Grot.,
Estius, al..—ti éotw, ao0. ev avtT@; bi-
wkducla, eAavvducba, TH ExXATA TdTXO-
pev), but shall live (exercise our apostolic
authority, in contrast to the ac@évea
above) with Him (as: He now exercises
His power in His glorified resurrection
life) from (source) the power of God [ with
respect to you (cis duas, if genuine, may
belong either to duvduews Ceod, = Suvdu.
Ocod THs cis duas, the art. being often
omitted in such constructions,—or to (jco-
pev, ‘we shall live with respect to you,
which agrees better with the parallelism,
but not so well with the arrangement of
the sentence. ‘The sense seems to require
the latter interpretation, for the dvauis
Gcod etg tp. would be rather the result,
than the sowrce of the apostolic energy
indicated by (joomev) |. Ihave taken ¢7-
gouev, as the context plainly requires,
figuratively (see ref.): but many Com-
mentators take it literally, of the reswr-
rection : e.g. Grot.—‘ vitam consequemur
immortalem.’ 5.] “ You want to
prove Christ speaking in me ;—if you ne-
cessitate this proof, it will be given. But
Vou. II.
I will tell you whom rather to prove.
Prove YOURSELVES ; there let your atten-
tion be concentrated, if you will apply
tests.” Notice the prominently emphatic
éautous: so Chrys.: tt yap Aéyw ep)
€uov Tov SidarKddov, dynol.... buas yap
avtovs éay BcvdAnOnre ekeTdoot . ...,
dWecbe Ott Kal ev byiv 6 xpioTés.
ei éoté ev tH w.| ‘Whether you main-
tain your Christian place and standing
in Christ, which will be shewn by the
power of Christ’s Spirit present and ener-
gizing among you.’ émylv. Eaur.,
-éTt| for the construction see reff. and
Winer, edn. 6, § 66. 5. 1. a.
ti, unless indeed .... see reff.
GddKunor, ‘not abiding the proof, worth-
i. e. in this case, ‘mere pretended
Christians.’ 6.] But (however it
may fall out with your proof of yowr-
selves) I hope (or perhaps better, expect)
that ye shall know that we are not
worthless (unable to abide the proof
to which you put us. ‘he verse is said,
as Theodoret, amesAnticas ;—and Chrys.
remarks, éere:d) yap évtet@ev BovaAccbe,
et py
onot, dia Tis eis das Kordoews Thy
Soxiwyy AaBeiv, ovK amopicomey Tov
dovvar tuiy thy amddeikv). (ell
Yet he prays God rather that they may
require no such demonstration of his apos-
tolic power, even though he lose i in reputa-
tion by it. BH Trouqo. tp. kak. pnp. |
Not, as Grot., al., ‘that I may not have to
inflict on you any evil’ (an extraordinary
rendering of kakdy rorety), but that ye
may do no evil, corresponding to ‘va,
3A
722
s= Rom. vii.
18, 21 reff.
tconstr., Mark ¢€
ix. 22. Luke WC
xii. 26.
ellips., 1 Cor.
> fa S:
° aOOKILOL @peEv.
iii. 1.
ay C4
v_ here only f.
W(-71 eer,
ver. 11.
-Tioos,
Eph. iy. 12.)
XK ver. 2,
y Tit.i. 13
only t. Wisd.
v. 22 only.
(-uta, Rom.
xi. 22.)
zconstr., Esth.
i, 19. 1x. 27.
(Acts & xvii.
3.
a ch. x. 8 (reff.).
Pp > 7 6 ‘
evyonela, THY
Tees 7
azwv ypapo,
b1 Cor. i 16. iv. 2. 1 Thess iv.1. 2 Tim. iy. 8.
e Rom. xii. 16. xv. 5. Phil. ii. 2. iv. 2.
v.13 only. 2 Chron. xiv. 5. Sir. vi. 6.
for vu., nuets X!: but N-corr!(?)3.
8. [aAAa, so DIF.
9. om yap DK 46. 108'. 116 arm.
[IPOS KOPINOIOY®S B.
“| aXnOetac, “adda ump Tne aAnbetac.
\ x —— 7
vuwy “ KaTaprTiow.
A x ‘
wa “Tapwy py
ec =1 Cor. i. 10 reff.
f Rom. viii. 5 reff.
h here only.
moverre KILN d.
(homeeotel in d 17.) }
XIII.
= , ver. e ~ ~ c _ .
pow pavwuev, aAX iva vmEic TO * KaXov ToTE, nueic Sé
ov yap ‘duvaueOa te Kata rie
9 Xalponev yao
7 c - Srey ~ € Im \ \ ? A os
OTaAV YUEIC acbevas EV, UMEL be Ouvarot TE TOUTO Kat
fn ’
Nn ~- -
10 ota TOUTO TauTa
. xeon FwWLAL
> ,
AT OTOLWC
Kata thy * éSovctay Hv oO KUgLog © ZOwKEY pot EC * OLKOOO-
RIV Kal ovK Etc * cabaipsctv.
11> Agurov, aded ot,
Kaheole, °rdo avto “ dpoveire, * stpnvevere, Kal "O Medc
alpere, °kataoridecOs, ° raoa-
ones Q ) (
d=ch. i. 4 &c. reff.
see above (w).
Rom. xii. 18. 1 Thess.
g Mark ix. 50.
i Rom. xy. 33.
rec ins de bef kat, with D3KLN3 rel Syr
Thdrt: om ABD!F! 17 latt copt 2th Damasce lat-ff.
10. un bef rapwy DF c latt He: we m. uy m.
xenooua. DE cd k!, rec
edwKe gor bef 6 Kupios, with KL rel syrr eth Chr Thdrt Thl Ge: txt ABDFN a2 m 17
latt copt goth Damasc.
11. om To avto dpoveire A.
tpeis TO KaAdV aoijTe below. ovyx
tva....] ‘And the purpose of this my
prayer is not to gain any repute by your
Christian graces, but that you may be
highly endowed with them, and (if it so
happen) we may be as of no repute (¢ ho-
minum scilicet judicio,’ Beza).’? That this
is the sense, and that Sdékuor is not in
this verse to be applied to substantiation
of power by punishment, is necessitated by
the construction,—it being plainly shewn
by the infin. after edxdu., that iva is not
here meant to apply, even in part, to the
purport of the prayer (as in Col. i. 9;
2 Thess. i. 11; see note on 1 Cor. xiv.
13), but to its purpose. And that being
settled,—we pray .... not in order that
we may appear Sdé«ipor,—it follows that
the appearing Sé«uor would be a result of
the fulfilment of the prayer, viz. of your
doing no evil, and this it could only be by
their doing no evil bringing credit on the
Apostle’s ministry. It is not for this end
that we pray that you may do no evil, but
Sor your own good, even if that tend to
the non-exercise, and so depreciation, of
our apostolic power. 8.] for we
have ro power against the truth (of the
Gospel, as Meyer; not of the facts, as
Chrys., al., and De Wette, which might
suit KaTa& THs GA., but comes in very
lamely with dmép ris 4A.—‘ If you walk
in the truth, we shall be at one with you
and so have no opportunity of shewing our
power’) but (only) on behalf of (in further-
ance of the cause and spread of) the
truth. 9.] For (confirmation of
ver. 8 by the still stronger assertion,
WHEREIN his joy consists, and for what
he prays) our joy is, when we are weak
(have no opportunity for shewing our
power in punishment) but ye are mighty
(in Christian graces, and requiring no exer-
cise of our authority) : this (viz. that the
state of the case may be as just mentioned)
we also pray for, viz. your perfection
(generally,—in all good things, see catap-
tioudv, Eph. iv. 12: not, as Bengel, ‘ne
opus sit quenquam de corpore rescindere ;?
the reference here being far more general).
10.] Sta rovro, ‘because I wish
and pray for your perfection” raitra,
‘this Epistle” amor. sharply. xprijo.,
scil. dviv. See in reff. similar omissions
of the dative. BovAowat yap év Tors
ypdupact KetoOar Thy amoroulay, GAA
My ev tots mpdyuacw. Chrys. KaTe
7. ۤ. Hv... . | gives the reason why he
did not wish to act dmotdéuws,—because
the power would seem to be exercised in
a direction contrary to that intended by
Him who gave it. 11—18.] Con-
CLUSION. 11.] General exhorta-
tions. ‘Severius scripserat Paulus in
tractatione ; nunc benignius, re tamen ipsa
non dimissa.” Bengel. xaip., re-
joice, scil. in the Lord, as Phil. iii. 1;
iv. 4. So also 1 Thess. v. 16.
katapt., TéAcior ylveoOe Kat dvamwAnpovre
Ta Aeudueva, Chrys.: ‘amend your-
selves,” Stanley. tmapakad., take
comfort; a recurrence in the end of the
ABDF
KLNab
edefg
hklm
nol7
8—13.
i) eer \
ayamne Kal
’ Ce)
E €v aylw
TNC
caole adAnAouc
ol “aytot mavrec.
13 “H Xapre Tou _kupioy ‘Incou Xptarov Kal n
" koWwvia TOU ayiov TVEVLATOC META n't Gori. 9.
rou ™Qzov Kat 0
TAVTWY Uv.
IIPOS KOPINOIOYS B.
Sido? A ee
eipnyne Eorar pe vor.
k ,
prAnpare.
723
2k2
aoOTa- k Rom. xvi. 16
(reff).
~
> , €
aomadovrat vpac
1 = Acts ix, 13
Vili. 39.
Phil. ii. 1 al.
IIPOS KOPINOIOYS B.
eipnvns Kat wyarns DL m vulg(with fuld, agst am) goth arm Thdrt Thl Ambrst Pelag:
om ayamrns kat F 17.
aft last kac ins tnms DLadfhkm.
12. dirnuate bef ayww AFLe gm n vulg Chr Thi lat-ff, pianuate ayarns f: txt
BDKW& rel Thdrt Damase c.
13. om xpiorou B k*.
rec at end ins ounv, with DKN? rel vulg syrr copt goth
Thdrt Ambrst : om ABFLN! 17 harl! eth Chr-mss.
SUBSCRIPTION. rec ™pos Kop. Sevtepa eypapy amo giAimt@@v THs pmakedovias dia
TiTov K. AovKa, with K Syr copt Thdrt-ed ec, and omg ts waned. Laf gn: mp. Kop.
B’ eypapn amo pidimmwy B? (d):
eypapyn amo piAimmwyv Sia TiTov Kk. Aovxa b kmo:
mp. kop. B. eyp. amo iA. dia Titov BapvaBa Kk. Aovea h 44. 106-8-33: om 1: pos kop.
B’ ewAnpwOn apxeta mp. yar. D:
AB}, and (adding or:x@y x8) &.
Epistle to the spirit with which it began ;
see ch. i. 6, 7, and, for the need they had
of comfort, ch. vii. 8—13. This is better
than ‘ comfort (or ‘ exhort’) one another,
which would more naturally be expressed
by mapakade?re GAAHAous, or éavTovs,
see 1 Thess. iv. 18; v.11; Heb. iii
also Heb. x. 25 and note. TO QvT.
dp. belongs to aydrn, eipyvevete to ci-
pnvn. kat, ‘and then.’ 12. |
Concluding greetings. ev. Gy. Pt. |
See on Rom. xvi. 16. ot Gy. TavTes |
viz. in the place whence the Epistle was
written. 18.] Concluding benedic-
tion; remarkable for the distinct recog-
nition of the Three, Persons in the Holy
Trinity, and thence adopted by the Chris-
tian Church in all ages as the final
blessing in her Services. The grace of
our Lord Jesus Christ is put first; “nam
per gratiam Christi venitur ad Patris amo-
rem.” Bengel. KOLV@V. 7. Gy.
av. | communion,—fellowship, gen. obj.—
not ‘communicatio activa,’ gen. subj.—
TOUTETTL THY METOXIY avTOD K. THY meTa-
eTeAcoOn mp. Kop. B’ apxeTat mpos yar. F: txt
Anwiy, Ka tv ayiaCducba, TH ed Tuas
eTLPOLTHTEL TOD TapakATov Kowwvod av-
Tov yevduevot, kal mvedua Kal avTol, ovK
ovalg, GAAG webéEer, OvTes, Theophyl., and
similarly cum. Chrys. adds, ottw Ta rijs
Tpiddos adiatpera kal o8 Tov mvevpards
eat 7 Kowwvia, evpeOn TOD vied Kal ob
Tov viod eoTw 7) xdpis, Kal TOD waTpds kK.
Tov aylou mvevmaros. peTa TdavTev
tpev.| ‘And this blessing he invokes,
not on a few individuals, or on any one
section of the Corinthian Church, but ex-
pressly on every portion and every indi-
vidual of those with whom, throughout
these two Epistles, he had so earnestly and
so variously argued and contended. As in
the first, so in the second Epistle, but still
more emphatically, as being here his very
last words, his prayer was, that this happi-
ness might be ‘with them all’ (wera aap-
Twv vuav).” Stanley. Compare, for the
same emphatic mas, Rom. i. 5,8; iv. 16;
[xvi. 24,] &e.: and for was following its
substantive and unemphatic, ib. viii. 32,
375) 1 Core vite is) xe ls) exe:
END OF VOL. II.
LONDON :
GILBERT AND RIVINGTON, PRINTERS,
ST, JOHN’S SQUARE.
iV {
f an x
inne ae
' ce
SN
ih
Aas
i” ) @
+ i! as eee f
meh ay py 7
hei
i’ ij ov ; { ir / . i} % J if 7 ¥ ; i in
j Ar , ay | 1 Wog
/ if Ay ey Asi i i vi tal I
ie Vey wal
' ‘hss i ds) , :
Mer ie
oa ve
Se .
Wy a
Ni Ry hy vi
, te i ny
Pity Oren
bi ey ye "
pd ie fr hace WP
a Mi too
,
} ny | Mi '
i? HO
ih ",
}
he Hh i
na oo Mf a
Gy ;
Th
ee
ii
|
Live Music
Archive
Librivox
Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland
Museum of Art
Internet
Arcade
Console Living Room
Open Library
American
Libraries
TV News
Understanding
9/11